Bro, how did this even get traction? The idea that a base pair has volition is absolutely retarded. This shit is Lamarckism with hoops.Was there culturally a wave of atheism in the 70s that made people desperate to buy whatever distanced god from the equation?
>>17029568psyop retarded book promoted by churchfags to make atheists look bad
>The idea that a base pair has volition is absolutely retarded. You can seethe all you like, but it doesn't make it technically untrue.
>>17029587>The idea that a base pair has volition>volitionProve it
>>17029587The entire origin of this shitshow is that the guy refuses to admit that animals have feelings, or any neurological process akin to them. We are proof that feelings are possible, refusing to acknowledge that is reserving human exceptionality, which is the same shit that originated religion in the first place. So what was it, did the guy just wanted to become rich and start his own cult? Because forgetting the most obvious feature of Darwinism, that Shit exists because it's possible in the first place, is far from science.I am convinced this retarded thought that still plagues popsci arose from cultural factors instead of honest science. Science hasn't been honest in a long time.
>>17029568>The idea that a base pair has volition is absolutely retarded.Good thing that wasn't actually the premise of the book.
>>17029590Quote where the book says that.
>>17029595>The entire origin of this shitshow is that the guy refuses to admit that animals have feelings, or any neurological process akin to them. We are proof that feelings are possible, refusing to acknowledge that is reserving human exceptionality, which is the same shit that originated religion in the first place.Prove animals have feelings.
>>17029601Dawkins is a teleologist no matter how much he tries to pass it off as le metaphor.
>>17029568>This shit is Lamarckism with hoops.It's almost explicitly the opposite.
>>17029640Teleological framing is just easier because people naturally think im terms of motivation and conscious actors. If you remove that framing, and keep the core argument that "the fundamental unit being selected or filtered is the gene rather than an organism" then the argument still holds. So your psychologizing on what Dawkins thinks at a philosophical level is irrelevant.
>>17029680>If you remove that framing, and keep the core argument that "the fundamental unit being selected or filtered is the gene rather than an organism" You still haven't escaped teleology.
>>17029568>This shit is Lamarckism with hoops.That would be based, but no. Dawkins doesn't believe in consciousness.
>>17029688If you insist on pedantry:A particular arrangement of nucleaic acids is a fundamental unit of biological evolution. Those arrangements which persist and replicate more and for a longer period of time do so. Thinking about evolution from a species or organism level is simply a layer of abstraction that muddies the interactions that are happening at a more fundamental level.Happy?
>>17029696Yes, I'm aware this is a language game. It still doesn't change the fact that we apply "final purpose" on all replicators in (life) sciences.
>>17029701Yes. But that's something we do. It's a quirk in human cognition and says nothing about base reality beyond human psychology.
>>17029712> But that's something we do. That's something Dawkins and another bunch of midwits did. Might as well say we make mistakes becuase we're human.
>>17029696>A particular arrangement of nucleaic acids is a dundamental unit of biological evolutionCitation needed.
>>17029755Sexual reproduction and meiotic recombination. In case you were asleep in 9th grade biology class.
>>17029756>Implying genomes replicate in absence of cellular machinery already running
>>17029568Did you even read the book beyond the title? Yes I read the thread, so the answer is clearly no. Is this another stealth mentally ill creationist/christofash thread?
>>17029568>The idea that a base pair has volitionHe never claimed this, why are you pretending to think he did?
>>17029771Keep seething.
>>17029771Would you read something from someone retarded enough to name his book something retarded, so people will assume it only has retarded shit written in it?
>>17029627Prove that humans do.
>>17029778>the book title paints a picture that doesn't translate to the contents of the book 1:1calling the charges governing strong interactions colors is also incredibly inaccurate but it doesn't render the actual mathematics invalid. Also, facts (the contents of the book) do not care about your feelings (your worthless opinions of the author).
>>17029568he's reading the negative space you're an idiot if you think they have volition
>>17029793>fervently defending a shitty pop sci booklol, faggot.
>>17029781Most reddit post in this thread.
>>17029824I love how your response to your entire reasoning being vibes and feelings based was that you didn't like the vibes of my post, your brainletism is perfectly self consistent, bravo!
>>17029619In the title he chose with his editor. That should tell you enough.>>17029694He believes in genes consciousness and in Claude's consciousness, just not in human consciousness or in God's existence like the good materialist he is.
>>17029568OP is the type of person that needs.to be explained that a shrimp did NOT, in fact, fry that rice
