• kromem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I suspect they mean the broad concept of “life came from other stuff that was different before it” vs “life came from other stuff based on what survived to reproduce.”

    Not that neutral selection is overly broad vs evolution, but that the term evolution is sometimes too loosely applied to ideas in an attempt to give them greater credence while the thing it is applied to is ignoring the mechanics of how those changes were propagated.

    It’s a fair point even if it doesn’t really apply to what I commented as Leucretius not only explicitly described the relevance of surviving to reproduce on the survival or failure of intermediate mutations, but even was aware that trait inheritance depended on a doubled seed from each parent.

    So it was kind of like “I didn’t bother reading this but I’m going to assume it’s wrong in this way” where the way discussed is a legit point but not applicable to the thing they are replying to as would have been immediately apparent had they read it.

    • Zoolander@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I suspect they are simply being dishonest which is why I asked. They probably don’t know and don’t care about the various methods of inheritance. They just want to try and claim that natural selection is wrong.