Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

[Alexiev]

Where did I say, "any" behaviors.

It was implicit in your argument. Of course, people can make mistakes on such issues, but other people can note assumptions and necessary implications in what you write.

I qualified the "nature" hardwired elements that had survived for a long long time has evolutionary advantages, else it would have disappeared.

This is not the case. All that is required for long survival of a trait is that it did not fully undermine the species or those who carry it. It could be neutral or slightly negative in relation to individuals. Further given that ecosystems change, it's inexact to false that traits are simply positive or negative. Their positiveness or negativeness can shift over time. The value of the traits is not in them, but how they effect the relation between the organism and the environment. There could be benefits, for example, to having older lions procreating, in terms of, for example, what this does to cohesion in prides. This might lift up improve the survival rates of prides and offset any problems caused by some birth defects. IOW you are oversimplying these process to such a degree that it is misinterpretation.

Exactly. This is what I meant by "assuming the antecedent". A principle of evolution is that if a genetic trait promotes descendent-leaving success it will tend to become more widespread. WE cannot logically assume from this that if a trait has spread it must have improved descendent-leaving success.

In addition, the lions who kill the cubs when they take over a pride are probably improving their own descendent-leaving success (the lionesses will go into heat more quickly once they stop nursing, and then bear descendents for the new males). But there is no reason to assume they are supporting the "species".

Continuing with our discussion of lions, some few prides of lions have learned to hunt elephants. Most lions run from elephants. Clearly, those lions that hunt elephants are not "programmed" to do so. They learn to do so. It's a learned, cultural trait. The more we learn about animal behavior, the more we come to recognize that "instinct" and "genetic programming" are less important than we might have thought. IN the long run, though, nature vs. nurture is unresolvable. Without our capacity for language, humans would behave quite differently. Without learning language, the same could be said. Both nature and culture are indispensable.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Where did I say, "any" behaviors.

It was implicit in your argument. Of course, people can make mistakes on such issues, but other people can note assumptions and necessary implications in what you write.

I qualified the "nature" hardwired elements that had survived for a long long time has evolutionary advantages, else it would have disappeared.

This is not the case. All that is required for long survival of a trait is that it did not fully undermine the species or those who carry it. It could be neutral or slightly negative in relation to individuals. Further given that ecosystems change, it's inexact to false that traits are simply positive or negative. Their positiveness or negativeness can shift over time. The value of the traits is not in them, but how they effect the relation between the organism and the environment. There could be benefits, for example, to having older lions procreating, in terms of, for example, what this does to cohesion in prides. This might lift up improve the survival rates of prides and offset any problems caused by some birth defects. IOW you are oversimplying these process to such a degree that it is misinterpretation.

Strawman as usual.

"....... that it did not fully undermine the species or those who carry it" means it [traits adapted over a long period] has evolutionary advantage to the species, which was what I was stating. This is on the presumption that there are no significant changes in the environment.

If there are significant changes to the environment, the above examples do not apply. When that large asteroid struck Earth eons ago, most the existing species then died even when they have survived for millions of years earlier. Those that survive were just 'lucky'; they were not inherit those traits in anticipation of the sudden change in the environment.

[Iwannaplato]

Where did I say, "any" behaviors.

It was implicit in your argument. Of course, people can make mistakes on such issues, but other people can note assumptions and necessary implications in what you write.

I qualified the "nature" hardwired elements that had survived for a long long time has evolutionary advantages, else it would have disappeared.

This is not the case. All that is required for long survival of a trait is that it did not fully undermine the species or those who carry it. It could be neutral or slightly negative in relation to individuals. Further given that ecosystems change, it's inexact to false that traits are simply positive or negative. Their positiveness or negativeness can shift over time. The value of the traits is not in them, but how they effect the relation between the organism and the environment. There could be benefits, for example, to having older lions procreating, in terms of, for example, what this does to cohesion in prides. This might lift up improve the survival rates of prides and offset any problems caused by some birth defects. IOW you are oversimplying these process to such a degree that it is misinterpretation.

Strawman as usual.

I don't think you know what this word means. How did I misinterpret your quote. You just label things 'strawman' without explainin how.

"....... that it did not fully undermine the species or those who carry it" means it [traits adapted over a long period] has evolutionary advantage to the species, which was what I was stating.

No, it precisely does not mean that. An advantage means that it leads to a trait that benefits the organism. A trait that does not fully undermine the species or the individual with it could be neutral - the animal gets a slightly different color of fur, that neither keeps them less warm or warmer, for example, and has no benefits or disadvantages. You said it must give advantages. This is false. Further it can even be slightly negative, as long as the animals survive to such a degree that the species survives.

This is on the presumption that there are no significant changes in the environment.

If there are significant changes to the environment, the above examples do not apply. When that large asteroid struck Earth eons ago, most the existing species then died even when they have survived for millions of years earlier. Those that survive were just 'lucky'; they were not inherit those traits in anticipation of the sudden change in the environment.

Which has NOTHING to do with what I wrote.

I did not make a strawman argument. I quoted the point I was rebutting. You have not said that I misinterpreted it, you simply repeated the very position I was arguing against. A strawman would mean that I said you thought genes that lasted were bad for the organism or some other not true interpretation of your post.

But I correctly interpreted what I quoted as shown by you repeating that exact position.

My counter to it is that genes that last, even for long, long periods do not have to have advantages. All that has to be true about them is that they do not cause enough disadvantages to put the species out of existence. They can be neutral or slightly bad. Slightly weakened rats or cockroaches, for example, are still going to thrive because they do very well in human affected niches. And certainly neutral changes - a change in shape that does not affect their eating, reproduction, etc., can even more easily carry on, despite not giving advantages.

Also you took a hyperfocus look at the older lion procreating issue, which you did not address above. The effects are very complicated. You cannot just look at one part of the effects and labels something good or bad for the organisms. There can be all sorts of effects of older lions procreating on the survival of the pride and the species. Such things need to be looked at holistically - in this case meaning that we try, at least, to look at the full range of effects, many of which may not be as easy to track as we would like.

Again: to accuse someone of using a strawman means they misrepresented your position and argued against a position you did not have. Here you accuse me of using a strawman
then
repeat
the exact postion I argued against.

You repeated the exact position I argueed against, directly after accusing me of using a strawman argument.

And at no point did you respond to the counterargument, you simply reasserted THAT EXACT SAME POSITION.