"Jim McGinn"  wrote in message
>
> Maybe you should attempt to offer (argue for) a definition
> of NS that explicitly excludes random causation.
>
This is going nowhere. The point I was trying to make is that you can make a
respectable argument for applying the term "Natural Selection" to the first
case (beans taken from a bucket using a scoop, then planted) because, after
all, some benas are being selected.
However Darwin used the term "Natural Selection" by analogy with
"Artificial
Selection". He was very influenced by "varieties", for
instnace, different
breeds of pigeons.
When you see the term "natural selection" used, it is generally restricted
to the second case - beans taken out using a sieve, so the smaller ones fall
through the holes. This is also a selective process, but it is not
indiscriminate, since the larger beans are being selected for.

As for random causation, we can leave it to the physicists to argue amongst
themselves whether any events are truly random or not. However Natural
Selection includes many events which are effectively random, but which are
biased. Not all mice with white coats will be eaten by hawks, for instance,
but a white coat may increase the probability of being spotted by a hawk and
be selected against.

"Natural selection" is used to refer to selection of a heritable
characteristic with a systematic bias.
---
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 7/28/03 8:49:37 PM