3 ms·
Mark, your response is dead, so I can't respond to it. I don't do much voting honestly. > I don't understand how if one is viewing the subject from a evolutio
by aneth4 14y ago
Mark, your response is dead, so I can't respond to it.
I don't do much voting honestly.
> I don't understand how if one is viewing the subject from a evolutionary genetic perspective, why it is wrong to say that mechanisms that go against evolutionary development (abortion) are wrong
If anything goes against "evolutionary development" it is using technology to increase genetic diversity without regard to fitness.
Anyway, abortion does not go "against evolutionary development" any more than celibacy or monogamy.
- marknadal 14y agoWouldn't that be natural selection, not evolution? Although I know many people are commonly "directional" Evolutionists (forget the technical term) that evolution is progressing int a certain direction, rather than randomly in no direction.
- aneth4 14y agoEvolution is natural selection. They are precisely the same theory. Directed evolution is a whole different ball game that presupposes an active god or a detailed master plan. Either way, that is not evolution as most scientists would view it or as Darwin theorized. And regardless, humanity is not at risk of spoiling such plans.