Brett Aubrey  wrote:

> > RN:-
> > snip<
> > In a small population, it is quite possible (even very likely) that
> > the abundance of a particular allele might change just be chance over
> > generations.  For example, those individuals with big noses just
> > happened to have more babies with big noses than expected.  It is sort
> > of like flipping a coin twice. You expect one head, one tail, but
> > sometimes you end up with two heads. That is the definition of genetic
> > drift: a change in the genetic composition of the population (in the
> > allele frequencies). 

JE:-
Of course, RN has _not_ eliminated Darwinian natural
selection from the proposed drift process so that RN's
conclusion that genetic drift is alone causative remains 
incorrect. Clearly, if "those individuals with big noses just
happened to have more babies with big noses than expected"
and raised more big nosed offspring to fertile adulthood
then any assumption that "just happened" was ONLY chance
remains utterly incorrect.

I have described an experiment that can eliminate all
natural selection within an _expanding_ population 
only allowing genetic drift as causative to allele
freq. changes. All you have to do is artificially
force all members of one population to raise the
exactly the same number of fertile forms to adulthood
where this number is larger than just a parental
replacement value.  The prediction is: all natural 
selection must be halted within this experiment while 
Darwinian fitness equality can remain enforced. Thus only 
genetic drift (which cannot be eliminated) is now left 
to cause "evolution". This being the case, RN's
proposition (which is the standard Neo Darwinian
position) that genetic drift can, on its own, cause
evolution can now be tested. My prediction is that
drift acting without selection can only cause the
dissolution of each selectee within that population.
The population will deteriorate to such an
extent that it will become impossible to enforce
Darwinian fitness equality and Darwinian selection
will force its way into that population to
correct the dissolution caused by drift acting
alone.

The simple truth is, genetic drift as just a
random process, cannot validly constitute 
evolution without selection. However selection
could cause evolution without genetic drift.
This is easy to see as just a thought experiment. 
Genetic drift is not evolution it is temporal
variation.  When you allow just a random process to
become  causative to evolution in its own right without 
the aid of any non random process then evolution
is reduced to just an "iron man" theory. This
means it becomes irrefutable. In Popperian
epistemology such a view cannot be tested
and has no more or less to offer than creationism.
In short, gene centric Neo Darwinism, in its
wisdom, has, misusing the drift argument, reduced
the status of evolutionary theory to non
testable, i.e. puts it on a par with creationism. 
No wonder schools are being requested to teach
"creation science" all over the USA. "What
is good for the goose is also good for the
gander". I cannot imagine how much lower
evolutionary theory could degrade itself..

> BA:-
> Thanks muchly.  This is now making sense.  Is there any quanification (or
> guidelines) of what constitutes a "small population" with regards 
> to genetic
> drift?

JE:-
I would request Brett to think again.

Regards,

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 9/14/04 9:52:45 PM