In article <1pi6n7INNi6h at crcnis1.unl.edu> price at helios.unl.edu (Chad Price) writes:
>>Sorry, I didn't expect my post to be interpreted as an argument. (In fact I
I took your post as an "argument" only as in the "discussion" sense
of the word, nothing more.
>can't remember what I said; but I do remember some local molecular biologists
I believe your basic idea was along the lines that most random number
generators fall below the level of randomness of truely random natural
systems.
This reminds me of a point that Will Provine tried to make in a seminar
last year. Namely is there any such thing as random genetic drift?
That is, are the various biological processes involved truely
random. (Let alone does drift really occur). That's all I'm willing
to say at this point, since its really a thread for bionet.pop-bio.
>>--
>chad
>price at helios.unl.edu>cprice at molecular.unmc.edu
Eric Cabot
ecec at quads.uchicago.edu
--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=v=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Eric Cabot | "Non Nobis Nati Solum"
ecec at midway.uchicago.edu |
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=v=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
