@deprecated_ii
You're asking me to explain one of the most complex fields of human knowledge in a fedi post. That's not something I can do. That's not something an evolutionary biologist could do.
I literally gave you the easiest, most mainstream source that can explain the things you proclaim to want to learn. If you were honestly seeking the answers, you would have put them on top of your reading list. But considering your hissy fit, it's quite self evident you're dishonest about it.

@alyx I don't need to read Richard Dawkins because I already have, and he's a midwit dork.

The fact is I understand the story of evolution better than you do, and I'm calling it bullshit.

@deprecated_ii
>I already have
You've already proven to be dishonest, so excuse me for not believing you.

@alyx >dishonest

Oh yeah? Where did I lie?

@deprecated_ii
The lie is you pretending you're actually interested in learning. Clearly you're not.

@alyx lol okay, run along dipshit

@deprecated_ii @alyx yes. Dawkins is a midwit and Stephen Jay Gould thoroughly destroyed him. Dawkins plays the part of rational facts and logic gaytheist but he believes in an almost supernatural magical force that guides living beings into adapting to their environment in utero. I believe he is a joke among most evolutionary biologists. Thank you friend.

@PonyPanda @deprecated_ii
>in utero
And that's how you can tell when someone doesn't understand evolution by natural selection.

@alyx @deprecated_ii which is not what Dawkins believes. Dawkins is the opposite extreme of Darwin who thinks that the earth is several times older than what the fossil record and carbon dating says because he believes natural selection has more of a role than mutation. Dawkins believes that mutation is so magical and responsive that it takes precedence over natural selection. Did you read Sperm Wars?

@PonyPanda @deprecated_ii
Be careful not to hit yourself in your own confusion.

@alyx @deprecated_ii

What are you talking about? This is literally what Dawkins believes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawkins_vs._Gould#Part_II%E2%80%94Dawkins'_World

@PonyPanda @deprecated_ii
Your own little "source" clearly points out how Dawkins has an entire book, The Selfish Gene, that focuses on genes as "units of selection", and you somehow think he places less emphasis on selection?
Again, try not to hurt yourself in your own confusion.

@alyx @deprecated_ii exactly. Dawkins thinks "the magic" occurs at the genetic level and not the phenotypical level. And of course, he can't explain what's going on there which is the entire point of this thread. You can't explain the process of genetic mutation that adapts to evolutionary pressure or even really assert that it exists. Deprecated tested you on it and you failed.

This whole argument has already been done and Dawkinists got destroyed by Gould. But nobody knows because Dawkins pandered to an army of Redditor midwits in his mould and they think the only reason why people hate Dawkins is because of some sort of Christian fundamentalism.

@PonyPanda @deprecated_ii
>and not the phenotypical level
Once again, you are completely clueless and hitting yourself in your own confusion. Saying Dawkins doesn't address phenotype is idiotic when he even discusses the cuckoo bird's behavior in one of his books (iirc it should be in The Selfish Gene, but it's been a long time since I've read it). He even has a book literally called Extended Phenotype.

But just as it's fedora level to be an atheist after only reading The God Delusion, it's also fedora level to just say "Dawkins stupid" without knowing a thing about what he worked on.

@alyx @deprecated_ii same fucking bullshit. "I don't need to address this because Dawkins senpai did (I think)"

If he actually did it then you could explain how complex instinctive behavior gets encoded into an insect lmao.

@PonyPanda
As I said to @deprecated_ii, you're asking me to explain a complex topic in a fedi post, which not even an evolutionary biologist would be able to. I did the best anyone could in such a situation, and gave sources that deal with the topics you and your friend were asking about. But neither you nor your friend @deprecated_ii are actually honest actors looking for answers. You're both dishonest twats that wouldn't listen to explanations and evidence if it was spoon fed to you. So why even bother doing more than I already did.

@alyx @deprecated_ii

Don't worry about us being "honest actors." You'll royally humiliate us and you'll get all the people watching this thread to take your side when you're able to answer his question as well that of other evolutionary biologists who laugh at Dawkins. That alone should be worth the effort.

@deprecated_ii @alyx
Has it ever ocurred to you that animals can learn and copy eachother?

Fairly sure prairie dogs even create their own dialects to use between different colonies

It seems like you've never seen a dog get trained or a cat do silly quirky stuff of their own

@Godcast @alyx @deprecated_ii yall argue over if some dude is a retard or not. ur all retards

@NecroKvntPuke @alyx @deprecated_ii Sure, but I'm not a celebrity biologist who gets everything wrong.

@Godcast @NecroKvntPuke @alyx @deprecated_ii Richard Dawkins' legacy is having created an exceptionally accurate midwit detector - whether people buy into his narratives - which have nothing at all to do with evolutionary biology which discounted his assertions from the genetic science side, literally decades ago.

@ProfessionalNEET @NecroKvntPuke @alyx @deprecated_ii I remember reading that Dawkins's work was out of date before he even wrote it. It got pushed because he hated God

@Godcast @ProfessionalNEET @NecroKvntPuke @alyx @deprecated_ii >publish something to hate on evolution-denying retards
Based