No worries, I can also be slow to respond. There’s a few things at play here:

1. Neutral mutations can become beneficial later on. It’s not just about the genes, it’s also about the environment. Even deleterious mutations can become beneficial, like sickle cell disease likely being selected for due to its protection against malaria.

2. Following from that, deleterious/neutral/beneficial are pretty loose categories, and it’s not even really correct to think of them as categories. It’s more about how beneficial it is. Sickle cell disease is bad, but better than dying of malaria.

3. Beneficial mutations can be really beneficial. Once somebody has them, they can spread like wildfire through the population. One example is the ability to digest lactose as an adult. It’s “worth” lots of “failures” to get that mutation (using those terms loosely and without value judgement). An analogy might help here, think about it kind of like this slime mold searching for food. The tips have a lot of churn and waste, but the food it finds is worth doing all that work. You can think of the beneficial mutations as the branches that are kept.

   

   (Note that evolution isn’t directed by “something”, even as simple as a slime mold, it’s a description of a physical process, like gravity, so the analogy is loose)

4. We’ve seen beneficial mutations happen in person, and shows another example of how useful beneficial mutations can be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment. The E. coli evolved the ability to digest a new substance they couldn’t before. The experiment also touches on neutral mutations sticking around.

5. The distinction you’re drawing between micro evolution and macro evolution relies on an assumption that either there are different kinds that are inherently distinct, or some sort of “system” that prevents micro evolution from progressing into macro evolution. For the prior, I’ve never seen a defense of that that doesn’t rely on the supernatural, and for the latter, what happens when the system itself changes due to evolution?

6. In my personal experience, the strongest argument against any radical move away from the current general scientific worldview consensus is that everything generally fits together. Sure, the estimated age of the universe might be adjusted slightly from 13.7B to 13.8B years, or the Jurassic might actually be estimated slightly wrong. But across all evidence we have, the current scientific understanding across a diverse range of disciplines is approximately correct. Nobody is counting tree rings and saying “Wait a minute, these show the Earth is 6,000 years old!”. Nobody is dating rocks and saying “Hold on, this dates as twice as old as the universe!”. Note that you’ll find claims of things like fossilized tracks of humans walking next to dinosaurs, but those don’t pan out

1. It’s a common misunderstanding, but humans and chimps didn’t evolve from each other. We each evolved from a common ancestor. Regardless, it seems like you wouldn’t accept anything other than something from the now, so here’s a study that agrees with the general mutation rate done by comparing parents and children in Iceland: Parental influence on human germline de novo mutations in 1,548 trios from Iceland Here’s also a paper on calculating the distribution of those mutations across deleterious/neutral/beneficial: Assessing the Evolutionary Impact of Amino Acid Mutations in the Human Genome
2. If a mutation doesn’t decrease the reproductive capacity of the carrier, then it’s not harmful. If it’s harmful, then it will affect the reproductive capacity. That’s just how it’s defined in this context.
3. I think it’s slightly sloppily phrased, but is a counter to a specific claim found in this book: https://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Creationism-Henry-M-Morris/dp/1982697091. I don’t have a copy so can’t comment further.

Some amount of that is literal psyops. Every major country is intentionally trying to cause at least some division in their geopolitical rivals. There’s also internal psyops where governments will try to fracture any movements that might cause political change. At a smaller level, there’s echo chambers built by people that are already sucked into an ideology, hoping to propagate that ideology. This recent thread that had simple biological truth downvoted to hell is an example:

https://sh.itjust.works/post/50387688/22307005

All in all it’s not new though, it’s just gotten more efficient. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism is one example of how it’s always been this way. Isaac Asimov also had a pithy quote:

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

When you have your basic needs met and aren’t starving to death, you can afford to be irrational and embrace comforting lies. It’s just the human condition.

That treatment has been done. From the same page:

https://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

The analogy to a messy room fails. I recommend you read this (and the rest of the archive, it’s great stuff):

https://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

Of note is “The Earth is not a closed system”

Realizing that the root cause is just because you want it to be true is fine, commendable even. Just don’t try to justify it post hoc with sciency-sounding arguments.

I disagree with everything you’ve said, but upvoted because you answered the question.

You appear to be using the term “capitalism” in a confusing way. From etymonline:

The meaning “political/economic system which encourages capitalists” is recorded from 1872 and originally was used disparagingly by socialists.

Words can change meaning and all that, but when people complain about capitalism, they don’t mean what you’re talking about. You seem to mean something like “well-regulated free market”, and other people mean “broken, exploitative system that worships greed”

Genuine question, what happens in an anarchist utopia when your neighbors decide that they like your land? If you fight back en masse, doesn’t that involve creating a military with a hierarchy that’s ripe for seizing power? How can you maintain the social organization for building fighter jets or aircraft carriers or spycraft without those being taken over and used against the people? If you just don’t, what happens when your neighbors are a global superpower that has all that?

It seems even more impractical and idealistic than Communism, which at least has an answer to that.

deleted by creator

There’s no assumption. They literally listed two purity tests that they themselves use, directly after saying that they never see anyone use purity tests

I quoted an entire sentence exactly. They didn’t say “I like pancakes”, they said “You can’t compromise with waffle-eaters”

You cannot compromise with a bigot

To reiterate the comment you’re responding to, you’re reducing a complex world to a binary choice. Everyone that has ever existed is bigoted to some degree, therefore no compromise is possible ever?

Yeah, the comment above is kind of a hilarious example of cognitive dissonance. “I’ve never seen purity tests, other than these tests for ensuring purity”. Blanket statements like that are rarely used in good faith.

Why is AGP transphobic? Seems like at best it’s still unsettled science. From the link:

The concept that androphilia in trans women is related to homosexuality in cisgender men has been tested by MRI studies. Cantor interprets these studies as supporting Blanchard’s transsexualism typology.

There’s a loud minority of anti-AI people. Most people don’t reflexively hate it, though.

Good point. Neither prong of the dichotomy bothers me because I think AI is neat and copyright laws are dumb and so reject it entirely. It does create an uncomfortable tension if you dislike AI and like copyright though.

100%, I’m hoping that AI will result in capitalism eating itself up entirely

AI art isn’t theft, so the rest of your question falls apart.

In regards to sharing art, it’s trying to fight technological progress and it’s bound to lose. Copyright is dead and that’s a good thing. We shouldn’t simp for legal systems pushed by and that benefit large corporations over creators.

It can be true that something is both an important right and used unethically by people that don’t actually care about the topic. See Rainbow capitalism as a very related example. Nutomic is right that identity politics are used to create division among the working class, because anything that can create division will be used to do so.