@InfraBlue,
Take this IB. Setanta wrote--
Quote: To allege that cultivars are not products of natural selection is to indulge that silly religious tenet that man is special, and set apart from the rest of the natural world. Man is a part of the natural world, and the cultivation of plants is, therefore, an agent of natural selection.
Which is the position of James Lovelock whose Gaia ideas were all the rage with the chattering classes a few years ago. Grauniad dinner parties style of thing. Egos bubbling their way to a froth. Professor Gray has been blowing on the ashes more recently. To good effect I gather.
All the quote is is just a reassertion, in revised words, of Setanta's starting position. Which is flagged up with the intemperate and anti-intellectual " silly religious tenet" phrase which detracts from his argument quite profoundly. He needn't tell us it actually because his starting position requires it of him. He has no other conclusion. That he feels the need to tell us suggests he didn't think we could make that simple deduction. Which is to say that he doesn't think we have all our neurons activated.
And the argument claims that the " silly religious tenets" are a part of the evolutionary process because there is nothing else they can be by internal logic. They are cultivars of behavioural modification and thus products of natural selection. Setanta cannot argue otherwise unless he draws a distinction between two sorts of cultivars which I will argue he can't.
And because he can't is the reason he ignores my posts. His troll baloney is a smokescreen for the infant's class.
He has given Christianity a clean bill of health on his own logic. Because fitness is the ability to survive, as Setanta has asserted, and here we are back in growth, which some say is a delusion, and thus thriving never mind surviving, he has no alternative than to approve.
He is like a cock pheasant complaining about the colour of its feathers.
