Information's role in evolution.Should we put it more in the picture?

Learning does not transfer to the genes: behaviour does, but not cognition.

Yeah, your right.But allele frequency does change as a result of adaptive behaviour.I guess 'transfer to' was pretty woolly thinking.And I can only really wade up to my knees in the sphere of genetics so I could be talking completely out of my arse....But zi ko is wrong, lol.

I'll read them some chemistry next time I'm washing them off the back of my hand.Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week.

I find it ironic that you task me with not simply making baseless assertions when you baselessly assert that 'recent scientic findings' supports your hypothesis.You have yet to explain in your own words how watching something not get killed affects allele frequency.Until you do people will laugh and point at you assuming you are thick and slow.

No such word as perigenome.

You're right.Please explain in your own words. I need to take issue with you here as my field is cognitive psychology.Emotion does not 'colour thoughts'. Core beliefs assign valency to thoughts; but not emotion.Empathy is the ability to understand another persons emotional state: nothing more.Edited by Larni, : Psychology bit.

Your Mr Shapiro seems not to have heard of prions, then.

The empathy felt allows the organism to understand what the observed organism is going through.You need to establish that empathy can then go on to affect the alleles. You have yet to do so.Until you can do that (in your own words) you are left pissing in the wind.

Ha ha. You idiot. Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

Objection, m'lud: it's not a theory, it is a unsubstantiated hypothesis, at best.Sustained: the counsel will not refer to an unsubstantiated, at best hypothesis as a theory.Carry on. No, no, no! Bad crank! You've been told what empathy is by me on this very thread. Wat hing some one smile will not affect your genes.And they are unsubstantiated, sigh. Edited by Larni, : No reason given.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

This is so much pie in the sky. How can this be even considered empathy? Empathy is a descriptor for a very specific type of cognition.Chemicals? Genetic engineering? Others not yet known? Yes it does, and no, it is not.What observations do you have for your idea? Darwin said fuck all about empathy being a causative factor in mutation; in fact none of them did. As this is true (I assume you mean NS) there is no gap in our knowledge that requires you idea of empathy powering evolution.You have yet to provide any evidence (in your own words rather than a cut and paste job that does not support your idea).If you don't pony up some evidence I'm done with listening you and you fail to convince yet another person that you idea has any foundation in logic.You don't even have to try to hard with me, I used to beleive that time could stretch - I'm pretty credulous!

None of that has anything to do with empathy. Again, nothing to do with empathy.Face it. Empathy has nothing to do with affecting genetics.

The environment does effect evolution.Empathy is not part of the environment: it is an internal process.You seem to be thinking that empathy is some factor akin to social living (which would effect evolution).Please tell me I'm wrong about this. I think you don't understand what they are telling you.Put into your own words what you think Shapiro, Wrigt (sic), Weismann and Darwin himself are telling you.Bet you can't.Edited by Larni, : The wager.

Of course it does. Everybody knows that already, thank you very much.Empathy does not.That was you point; I take issue with that point.

Now I am confused: how is what being done?