Just BTFO her semantically.
>a mutation which destroyed the worm's ability to distinguish between what is food and what is family
Basically the only other information she provides in the name given to the specific protein and that it - kinda - produces a cannibalistic worm before she starts postulating on its implications. She in no way whatsoever explicates how this mutation affects the worm's ability to recognise kin (are they no longer able to procreate? do they seek out mates? etc.) She implies that the worms are indiscriminately predatory but this in no way informs our understanding of the self. Her thesis would hold if they started eating themselves, seeing them *self* as food. Instead, it's not that their distinction between 'food' and 'kin' has broken, it's just that their notion of 'food' has broadened. A cannibalistic tribesman is still cognisant of himself as distinct from others. He deliberately seeks out others to satisfy HIS appetite at the expense of others.
Lastly, this notion of 'self' is grossly applied to an animal which has essentially no self-awareness. How can we talk about it having lost its sense of self without having first established whether it has one?
