Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

But none of this seems to indicate that *selection* or survival to mating age *creates* the new attribute. Survival to mating age only preserves whatever phenotype was constructed by the genes and ontogeny. Whether you call genes and ontogeny random or not is irrelevant. We could easily call it

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

Incidentally, the life-increases-entropy hypothesis I first stumbled upon an excellent statement of that in Comparative Psychology: A Handbook (1998). It was by Rod Swenson, who has some other interesting

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

Nick, "Natural selection can /preserve/ innovations, but it cannot create them." and "The idea of evolution groping blindly through morphology space is absurd." Not trying to get into a tussle with you,  but Jeremy England would

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

Well, I am not sure the weight of Wagner's presentation supports that conclusion. N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -Original Message- From: Friam

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

Heh, so you *agree* with Wagner that natural selection can preserve innovations, but it cannot create them? On 08/22/2017 11:21 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: > Wagner seems to support utterly my intuition that what the genome offers up > is not random mutations but hypotheses for good living. The

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

Wagner seems to support utterly my intuition that what the genome offers up is not random mutations but hypotheses for good living. The idea of evolution groping blindly through morphology space is absurd. "inadequate," my tush. (};-)] N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of