Oh, I thought evolution was just ~random mutation~ and only the beneficial ones stuck because of ~survival of the fittest~? Isn't that why people who don't treat science like a religion have had to argue for decades about the multi-stage evolutionary processes involved in eye development, and so on?

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

@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.

@mur2501 I agree entirely with you, which is why I find it disgusting and pathetic when people treat science as a dogmatic religion and reject unorthodox findings.

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

@mur2501 Apologies for the timestamp, youtube apparently remembered how far through it I was on this listen, there's nothing significant about that point in the lecture

@brother
Actually one of the problems is in the way we are teaching science in school. We teach science with theories and las rather then obsrrvation, inference and debate. That gives the impression of impossibility or something when talking about things which don't match the laws.

@mur2501 Well yeah but how does what you're saying even contradict what I'm saying?

@brother
When was I contradicting you?

@mur2501 Oh, right... Forgive me if this advice seems patronising, but I used to be an English as a Second Language teacher, so please take it in good spirit. (Although I'm fully aware that as an Indian, you may well have grown up speaking English too, albeit a different dialect to me as a British English speaker.)

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!