Emily’s Reviews > The Dependent Gene: The Fallacy of "Nature vs. Nurture" > Status Update

Ah, the traditional science book's request for funding, always coincidentally solely for their own specific research/occupation. I must be nearing the end of the book.

Ehehehe, he realized too late that he let his sociopolitical views escape and that they were not founded at all on the actual science he's been presenting and are in fact totally irrelevant and now he wants to backpedal without removing the offending passage.
I know you wanted to say that, buddy, but sometimes in writing you gotta murder your darlings. There's no fixing that one XD

Oh, henlo, socialism; didn't see you there, but wow you sure are.

If the change is environmental or behavioral and not genetic, we already have a functioning word for that, one pretty much everyone agrees exists. It's called adaptation. You cannot just kidnap adaptation and call it evolution because of a lack of evidence for the latter, you pantry.

I wish evolutionists would stop claiming to have answered the chicken-and-egg problem by claiming the egg came from the reptile and became a chicken. You're not solving anything, you're just moving the problem. Which came first, the egg or the reptile? The fish or the egg? It's the SAME PROBLEM, you have solved nothing. Go home and rethink your lives, you silly, silly people.

So... they proved Darwin entirely wrong about how trait inheritance works (or doesn't) and decided to christen their new theory.... Neo-Darwinism? But Darwin had fuck all to do with it, except that someone else strove to prove him wrong and did, and then someone else came up with a flat-one dimensional theory that was unrelated to either, and the two got smashed together. Leave Darwin alone, he's not involved in this

Once again, we see Darwin was a better scientist than every evolutionist that followed him. Or, rather, that took his concept and laid it atop their own nonsense, like a company using a beloved IP they don't care about to further their own goals.

Interesting how he doesn't theorize that two main camps, that of we are responsible for nothing we do and that of we are responsible for everything we do, would both resist the ideas he's putting forth, but for opposing reasons. It doesn't let either side have its way in totality, at least not conveniently and simply. That seems the most obvious possibility to me, but he doesn't touch it.

The question of female dogs lifting their legs or mounting isn't one of male/female traits. Wolves have two strands of hierarchy, male and female, and dominant females will behave so. The dogs in question are dominating the household to an extreme degree (and insecure about it as well), which has fuck all to do with their early development and everything to do with their present-day handling.

Ah yes, the majority of DNA does nothing. Not, we don't know what it does. Because that seems likely. Good Lord, why are biologists like this? Don't they learn from their own history?