John Edser wrote:
> "Anon." :
> 
> 
>>>>>>>BOH:-
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, you've deleted drift as well.  The only way drift can be
>>>>>>re-introduced is for there to be genetic variation
within a family
>>>>>>(through segregation), but in this case you can no
longer guanrantee
>>>>>>"Darwinian fitness equality".  In other
words, this doesn't
>>>>>>allow you to
>>>>>>have your cake and eat it.
>>>>>>If you want to eliminate drift, then you need an
infinite [effective]
>>>>>>population size.
> 
> 
>>>>>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

> 
> 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

I have raised specific criticisms of John's proposed experiment, but 
John has not provided any rebuttal, other than general comments about 
random processes.  If he is not able to focus on the substansive points 
I raise, and show specific reason why I'm wrong, then there is no point 
on continuing this thread.  Coming out with general statements, 
interspersed with insults is not good enough: it may be OK in the 
Australian parliament, but not in the rarified world of science.

Bob

-- 
Bob O'Hara
Department of Mathematics and Statistics
P.O. Box 68 (Gustaf Hällströmin katu 2b)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland

Telephone: +358-9-191 51479
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540
Fax:  +358-9-191 51400
WWW:  http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/
Journal of Negative Results - EEB: www.jnr-eeb.org
---
ž RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2į’* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/2/04 5:06:41 PM