Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   natural selection is wrong
mogur
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 276 (110146)
05-24-2004 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Syamsu
05-24-2004 6:06 AM


That's just silly. The fact that non-selective factors can influence the selective theory has always been part of selective dynamics. In fact, non-selective (random) mutations are the cornerstone of selective theory. You have always had the option of assuming complete non-variance as the basis of evolution. There never was a logical barrier to such an hypothesis, that this article now 'permits' you to assume. Your problem, however, is to show that your non-variance hypothesis is a better model of reality, by both matching observational and predictive evidence more closely than currently accepted models. Take for example, a situation where you and I bet on roulette such that you win every time the number 17 occurs, and I win whenever any other number occurs, at even odds. The influence of non-selective factors such as lightning, drive-by shootings, and spontaneous combustion will be strong influences on the outcome of any one gambling session, but their influence is greatly minimized when considering their rarity in a senario that involves many such sessions. But to include their influence in an hypothesis that tries to refine the dynamics of this example, does not give one license to disregard the variance of the stacked odds. But your opinion may vary. Wanna bet?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Syamsu, posted 05-24-2004 6:06 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024