The entire post is an accumulation of vendettas/arguments that you have amassed throughout the years by taking part in Cyprus Freethinkers by going against me. It centers around the publication of your Book in 2011 "The meaning of life" which again came right after you lost some arguments about the topic. You had no idea about the entire topic before. You still don't. ps. You are defending the popular view, the non-scientific one.
The constant references about how much you study science and life are false, hence the same argument that you made in the group 6 years ago. They remain the same and they are repeated with the same falsehood. You are trying to establish credibility (by vouching for yourself) when your explanation reveals that you have no understanding of biology. none. You rather copy-paste similar concepts that you can find in books of Dawkins (see moths) spinning it into rhetorics in order to make a point. To those who have read the books this looks very much like a cheap intellectual fraud. I noted before how you do this in almost all your posts. The moth simply did not have enough time to adapt to the new environment. It's instincts fell short. Is that simple.
I am actually honored that more that half your posts, including this one, are an intellectual vendetta that you have with me for so many years (even made you to write a book) but as a biologist has pointed out to you, you are wrong. At least have the guts to admit it and don't try to excuse it through something different. There is evidence that instincts exist. Plenty.
I understand you are trying to defend that there is some meaning in life, some answers. It is your "job" as a philosopher and the first "front" to fall in order for you to make a case and excuse the wasted ink in your book is to deny instincts.
I also understand that you are trying to attach some credibility to your arguments (as I had adviced 6 year ago for you to study science) but your arguments and views (and understanding of biology) have remained much the same. Being part of steemstem and taking part in science competitions does not make you scientifically literate. It just makes you a suck up, trying to make your way into a domain in order to sell your crap as valid. You understood that in 2011 when you were going against scientists that no knowledge in science takes you nowhere. Instead of studying though you decided to just fake it. Classy.
To demonstrate this, 3 simple words could have saved you from all the trouble if you actually studied biology. This is a concept that you cannot catch through youtube videos and pop-sci books but zoologists know very well.
Fixed action pattern
It can be studied, falsified, reproduced and explain everything about survival instincts. It is biology 101, proving once more that you just claim to understand science for the sake of credibility while writing senseless bullshit to work around your argument.
Here is more detailed a post addressing your nonsense rhetorics.
Dog bless the blockchain for the eternal track record it provides.
RE: The Survival Instinct - Does it Exist?