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" :-) 

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.

Yours,

Bill Morse
---
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 6:21:03 AM