[FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

[gⅼеɳ]

So, perhaps the problem lies in "innovation-as-organism" versus "innovation-as-lineage"?  Selection clearly causes lineage (via synthesis/assemblage/construction), built from the building blocks of organisms that survive to reproduce.  But selection clearly does not cause/construct those organisms.  Yes, as Robert points out, selection guides or constrains which organisms can arise at any given point, based on the shape of the space that is the environment (aka fitness).  But selection doesn't construct the organism.  Other parts of the evolutionary conception do that (mutation, crossover, etc.).

By that reasoning, both sides are right and (again): Brevity is the soul of stupidity.  Selection does *and* does not create innovations.  It does create (novel) lineages.  But it does not create (novel) organisms.

On 08/22/2017 06:34 PM, gepr ⛧ wrote:
> But none of this seems to indicate that *selection* or survival to mating age *creates* the new attribute. Survival to mating age only preserves whatever phenotype was constructed by the genes and ontogeny. Whether you call genes and ontogeny random or not is irrelevant. We could easily call it 'ignorance'... i.e. ignorance constructs the phenotype, then the environment decides its fecundity.

>>> "Natural selection can /preserve/ innovations, but it cannot create them."

-- 
gⅼеɳ