"it supports .... the notion that
randomness is a funny kind of concept ... genomic innovation." But it is
funny in a particular way: Nature can roll the dice all she wants, but
the game is rigged - it is actually quite difficult not to "hit a
winner" with any given roll of the dice. Were the game not rigged in
this particular way truly random changes would have a near zero
possibility that the 'innovation' would be viable.
davew
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017, at 10:19 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
Dear All,
For some reason, somebody was pressing on us the Andreas Wagner book. So now I have it and have scanned it, but I have forgotten why I am reading it. It seems a reasonably good summer of contemporary Epigenetics, on a par with Sean Carroll’s work. It stresses the robustness of the epigenetic system, as it should. It supports rather than undermines the notion that randomness is a funny kind of concept to apply to genomic “innovation”.
Am I missing something?
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.comFRIAM-COMIC
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
Locked
