|
|
|
|
|
by refurb
2198 days ago
|
|
I probably didn't do a good job explaining it, but using your obstacle analogy... When you say "an object in my path caused me to go around it", you're switching the cause and effect. A more accurate way to say it would be "an obstacle on the path meant that only a handful of the population can go around it". The change that allows you to go around the obstacle was not caused by the obstacle, it would have happened regardless. However, the change is only important if the obstacle is there - that's what drives evolution (selection). |
|
I understand what's being said, it's the "selects" that triggers the problem for me.
I think of evolution as a system. Inputs cause the system to act in a certain way, but it's the system responding to the inputs, not the inputs choosing to get a specific output (which is what it sounds like to me to say A selects for B).
In the same way with orbital mechanics I wouldn't say a one object selected for a change in trajectory in the other. I would say one caused the change in the other, or more specifically, due to the how orbital mechanics work (the "system", the law of gravity), one object caused a change in the trajectory of the other.
So I guess my question is, why does evolution prefer the "selects" terminology? Is that common in any other sciences?