On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:20:47 +0000 (UTC), "John Edser"
 wrote:

>r norman  wrote:-
>
  John Edser's non-traditional style of quoting and non-bottom
posting makes snipping with context difficult.

>RN:-
>I don't
>know what he  does with quantum theory or analysis of
membrane noise or
>diffusion or anything related.  It doesn't do any good arguing.
>
>JE:-
>The above form valid _parts_ of contestable theories
>of nature, nothing more and nothing less.
>

Since these all necessarily involve random processes, that is they are
probabilistic rather than deterministic phenomena, then why not accept
drift as a valid part of evolution?  Note, incidentally, that the word
"drift" when applied to a random process is usually the opposite of
the usage of the word "drift" applied to evolution.

I have snipped John's repeat of his unusual and unorthodox (to say the
least) ideas on fitness and how they might be modeled using set
theory.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 3/26/04 6:12:20 AM