"Anon." :


> >>>>>JE:-
> >>>>>Dr O'Hara's reply seems to be completely
> >>>>>confused. At the start Dr O'Hara
> >>>>>comments: "you've deleted drift as well"
> >>>>>when such an event is just experimentally
> >>>>>impossible.  This is because (via BOH's own
> >>>>>conclusion) "if you want to eliminate drift,
> >>>>>then you need an infinite [effective]
> >>>>>population size" which is an impossibility.

> >>>>BOH:-
> >>>>That was not a conclusion: it does not follow from the preceding
> >>>>paragraph.  It was a statement, or a recommendation.

> >>>JE:-
> >>>Dr O'Hara's protest that: "It was a statement, or a
recommendation"
> >>>remains absurd via his own logic: "if you want to
eliminate drift,
> >>>then you need an infinite [effective] population
size" which is an
> >>>_impossibility_. Dr OHara's claim that I have deleted genetic
> >>>drift (which he now repeats!) requires me to have an infinite
> >>>population at my disposal (or just an infinite level of studpidity).

> >>>>>JE:-
> >>>>>I never suggested an intention
> >>>>>to delete genetic drift simply because
> >>>>>I could not do so even if I wanted
> >>>>>to.

> >>>>BOH:-
> >>>>But, alas, your experiment _does_ delete drift, as I
have explained.

> >>>JE:-
> >>>Dr O'Hara's arrogance knows no bounds. He still
> >>>insists that I have an infinite population
> >>>at my disposal! Since I do not, then I cannot delete
> >>>genetic drift (via his own logic).

> >>BOH:-
> >>No, you have no variation.

> > JE:-
> > Where did Dr O'Hara obtain his PhD? Please
> > tell us so students can avoid this school!
> > It is childish nonsense for Dr O'Hara to suggest
> 


JE:-
What Dr O'Hara snipped represents the core of his
error. He is still arguing that I have deleted
random variation when such an event remains an 
impossibility. I repeat: how can anybody claim
to have a PhD in statistics and not know that
you cannot delete random variation within any
natural population where this includes so called
genetic drift?

> > JE:-
> > Can Dr O'Hara follow a simple argument? I am only
> 
> > JE:-
> > Clearly Dr O'Hara does not have a clue about what
> > this experiment is actually about: the difference
> 
> > None of Dr O'Hara's responses demonstrate any
> > ability to understand the simple biological
> > experiment that I have proposed. More worrying than

> BOH:-
> I have raised specific criticisms of John's proposed experiment, but 
> John has not provided any rebuttal, other than general comments about 
> random processes.  

JE:-
Dr O'Hara does not seem to realise what a
random process is (yet he claims to have a
PhD in statistics). Does he now realise that 
random processes such as genetic drift cannot
be deleted from any natural population? Why
does he _continue_ to erroneously claim that I
have deleted defined random variation from my
proposed experiment? Why does he not reply
to my proposition that artificially applied
founder effect can be employed within my experiment
increasing the intensity of drift while at the
same time removing all Darwinian selection from an
expanding experimental population? 

>snip<

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser{at}tpg.com.au
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/3/04 6:07:27 AM