William Morse  wrote:

> wilkins{at}wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote in
> news:bm77kg$29rc$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org: 
> 
> > William Morse  wrote:
> 
> >> But from a statistical standpoint it does make sense, just as from a
> >> statistical standpoint we can say that temperature is the cause of a
> >> physical process. I think it is possible to compare fitnesses - if
> >> individual A can run ten miles an hour, and animal B can run eleven
> >> miles an hour, with no other meaningful differences between them,
> >> then one can predict that whatever gives individual B that edge will
> >> "be selected", the good lord willing and the creek
don't rise. Is
> >> this what Sober is getting at?
> > 
> > I think so. He gives the example of identical twins, one walking
> > slightly higher on a slope than the other and getting hit by
> > lightning. There is no selection here, he says, because there is no
> > physical property of the dead twin that caused the death that the
> > other twin doesn't have.
>  
> >>  What causes, say,
> >> > paper to combust at 451°F is the binding of sufficient free oxygen
> >> > to the carbon and other reactive molecules of the paper such that
> >> > they release energy that causes still more molecules to
so bind and
> >> > release energy. To entify "temperature" is to
run into the same
> >> > problems as when we generalise the properties of a particular case
> >> > of selection - say the ability of one moth morph to evade capture
> >> > due to confusing the visual acuity of the major predator - to all
> >> > cases. We note a similar dynamic, and we assign a variable -
> >> > fitness - into which we pour the specifics of the
physical case one
> >> > by one. 
> >>  
> >> Well, even in statistical mechanics that is the case (at least if
> >> Tsallis is right about the proper equation for entropy). But I can
> >> still make predictions based on the statistics, so even if the actual
> >> cause is historical the net cause is teleological.
>  
> > Now that I have choked on "teleological" (are you
reading my diatribe
> > against teleology in That Other Group?), let me just note that fitness
> > is also a statistical property, just like entropy. As to whether this
> > is, as Darwin thought, following Laplace, randomness due to our
> > ignorance or there is some contingent randomness in the physical
> > properties of organisms, I leave to another, more philosophical,
> > discussion.
> 
> I guess if I was willing to write "teleological"  as an opposite of 
> "historical" I deserve a response that refers to "contingent 
> randomness" :-) 

Well there is deterministic randomness, non? Or else what is a gaussian
distribution? The Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium is surely a deterministic
random distribution.
> 
> And I agree that fitness is a statistical property - but what do we call
> the net result of statistical properties? I had used the term teleological
> to reflect the fact that (with a large enough sample size - and this itself
> leads to some problems since the earth itself is a sample size of one )
> results even though affected by the history may be similar because of
> convergent evolution. Teleological is a poor choice because while it 
> captures the idea that some adaptations do have a purpose (eyes are
"for"
> seeing),it also implies foresight (animals developed eyes "in
order to"
> see) - which of course is not how evolution works. I will try to find a
> better term, since I don't know how to administer the Heimlich maneuver via
> e-mail.

Thanks for that consideration :-)
-- 
John Wilkins wilkins.id.au
For long you live and high you fly, 
and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
---
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 10/17/03 5:06:07 PM