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

What I don't understand is why you think empathy is anything other than a cognitive process.Does the cognitive process of liking cheese also affect the genome?Your idea seems, to me as informative as homeopathy: both of you have an idea that 'something' does 'something' but have yet to provide a mechanism for the 'something' doing 'something'.To be specific homeopathy states that water can take to properties of another chemical even when there is no mechanism for the transfer of properties.Homeopathy does not have a mechanism for this effect but they assert that the water has a memory.You have no mechanism for the genome being effected but you assert that it is empathy.Does this make it any clearer why people are not patting you on the back and handing you a Nobel Prize?

I'm really sorry but conversing with you is going to give me diabetes; so I'll sign off by calling you a fucking moron i.e. as dull as a bent spoon and bid you good day. Edited by Larni, : Added clarity to insult.

Yes.By natural selection.Could you answer a question for me?What makes you think empathy is what affects evolution?Why not something else?

The problem you have is that you have no supporting evidence for empathy having any direct effect on evolution.You may as well say 'love' has a direct effect on evolution.

What about organisms that do not have the neural architecture to experience empathy?What we would expect to see is organisms that can experience empathy having an accelerated rate of adaption to the environment.Do you have any evidence of this?

Well, thanks for admitting that it is only speculation. Several other posters could learn a lot from your honesty.As someone who I hope will stay around I would advise you that many people on this site use the scientific methodology. Simply put it is fine to have and idea, but before we can make any claims to the veracity of our idea we need evidence to support what we believe.You could be right when you say that empathy drives evolution but at this point it is only speculation. It's fine to speculate but people here will give you a hard time when you extrapolate beyond the evidence.All the best.

This is where your mode of thought clashes with the scientific methodology.You ask here why we don't concider empathy as a driver for evolution: the reason that no one conciders empathy as a driver for evolution is because there is no reason to.What you (again!) seem to be saying is that you have a suspision that empthay drives evolution.I'm fine with that but you need to suport your idea with some evidence for anybody in the scientific world to take you seriously.You could be correct, but you have to show us that you correct.You can't appeal to other people to prove you right and expect that to fly in a science forum.Edited by Larni, : can to can't

You say you are not a biologist and yet you want people to take you seriously?I don't get why you think your armchair philosophising has any likely hood of getting any traction in biological circles when biologists on this very site are telling you your ideas and bollocks.I don't want to sound mean but you don't seem to know much about the scientific method.

Sigh.You have been shown that you are very wrong about what you believe the epigenetics studies show by WK and Taq so many times int this thread it beggers belief.You idea about empathy drivng evolution is unsupported.Give it up or do some fucking research.Armchair theorising is a waste of time, no better than having a mental wank.Edited by Larni, : mental wank.

But zi ko does not know what the research he keeps citing actually says; as this entire thread has shown for all to see.It's like arguing with someone from the dark ages(or the bible belt in modern day USA) where people would believe anything if it sounds reasonable.

I would be willing to help with the methods section, also.

It's not them I take issue with, it's you.If you can't back up your theory with evidence or reasoned argument it is worse than useless, in scientific circles.That is my justification for calling you an armchair philosopher; you may as well debate how many angels can dance on a pin head.

What does any of that have to do with empathy?There is no cohesion in your ideas, at all.

No no no no! You may want to believe all of that but you are wrong.Or stupid. Either one is accurate, here.

It would be fine if you were going to do any damned research into your ideas but you seem to have no intention of doing that.How do you think that attitude looks to people who have actually taken the time to do proper research.Have you done a lit review? Or are you basing your idea on one piece of research t you are misinterpreting? Do you know how long a lit review can take?What search terms did you use? What data bases? Can you see where this is going?You are an armchair philosopher and that ain't going to fly here.