Everything about us is due to genetic mutations. If you, who are obviously not a geneticist, conflate mutation with "defect", I submit that it's more about your primal urge to place yourself above others than about genetics. What makes you qualified to declare someone defective?
The research of qualified people is what the rant is about, not my research. Also, when did I state that I was above others? Seems that one came out of thin air. I will give you the mutations vs defects thing though, but only since evolution is about mutations and they aren't evolved or devolved people. Anyway, again, I'm not qualified, the people who did the research are. If it makes you any happier, I changed mutations to defects.
Hang on, I only used mutations once! Half your response was about one sentence?
I study human nature, and "defective" has certain implications. As if people are broken and should be repaired or replaced. Perhaps it was a poor choice of words. But I observe much human behavior that is aimed directly or indirectly at removing agency from others, so I had to ask.
Ah, ok. I said defects because I couldn't think of another word, not because there's something wrong with them (I mean there's, but nothing that will affect them or others)