There is no "gaming the system" in Darwinian evolution. You reproduce or you don't. There's no way to fail reproduction and still perpetuate your genetics.
but how its that works then??? does that mean your genetic trait is already there in the first place
if its already there in the first place there must be something that start it now right, which basically counter your argument
Yes?
> if its already there in the first place there must be something that start it now right, which basically counter your argument
What?
If my helping these children gives them a competitive advantage in further reproduction, where the total reproductive strength of these well supported kids is greater than the total reproductive strength my family would have if I had my own children as well and split our resources, then this behaviour outcompetes simple reproduction, and if this behaviour is genetically encoded, becomes a dominant trait over time.
Human children are not clones but in asexual reproduction can produce literal clones.
> You cannot "define" truth.
I can and it isn't even hard. "Truth" is a word. It has a definition... by definition.
Generally one can describe how people use a word. (Though, see “semantic primes”; there has to be some cycles in what words are defined using what words.)
I think the quotations around “define” were intentional in the comment you replied to. I think their point wasn’t to say something like the “undefinability of truth” paradox (the whole “truth is in the metalanguage” thing), but to say that it seemed to them that you were kind of sneaking in assumptions as part of definitions, or something like that, idk.
It appears that some miscommunication occurred, which may have been me being dense or misinterpreting. Do you know where this miscommunication occurred?
Evolution still can't be "gamed".