"it supports .... the notion that randomness is a funny kind of concept ... genomic innovation." But it is funny in a particular way: Nature can roll the dice all she wants, but the game is rigged - it is actually quite difficult not to "hit a winner" with any given roll of the dice. Were the game not rigged in this particular way truly random changes would have a near zero possibility that the 'innovation' would be viable. davew
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017, at 10:19 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: > Dear All, > > For some reason, somebody was pressing on us the Andreas Wagner book. > So now I have it and have scanned it, but I have forgotten why I am > reading it. It seems a reasonably good summer of contemporary > Epigenetics, on a par with Sean Carroll’s work. It stresses the > robustness of the epigenetic system, as it should. It supports > rather than undermines the notion that randomness is a funny kind of > concept to apply to genomic “innovation”.> > Am I missing something? > > Nick > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > Clark University > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
