Re: That was amusing

Greg Billock (billgr@cco.caltech.edu)
Mon, 15 Dec 1997 11:00:23 -0800 (PST)

John,

> By "union" and "intersection" I meant to suggest only their set theory
> meanings: When Lloyd referred to (Dawkins believing that)
> evolution occurring
> only via "mutation plus natural selection", he didn't mean to be considering
> only cases where BOTH mechanisms were operative (where the "sets" overlap,
> their intersection), but to also include cases where EITHER mechanism was
> operative (their union), which would permit mutation to operate without
> selection in relevant cases, which seemed to be the thrust of what you and
> Wesley have been getting at.

I see better what you mean, then. There are, however, other non-adaptive
processes which Dawkins (and others) think are operative. (Sex is but
one example which I keep bringing up :-))

-Greg

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Billock [SMTP:billgr@cco.caltech.edu]
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 1997 11:16 AM
> To: evolution@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: That was amusing
>
> John Rylander:
>
> > I think you have misunderstood Lloyd's point. Lloyd obviously can speak for
>
> That is a most definite and real possibility :-).
>
> > himself, but I think he'll see your reply as unrelated to what his note, for
> > the same reasons Wesley's response seemed off-topic.
>
> Just to make sure we're all on the same page, here's what I see as the
> point of disagreement: Lloyd is portraying Dawkins as believing that
> mutation and natural selection are the sole processes responsible for
> evolutionary change. I (and Wesley) are disputing that.
>
> > Did you glance at my reply to Wesley's most recent reply to Lloyd, Wesley
> > making points similar to yours? Roughly, Wesley was taking
> > Lloyd as seeing NS
> > as driving evolution to the exclusion of random mutation operating neutrally
>
> I thought Wesley was arguing the above line, not about Lloyd's understanding
> of the role of NS.
>
> > wrt NS, but that wasn't what Lloyd was getting at. When Lloyd speaks of NS
> > plus mutation, he means their union, not their intersection. So random
> > mutation without NS is a perfectly permissible possibility in
> > Lloyd's overview.
>
> According to Wesley and I, this is true for Lloyd, Dawkins, and every other
> evolutionist, thus our disagreement. The bit about relative rates is
> interesting, and various views will lead to various phrasings, but the
> bottom line is that mutations seem to proceed oblivious to selective
> pressures, that is, mutation is a non-adaptive evolutionary process.
> I'm not sure what 'union' and 'intersection' have to do with mutation and
> natural selection, however. If this is important, perhaps we can get
> into it further...
>
> -Greg
>
>
>