You didn't answer my question about which claims you find meaningless and why. But now you've changed to calling the claims "extraordinary," which is quite different from "meaningless"--one might argue a claim couldn't be both at the same time. Which is it? Or which claims are which and why?
Btw, neo-Darwinism generally has been criticized for being tautological (the "better replicators spread better" stuff). The article even addresses that. Do you find neo-Darwinism generally to be a logical mistake because it contains this well-known tautology? Or do you only find the tautology problematic in this particular instance because it's a new application of neo-Darwinism?
If you found logical mistakes in the rest of the article, I'd be interested in hearing them.
Btw, neo-Darwinism generally has been criticized for being tautological (the "better replicators spread better" stuff). The article even addresses that. Do you find neo-Darwinism generally to be a logical mistake because it contains this well-known tautology? Or do you only find the tautology problematic in this particular instance because it's a new application of neo-Darwinism?
If you found logical mistakes in the rest of the article, I'd be interested in hearing them.