[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
It goes beyond this, I think. Minimal evolution requires the idea that
to get to any one product, the course will have as few reversals,
duplicate scenarios, revisions, etc. in the genome. If there is one ...
well the idea is that there isn't. If nature is easy, or minimal in
evolutionary expression, then reversals shouldn't happen. And like I said,
the idea is that is doesn't happen. This means a minimum of support to
every two taxa, not a multitude ... simplicity in all modes.
Flukes happen. If they don't, then the situation is not random.
Flukes with a higher probability will, admittedly, happen more often than
flukes with a lower probability over a very long period. For example, if
you flip a coin 50,000 sets of 20 times each, you will probably see more
sequences of 10 heads in a row than 20.
But take a single set of 20 flips and you have a reasonable shot at seeing
one of the many outcomes you'd call weird.
Evolution is even worse than a coin flip for prediction. In a coin flip
there are only two exclusive outcomes. In evolution, with all the different
things that could be working more or less simultaneously, you can see many
actions and interactions.
That evolution will invariably be easy or simple in its effects seems to me
a blythe assertion.
- Re: courses
- From: "Jaime A. Headden" <firstname.lastname@example.org>