Re: [tied] Middle English Plurals

08-01-04 00:41, alexandru_mg3 wrote:

> Related to "old" or "neo" Darwinian models of evolution, I prefer
> in place, Platon explanation that the 'idea of the wing' pre-exist
> the "wing apparition". At least this is a simple and coherent
> explanation, in place of "darwinian explanations" : we don't know
> what we expect but "evrika" "a wing have appeared"

You prefer it to what? Do you mean that flies, birds, bats and planes
have wings _because_ there is a preexistent "idea of a wing" that
endeavours to manifest itself in the physical world? Sorry, but it's
circular gibberish to me, incompatible with science. "The idea of a
wing" is a human generalisation. All those "wings" are classified under
the same name (in English, but not necessarily in every possible
language) because we find them analogical according to a certain (rather
arbitrary) functional typology.

> Now more concrete on the subject, your affirmation that :
> "Genetic drift is an important factor in it, since most
> mutations are now known to be selectively neutral"
>
> could hardly be proved.

It _has_ been proved. Most mutations are as neutral as makes a difference.

>
> I doubt that with the current genetics models somebody can be sure
> that the mutations are "neutral" in "most cases" related to
> the "selection criteria".
> Some simple questions here :
> 1) in this case what are the mutations for ? Not to generate
> possible "better samples"?

No. Mutations have no purpose. They are not "for" anything. They just
happen.

> 2) can somebody tell us for sure with the current genetics models
> what "the fittest" means in all cases, to can declare
> the "neutrality"?

Please rephrase this question. I can't understand what you mean.

> 3) Who can say 'when' (after how many generations) and 'why' (on
> which conditions) the kept changes will be use for?

They are usually neutral in the conditions in which they originally
appear. If they turn out to be advantageous in a new situation -- well,
that's a quirk of fortune that happens from time to time, but is not the
ordinary course of things. To begin with, most genetic innovations have
no phenotypic effect at all. Some 45% of human DNA consists of fragments
of genes "borrowed" from various viruses in the course of evolution.
They have to be "silenced" (by making them heavily methylated).

We are straying off-topic, so let's make this non-linguistic excursus as
brief as possible.

Piotr