> Off hand, I cannot think of a shorter sentence that includes all those
> concepts.
>
> It would be great if someone else can.
To which Dan Minette said
I think the question can be expressed.
Is the natural tendency for a population to disperse in gene space
through random mutations (in the absence of a natural selection
induced focus in gene space) sufficient to explain the existence
of blind cave fish.
That is an interesting way to ask the question. It certainly focuses
attention on populations over time. But why talk about a case which
specifies the `absence of a natural selection induced focus in gene
space'?
As posed, the question overtly leaves out a critical part of the law
for dealing with non-exact-replications in an environment: selection.
It is like talking about one of Newton's laws
"force is the product of mass and acceleration"
while overtly leaving out the concept of mass.
"force is the product of ... and acceleration"
A notion does not help people when it is not considered.
The answer to your question has to be: to get blind fish without
selection is improbable. After all, without selection, over
generations you have the product of thousands of already improbable
events; the resultant product is even less probable.
Only selection determines that those with high net reproduction rates
each generation reproduce so that what was improbable becomes
probable.
--
Robert J. Chassell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
