Re: Modeling the origins of life: New evidence for an 'RNA World'

Richmond wrote:

John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> writes:

JTEM has his own vocabulary. By "evolution" he means the modern
synthesis, also called (which JTEM would detest) neoDarwinism. What he
seeks to attach Darwin's name to is Lysenkoism or neoLamarckism. If
you make all those switches what he says is more or less correct.
>
Not sure whether Mao or the CCP adopted Lysenkoism, but it doesn't
seem out of the question.
>

The phrase "survival of the fittest" has always seemed suspect to me. We
hear it repeated to justify capitalism. But there isn't any requirement
to be 'fit' as far as I can see. There is only a requirement (for genes)
to survive. For example the camel which sits on the calf of its rival
and crushes it to death, or the chimpanzee which kills and eats the
infant offspring of its rivals. In what way is it 'fit'? A biologist
would define it as merely fit to survive, but then the phrase becomes
redundant as survival of the survivor. And we see the same results in
captialism with corporations swallowing up rivals rather than competing
with them.

You want to argue against a metaphor by considering it literally. That is some mix of dishonest, foolish, and stupid. Note that is comment applies to all cases of anyone arguing against a metaphor by taking it literally,
it's not to be uniquely applied to your attempt to do so. Beyond that, you seem inclined to overlook the nature of stochastic processes
involved in understanding the metaphor in a figurative sense.