wilkins{at}wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote 

> > > I think that they tried to keep stochasticity apart 
> > > from the concept of natural selection.
> > 
> > Darwin explicitly included it.



> natural selection can do nothing until favourable 
> variations chance to occur ..."



> "I HAVE hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations---so common and 
> multiform with organic beings under domestication, and in a lesser
> degree with those under nature---were due to chance. This, of course, is
> a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our
> ignorance of the cause of each particular variation."

Very interesting.  Darwin recognized that "chance" was 
the wrong word to employ.  He even recognizes that it, 
"chance," has to do with lack of knowledge and, therefore, 
was not causal.

> I think that Darwin did *not* hold that chance was 
> a causal force - he *did*, however, think that 
> variation was endemic to populations (little pun).

I wonder did he ever employ the word 'randomness.'  I 
suspect he would have been smart enought to realize that 
we can't (or shouldn't) employ 'randomness' 
(stochasticity) interchangeably with 'chance.'

Jim
---
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 8/19/03 6:34:44 AM