Writing "beng" rather than "being" is not a syntactical error. As with biology, you expose your ignorance when you delve into areas outside that pathetically small body of knowledge whichyou claim to command.
As for naturalism, If I were to analyse the metabolism of a prokaryote cell, beng of extreamophilic functionality, would this suggest the syntactical or semantical referrence, "benefits the community" valid?
First, one does not assume that a prokaryote is an extremophile by definition. Second, i did not allege that subjective morality is a trait of all forms of life, i referred only to human communities. It is a flaw of your goofy confusion of philosophical concepts which leads you to claim without foundation that i have logically estalished such a case.
You're playing more of your word games. I said nothing about morality in my remark about ants and bees . . .
By definition any social application deviates from natural science.
. . . i responded to that remak. If you had morality in mind, it is no fault of mine that you failed to make that clear. Ants and bees are known as social insects--they form communities to prosper the reproductive function. That is a part of you natural science, even though you may not be bright enough to understand it.
Recognizing that humans are a part of the natural world, and that therefore human societies are natural artifacts is not an ontological statement, whether or not you are capable of understanding that. You are simply trying to insist on your jargon-laden babble-speak, and i am not obliged to play your game.
All you are saying is that think you are able to recast my arguments in your babble-speak terms for the convenience of your arguments. It is not, however, rhetorically valid. When you create inferences where none existed, or restate what i have stated in a manner which no more than convenience for your argument, you have indulged the straw man fallacy.
You are, apparently, unable to respond without resorting to straw men. It also appears that you are unable to express your thought clearly enogh to, for example, make clear that you refer to morality when you don't specify that in your statement. I see no value in continuing to play your jargon word games, because you can't proceed in a rhetorically coherent manner, and you fail completely to understand things outside your narrow, putative area of expertise--such as the distinction between spelling and syntax, or that there is no such thing as "extremophilic functionality." Organism which are called extremophiles don't suddenly display a "functionality" or a behavior. The reference is not to bahvior or function, but to the ecological niche which the oranixm occupies. Even the term extremophile is highly problematic, as it is subjective. Additonally, it is not known if extremophiles occupy such niches in preference or simply because they can tolerate them.
You just want to preen yourself of an illusion of profound knowledge which evaporates on close examination. You might have said you misspelled a word, or that it was a typographical error--instead, you make an hilarious reference to syntax, which suggests that you know no more about the language than you do about natural sciences.
You may repond if you wish, but i'll waste no more time on your bullshit, on your empty word games. Have fun stroking yourself here alone.