Oh for pete's sake, FOLLOW THE ARGUMENT!!!
I have been. The arguement is
Natural Limitation to Evolutionary Processes in the Biological
Evolution forum. Because we're talking about evolution "beneficial" is defined as: helping the organism live to reproduce.
There is no way a mutation that protects against one disease while causing another is TRULY beneficial.
Says you.
This continuing refrain about how reproductive success is the criterion just points up the poverty of evolution as an explanation for living things,
How so? Living things reproduce and pass on their genes. If they have bad genes they don't live to reproduce and therefore don't pass on those genes, if they have good or neutral genes then they do live and those genes are passed on. It's not very complicated.
They all describe at least some latent disease process, something that works against health and vigor.
And again, health and vigor only matter up until the point of reproduction. If the health and vigor don't show up until after the organism has reproduced then they are irrelevant to evoltution. Evolution
is not about species getting bigger, faster, stronger, smarter, it is about species surviving.
Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor