On May 6, 7:03 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > On May 4, 5:40 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 4, 11:24 am, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote: > > > > Interestingly, most of the time when Darwin uses the term "chance" he > > > means the chance of surviving under selection. > > Are you using selection in pattern or design sense? Becausehttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JohnBurroughsinterpreteddarwin in > > the pattern sense with NS.
> Lets take a bag of small and large beans, shaking them out unto the > table. I now "select" the small beans from the > random assembly of beans. Selection is used in the design sense to > filter out objects in a random pattern event. Thus one would interpret > the chance of surviving as the chance that a small bean gets selected > by a bean-picker - design sense.
Now in order to automate the process I build a filter with the correct size holes to filter out the small beans. I throw in the beans shake the holder and out pops the small beans "filtered" by the filter. The confusion comes in where we are told: Natural selection filters the random variations in nature and the user of this sentence (which is just a tool) then can't figure out what he is trying to convey: patterns or designs. Further examples of this is DAwkins usage of cumulative selection in his http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program
"...They clarify that the process that drives evolutionary systems — random variation combined with non-random cumulative selection — is different from pure chance....."
cumulative , redemptive, selective, rabbitive , ninjative selection ...... the words themselves won't help: You must figure whether the process that a common ancestor turning into a monkey who then then said Mommy why are teeth They clarify that the process that drives evolutionary systems — random variation combined with non-random cumulative selection — is different from pure chance.
To point to an analogy that Darwin had read, Adam Smith's Invisible hand produces an effect without any intention or plan of producing the effect. (not to be confused with Charles Addams's disembodied hand) . . dave souza, talk 21:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
=== asdf === Edit
Notice that Osborn (no -e) is writing just as Mendelian genetics swept
all before it and demolished neo-Lamarckian inheritance, which Osborn
supported. Also, 6 years earlier, William Castle had published papers
that reconciled Mendel with Darwin, which resulted in a series of works
that caused the neo-Darwinian Synthesis of the period from 1930-1940.
Fundamentally, Osborn is the last gasp of neo-Lamarckian (but note,
still) evolutionary biology.
Castle, William E. 1916. Studies of inheritance in guineapigs and rats.
Vol. Pub. No. 241. Washington: Carnegie Institution of Washington.
dominico gabrielli baroque era classics.
heraclitus thales Edit