First, you admit here that species actually exist. Second, you're just not getting it. It's not just genes, but a collection of genes acting together. As I noted in response to serviscope_minor, there are other examples of macroscopic phenomena which don't make sense to consider only in terms of the smallest scale that contains the phenomena.

Finally, natural selection is just the winnowing process. An organism can indeed experience selection from a single gene (such as the difference between being susceptible to poisoning or not to some chemical in the environment, which can be triggered by a single gene). But it can also experience higher level selection (such as survival being dependent on morphological properties such as size, speed, or physical appearance) which can depend on a subtle mix of large numbers of genes acting together.

Except that species are a thing we actually observe. Trees don't breed with cats. And there are actually cases where closely species have evolved in a way to appear very distinct (for a recent example, guenon monkeys in central Africa.

Which makes it something that doesn't happen at the level of genes - by definition of "macroscopically observable".

We don't say, for a similar example, that music operates at the level of the Brownian motion of air particles even though sounds such as those of music are transmitted through such a medium. You would be glossing over both the macroscopic properties of the air medium which define and transmit sound and the structure of music (and its perception by a human audience) which differentiates it from arbitrary sounds.

What makes your perception even remotely valid?

Which are growing at a rapid rate and for which there are a lot more people. Basically, the economy is moving from the developed world to the rest of the world.

And there we go again. Fallacy after fallacy. Here, the fallacy of argument from authority.

And the ad hominem fallacy. You're not bringing a thing to the table.

Well, aside from that it's not particular mature to want to ban everything that can't be regulated, I suppose your worldview is seamless.

Give it a try then, if it's so easy to do.

Because only Libertardians would be concerned about a government that bans everything it doesn't control?

We have courts as back up. Relax.

Those customers aren't going to be its employees. And it can always sell to the developing world.

Sorry, I read to the beginning of the thread and get that now.

I still find it weird how you went straight in your reply to the above shallow observation into a criticism of Darwin and a discussion of morality changes in society.

Which did which? I think their stances on religion and belief preclude either from a pure positivist trajectory.

You already attributed this phrase to Hayek not Darwin or Wallace. I don't get the reason why this is mentioned here.

I think this is a problem with any sort of change. The old morality becomes detached and decays when change obsoletes some of its foundation. A solution which IMHO makes morality more resistant and adaptable to change, is to remove its dependency on "old men in the sky" and other extraneous beliefs that ultimately do not matter.

Believe something is right and act on that basis, because it is right (or at least creates a sound basis for a just and fair society), not because a sky god tells you to. Else when the sky god goes away, the morality does too - at least until a new morality is established.

That's a pretty abusive characterization of the latest report. The most important climate variable, the temperature forcing sensitivity of CO2 concentration in atmosphere was loosened to a factor of three difference between highest and lowest estimate. It's now back to where it was in the late 19th century with Arrhenius's estimates (which I gather is the basis for Jane Q. Public's claim that the science is "weaker than ever"). Extreme weather was put on the back burner. We're left with a greatly weakened case for urgency as a result. Those are huge changes.

FIFY. Note both the weakness of the actual claim made and that it doesn't actually translate into a call for action. Just because a narrow category of scientist, most which don't actually do research on global warming, happen to have an opinion that there is some degree of human-induced global warming doesn't mean that we need to act to reduce CO2 emissions.

And I question whether there actually is that high a level of agreement. From this story, we have the following comment on a 2007 survey:

74% is a fair bit short of your "over 90%" claim, but that includes scientists without a direct financial or status stake in global warming being true. Now there's been a few years since 2007, but I see no evidence, despite widespread government bribery, that the evidence has improved significantly. To the contrary, the IPCC had to weaken their case as Jane Q. Public noted.

The article was written about us. The sort of anti-scientific hypocrisy present in a considerable portion of your posts here, is a common manifestation of that. You are merely a pot calling a kettle black.

I suggest the Ashkenazim, a subgroup of Jews from Eastern Europe, as a counterexample. There seems to have been selection pressure for genes that promote intelligence during their stay in Europe (particularly, when the population was isolated socially and economically from around 800 AD to 1650 AD).

It would be less dangerous. Corporations and other businesses are more vulnerable than governments. And I'm not interested in achieving a society that matches my interests perfectly.

The Pinkertons always worked with law enforcement to provide legal cover for their actions. And they became that powerful due to numerous government-related contracts. And I have to roll my eyes at the claim that a "private NSA" could have as much data as the real one. Especially, since the "private NSA" wouldn't have the sorts of powers that allow the real NSA to collect so much data.

In other words, the IRS just took her money while she'd have a chance against a private institution doing the same.