From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!trwacs!erwin Tue Mar 24 09:56:15 EST 1992
Article 4501 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:4501 sci.philosophy.tech:2306
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!trwacs!erwin
>From: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com (Harry Erwin)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Causes and Goals
Message-ID: <513@trwacs.fp.trw.com>
Date: 17 Mar 92 13:23:47 GMT
References: <1992Mar14.010014.552@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>   <1992Mar15.170938.9882@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Mar16.031843.14299@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> <1992Mar16.200503.9918@husc3.harvard.edu>
Followup-To: comp.ai.philosophy
Organization: TRW Systems Division, Fairfax VA
Lines: 16

It is suggested that most evolutionary biologists use functionalist
explanations of evolution. That is, such and so evolved because...

I'm afraid the suggestion is not true. Most evolutionary biologists
explain evolutionary change from a perspective of _random_ variation and
then selection based on relative fitness. (Fitness being best defined as
the long-term geometric average number of descendents, when weighted by
relatedness--note that inclusive fitness includes descendents of
relatives, exclusive fitness includes only one's own descendents.) Thus
what we see is what has survived, and involves no teleology. Hence such
and so evolved because it survived and the alternatives didn't... 
   Cheers,

-- 
Harry Erwin
Internet: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com


