OSNews

But that is what I am trying to let you know: the equivalence is not there. You're simply propagating a set of misconceptions about what natural evolution is and how it works. A principal misconception being the assumption that evolution is about the "survival" of the individual organism. BTW, that is how we ended with the concepts like Social Darwinism, which are directly attributable to economists misunderstanding of evolution (the concept of "fitness" in particular), interestingly enough.


For example, given how most of life in the biosphere is (and has been) in the form of microorganisms, single celled in particular, and with the very large multicellular organisms being far rarer in number than the very small (e.g. there are very few blue whales but a shit load of amoebas). And how the smaller organisms have always being able to weather mass extinctions better than their larger brethren. I could turn part of your argument upside down and make a case about how small companies are a natural consequence of evolution, since obviously evolution seems to "favor" the small companies over the very large corporate giants.


It would be flawed of me to make that case. Just as it is flawed for anybody else to misrepresent evolution in order to comply with a narrative from an unrelated field.