Larry wrote:
"...which assumes that the increasing adaptedness of animals is due to
random mutations within a population, followed by natural selection
of better adapted individuals. The No Free Lunch conclusion says that
one should not, averaged over time, and over all genetic algorithms,
expect purely natural physical processes to contribute appreciable
information content to an animal's genome."
Lucy responds:
Larry...this is interesting but a bit beyond me. Please explain more.
The above statement (so far) seems contradictory. Randomness and
natural selection seem purely natural to me (not that God isn't involved
in natural processes, you understand). I understand statistics but only
from the standpoint of clinical psychology. Randomness is, of course, a
defined term and one that deals with the human ability to perceive (or
not perceive) a pattern over time. So how is "natural" precluded by
randomness/natural selection and how is this at all related to Dembski?
I seem to recall that Dembski had great troubles with the concept of
randomness and viewed it rather objectively rather than subjectively.
What am I missing?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 15 2002 - 16:13:01 EDT