Replies

Maybe it's just me, but I'm getting sentences, paragraphs, meaning above the individual word level here.

It is just you. Your language affliction is worsening. Maybe you should read and attempt to discern meaning before making yourself look like...

Post 453 mentions post 373. Post 373 has this in it---P.S. I recommend to read this article on talk.origins.

And if you can read simple things you'll see I quoted the article in blue, as I normally do. Guess what article contains ---cultures evolve but they don't evolve in the way that species evolve.?

Indeed, you quoted a different article from the one phaedrus was feebly waving away. He had even less adequately addressed "Evolution and Altruism" earlier. My mistake. However, I believe you have the same problem in any case.

My close relatives have many genes in common with me. If I act on their behalf so that they live and breed my genes will be passed on even if I don't reproduce myself. The second type is called mutual benefit altruism - I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine. Both kinds of "altruism" have obvious benefits and it is not hard to see why they are selected for.
However there is a third kind which is rarer. Some animals (principally primates) live in social groups which act together and have complex social lives within the group. In these animals group cohesion is important and there is selection for actions which preserve the integrity of the group as a whole. . .

I still don't see where your criticism applies.

From T.O.: Cultures evolve but they don't evolve in the way that species evolve.

Is this supposed to be meaningless? Does it depend upon your definition of "meaningless?"