-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Billock [SMTP:billgr@cco.caltech.edu]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 1997 1:00 PM
To: evolution@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: That was amusing
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