Well, then I read you wrong. Sorry. N
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 10:14 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?
Lots to respond to. First of
The answer to my question of the scientific explanation for how voids are
filled is presumably the usual story of reproductive advantage as, in
effect, the definition for how well a void's template is matched -- to use
Dave's terminology. That's not quite circular in that it defines how well a
Russ,
Your question, I now see, is the same one that has motivated much of my
career. See natural designs website below. It would be nice to come up
with a definition of natural design that was more apriori (!?) than
whatever nature selects.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus
I'll take a stab at Russ's question, What's the analogous force (or
other explanation) for void filling in evolution?
Dawkins presents what seemed to me a helpful way of seeing why
mutations are usually lethal. He invents a multidimensional space in
which a point represents a possible living
Bruce,
Suddenly can't think what the evidence would be for most mutations are
lethal. Given the tremendous capacity of the developmental system to
absorb variation and produce a common result, how would we know. The best
we could know is that most visible mutations are lethal.
This is a
Nothing will evolve as long as sex exists to prevent it.
Most mutations simply fail to implant in the uterus. Many are shed soon
after. If the fetus gets to parturition ,the midwives get rid of it. Or the
mother just eats them if they do not smell right.
Typically in mammals there is constant
