|
|
|
|
|
|
by kbenson
2205 days ago
|
|
|
> 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? |
|
|
I think this is due to set theory and statistics. Terminology such as "select x such that" is standard. In fact a choice function is commonly referred to as a selector. Since evolution is essentially a biased random walk, you can describe it as a stochastic choice function (plus some other stuff) applied to the set of entities that makes up a population.
(If "selects" bothers you, what do you make of quantum mechanical "observers"? I witnessed that one cause lots of misconceptions among university and even a few graduate students.)