Abortion

Furthermore, LACK of reproduction also "contributes to the process of evolution". Evolution, in the most simple terms, is change in allele frequencies at a population level over time. If one couple chooses not to reproduce, or if they have 50 pregnancies and abort them all, they are STILL "contributing to the process of evolution" by virtue of NOT passing their particular genotype to a subsequent generation.

Your reproductive scenario can only be viewed as a non-event. The default position for the process of evolution IS NOT a static realm, where the option of a non-event is a viable endeavor conducive towards the long-run viability of the processes of evolution.

Evolution is a genetic event, not some metaphysical toy of yours. So let me put it in simple terms so that you might understand. If you have two subpopulations in a given generation, and one subpopulation is LESS likely to reproduce (whether by choice or not), then that subpopulation's alleles will be LESS represented in the subsequent generation. Thus, the subsequent generation will have DIFFERENT gene frequencies at a population level. That is evolution. Period. So an evolutionary change is the direct result of that subpopulations behavior. That is a "contribution" to evolution. No, they're not contributing their own particular genes -- but again evolution at a species and population level is about FREQUENCIES. They are contributing to the greater frequency of OTHER genotypes in the successive generation.

Is this really necessary? It seems as if being nice is as difficult for you as writing a coherent sentence. My research background is, believe it or not, in evolutionary biology, and I've got a first author scientific paper coming out later this year on that topic (specifically molecular evolution in malaria's erythrocyte-invasion molecules). Oh, and my breakfast was fine, thank you.

Contraceptive measures are a moot issue, before the zygote forms, there is only material that would otherwise be disposed of/recycled by the body.

It is readily evident that evolution is not omnipotent. Ubiquitous perhaps, but its influence is not unlimited, it must work within the constraints of biological/physical laws. This may seem a frivolous distinction, but omnipotence is a ludicrous metaphysical descriptor which has no place in this discussion.

And to help clarify my distinction, I indicated that by not participating in contributing genetic material is NOT a viable option as it pertains to the evolutionary processes, because evolution requires the dynamic inputs from the related species.

Also, your constant announcements of your auspicious credentials and activities are growing quite boorish, and consequently diminishing any credibility by the self evident responses that you single-handily produce.

One of the exceptions among animals is the phylum Porifera (sponges) which have no symmetry.

Yes, I agree. Chordates are all bilaterally symmetrical, but that is only one of many phyla of animals. At any rate, I think his point would still be the same if he picked some trait that was common to all animals.

For instance, all animals are heterotrophs. Or all animals are multicellular.

While the issue deviates off topic, it glaringly needs to be addressed. It is quite apparent that I hold mild disdain for your careless liberal pabulum, but even setting those constraints aside, I have recognized during my interval of time at this forum that you have Not contributed one original/intriguing/thought provoking Philosophical Concept or Implication, just a constant stream of Regurgitated Googled Directives. Perhaps your efforts would be more appropriate immersed at a Trivial Pursuit Forum, where presenting research-able established facts are the main objectives and consequently rewarded, while the dynamic realm of a Philosophical Forum tends to pursue additional objectives. Philosophy requires---no demands the cognitive ability to merge the rigidity of empirical evidence and/or behaviors, while extrapolating possible implications or insightful measurable observations that help frame or reveal the inherent constraints of the Natural World and the impositions that hold court over the Human Experience.

Discard my false and trivial statement about bilateral symmetry then. You still have utterly failed to provide any degree of credibility to your claim of the omnipotence of evolution. Evolution is what it is, it is an effect of the physical laws of this universe, it does not affect these laws! It does not influence what it is formed by; thus it has a limit to its influence, thus it is not omnipotent.

I find it quite commical that a finnacial advisor would challenge an academic physician to prove a point and then discard his knowledge as trivia and pabulum. Perhaps we should disclude every single fact of sicence from our argument as it is clearly only trivia and not provable as it must be falsifiable by necessity.

Furthermore, you have failed in vetting any point of mine save for that singular piece of information in reguard to bilateral symettry, which you refuted by means of indulging in one of those Google directives that you hold to be so contemptable. Judging by your response(or lack therof) to my post on page 10 citing and deconstructing your refutation of my previous post, you conceeded.

While the issue deviates off topic, it glaringly needs to be addressed.

It is quite apparent that I hold mild disdain for your careless liberal pabulum, but even setting those constraints aside, I have recognized during my interval of time at this forum that you have Not contributed one original/intriguing/thought provoking Philosophical Concept or Implication, just a constant stream of Regurgitated Googled Directives.

This is driving me insane!! I didn't know that abortion meant topic. Cool though.

It just becomes understandable if the result of the baby's life would be more suffering than living.

While the issue deviates off topic, it glaringly needs to be addressed. It is quite apparent that I hold mild disdain for your careless liberal pabulum, but even setting those constraints aside, I have recognized during my interval of time at this forum that you have Not contributed one original/intriguing/thought provoking Philosophical Concept or Implication, just a constant stream of Regurgitated Googled Directives. Perhaps your efforts would be more appropriate immersed at a Trivial Pursuit Forum, where presenting research-able established facts are the main objectives and consequently rewarded, while the dynamic realm of a Philosophical Forum tends to pursue additional objectives. Philosophy requires---no demands the cognitive ability to merge the rigidity of empirical evidence and/or behaviors, while extrapolating possible implications or insightful measurable observations that help frame or reveal the inherent constraints of the Natural World and the impositions that hold court over the Human Experience.

Living is suffering, brother.