> > the meaning of 'trait' is hardly self-evident. a hand with
> > an opposable thumb is a trait, as are the convolutions in
> > your brain, as is a latent characteristic, as is DNA that
> > serves no known purpose, or maybe serves no purpose at all.
<...>
> Charles: What is your meaning of "trait" ?
i trait is a distinguishing characteristic, which in this case is probably inherited. but traits are expressions of the interaction between an organism and its environment, not inevitable expressions of genes. a good example would be average height, which varies considerably according to historical changes in diet among a given people.
> > i think darwin was more interested in theorizing the
> > machanisms that govern historical morphology than in
> > justifying the entire world, of which random mutation
> > is only a subset.
<...>
> Oh and where do you infer that I think Darwin is justifying the
> entire world ? If you are proving that I am so wrong, such an
> obviously inaccurate portrayal of what I say makes it easy to
> demonstrate your comments don't touch what I say. <...>
you had asked...
> > > Purely contingent on what ? Random mutations ? Is
> > > "preordained" the logical equivalen of your "teleology" ?
i meant to point out, which i could have done more clearly, that traits are the result of environmental factors as well as mutations. darwin wasn't theorizing 'why' environmnental factors--potentially the entire world--are what they are.
> > > Charles:> But once a trait arises as an expression of genes, it's
> > > recurrence is not contingent, but determined. There is no
> > > need for positing God/Goddess for this.
>
> > it's not at all determined: genetic expression is hardly
> > as mechanical as you make out--it's contingent on count-
> > less factors, as is the interaction between the results
> > of that expression and its environment.
> Charles: I didn't say fully determined by genes, oh genius.
well, 'determined' doesn't mean much when it stands in for 'determined by contingent factors,' does it?
> Charles: Carrol and I talk about this all of the time.
good to know that you're responding to the person isntead of what she write.
cheers, t