But now it's okay to admit that evolution is guided in some way? That even an organism as simple as a virus is capable, by some unseen process, of directing its own evolution in a way that is beneficial in response to selective pressure?
I'm confused here. I can see three possibilities, and I would appreciate it if someone less ignorant than me on this topic could offer some input:
1: That Real™ scientists have been wise to this for some time, and it's only le reddit atheist tier science man people who still cling to the "evolution is entirely random and beneficial mutations stick only because they statistically increase survivability" model,
2: That this is some new understanding that has simply not filtered down to I Fucking Love Science tier people yet,
3: That this is a convenient excuse employed in this one instance to justify why a [fictitious or manmade, pick your conspiracy theory] variant of the virus has so many base protein mutations in one jump, as a lazy cover story
This is Mur 
@brother
Science is somewhat like this:
Observation
Inference
Conclusion
Then observation again
And the cycle continues
So no laws will be perfect unless you have done an eternity of observation, collected a infinity of data and have seen everything till the end of time.
Science is not about rules, science is about observation.
2014. Fucking 2014, this lecture was delivered. After decades of ongoing research and publication. And still people think plants have no psyche.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKwzYQm-OuY&t=1395s
@brother
When was I contradicting you?
If you're talking to a native English speaker from Britain, America, Australia, Canadan or New Zealand, and your response begins with "actually", they'll generally read it as a contradiction, challenge or correction, as I did here!
@brother
Well choice of the word was not much good. I used 'actually' just to highlight the statement 
@brother
No worries mate, anyway my English not any perfect or good.
Studied in a rural school meant for tribal peoples 
@brother
By the way which languages do you know?
With good reason, arguably. Teaching in the target language does have proven results, and this way a single teacher can teach a multilingual class of students who may have no other lingua franca.
I had classes filled with students from all over the world who had come to England and now needed to learn English - Saudi Arabia, Japan, Brazil, all crammed into one classroom. Teaching them English using Arabic or Japanese or Portuguese as the instructional language would have been pretty pointless.
@brother
I know 5 languages
4 indian languages: Gujrathi, Marathi, Hindi, Urdu
And ofcourse English.
@brother
Diversity is at the heart of India 
@brother
You didn't had Indian students?
Bluntly, because most of the Indian people in the UK have either been here for so long that they already know English very well, or learned it back in India, like you!
@brother
Most of the India knows English very well it's too much common here everywhere. Though many regions still remain here where English is still foreign, like I visited a hill-station which is situated in a region which has around 98% tribal population (surprisingly this tribes have defeated the British and the region was never under British rule) the signs in English there were all misspelled like hell.
'chilled beer' -> 'child beer'
@brother @mur2501 As a native English speaker from America, I disagree. I frequently use “actually” as a term of acknowledgement as in the phrase, “actually, yeah, that makes sense.” I didn’t interpret that response as a contradiction and I’m sure many of my peers wouldn’t either. Are you sure this isn’t just a peculiarity of how people around you use the word? Maybe it’s a particularly British English thing. Or maybe East Coast US is just weird.
But obviously i mean you're right in principle that there are just a lot, a *LOT* of regional variations on English. Christ, every time i've been to the USA i've been to a different state and nobody can even agree on what to call fizzy drinks.
