Summations Only

Of course you have to!Otherwise you could link to a YouTube clip of the magic fucking roundabout and proudly proclaim to have evidence for your idea.

Oh for fuck sake!This will be the third time, you know?The environment affects evolution via the filter of NS. What has that got to do with you 'idea'?

Not all opinions are equal.Yours about empathy, for example are of no more value than my own on quantum physics.As in, I fined the subject fascinating and know a lot of what the words mean, but for me to expect a cosmologist to give any credence to my opinion that dose'nt have any plausibility at all would be foolish and arrogant, in the extreme.

God forgive me but I can see where you are coming from. What you seem to be saying is that when an organism in under a selective pressure there is a 'change' in the 'rate' of evolution and another organism can acquire a like 'change' through some information channel that you are calling empathy.Am I right?

Who ever said that animals can't feel empathy?Empathy exist, any psychologist or therapist knows that (I could not do my job without it): but the ability of empathy to affect the genome is unsupported by the evidence.As you well know.You keep telling me about empathy but it is clear you don't actually understand what you are quoting.There used to be a theory called 'unconscious transmission'. When I was an undergrad in mid 90's one of my professors still believed in it.The idea was that the mother and foetus would communicate on an unconscious level.But (and here is where we find congruence with your story) no matter how heartfelt my professor was in his belief in 'unconscious transmission' the theory has been abandoned by academia because there never was any evidence to support the idea.It was an idea that a lot of people held to because they liked the sound of it.That is what is happening here: you like the sound of empathy being involved in evolution. But you idea is no different from 'unconscious transmission'. There no valence attached to empathy. This is what makes me question whether you really know what you are talking about.Edited by Larni, : Last quote

There is no evidence of any 'effect', though is there?

I was using UT as an example of an idea someone had that had no evidence to support it and was thus not accepted by science. But it does not effect the genome. The environment does (via NS) but empathy does not. I'm not clear on what you are saying. Please try to spell words correctly and to put them in the right order.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.Edited by Larni, : clarity

But there is evidence for randomness in mutations.Please show any directed mutions you have evidence of.And a little tip: you keep writing (f.e.) and then stating an example. You should write (e.g). Hope that helps. Edited by Larni, : E.g.

This is exactly what I asked zi ko, up tread.The response? Can you believe it?

We've been trolled. It's the only explanation.

Ha ha!LMAO!

The thing is zi ko that you have not proved that empathy has any effect on the genome. You have referred to Shapiro et al several times and appealed to the authority of wiki and posted them on this site but none of that supports you point.You even ask in apparent confusion why what you post should have any connection with you ideas.Think about that for a second, would you? You are asking us why Shapiro and wiki (which you are so fond of posting) needs to have any connection with your ideas.Does this make sense, to you?

I really don't understand how you think that having to support your ideas with evidence and/or reasoned arguements is in any way strange.Because you must, to post the posts that you do.

Must...not.....be.....drawn.....in.......

Empathy is advantageous for social creatures. It is advantageous because it lets social creatures engage in more complex behaviour than colonial creatures.That is all.There, I said it.