Tim Tyler  wrote:

> > > TT:_
> > > It sounds as though we all agree that drift has specific
> > > effects on the population.  
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > TT:-
> > > It acts to cause undirected -
> > > and most likely in the long term deleterious - changes in
> > > the population.

> > JE:-
> > Therefore, I  see no _rational_ argument that
> > can allow drift, which can only "cause undirected -
> > and most likely in the long term deleterious - 
> > changes in the population" to cause evolution, yet
> > this remains the Neo Darwinistic position in 2004.

> TT:-
> That's a simple matter of definitions:
> Evolution is normally *defined* to be genetic change
> in a population.
> *Even* deleterious changes fit into that definition.

JE:-
Drift is just a defined random 
process of sampling error.
All random processes remain ubiquitous.
Therefore, if you define any gene freq.
changes via genetic drift as "evolution"
and not as strictly "temporal variation" the 
theory of evolution becomes a non refutable.
You end up reducing evolutionary theory
to just a non scientific "iron man" proposition
on par with so called "creation science".

The best you can do to test "drift as evolution" 
is via  a non verification of evolution by genetic
drift using the experiment I have
described. It remains impossible
to refute "drift as evolution". 

It does not matter if variation
cannot be tested to refutation
because nobody is suggesting that
variation can evolve a man and a 
chimp from a common ancestor, they
are suggesting that such an event
happened via natural selection acting
on ubiquitous forms of heritable
variation. The experiment I have
provided does allow Darwinian selection
to be tested to refutation providing
a testable maximand for evolutionary
theory.
 

> TT 
> You might have your own definition of evolution -
> but with the /conventional/ definition there can be
> no doubt that random changes due to forces such as
> cosmic rays can reach fixation in small populations
> (i.e. genetic drift) and can cause genetic change
> in the population - and thus evolution.

JE:-
This "conventional" definition of evolution
only constitutes a misused gene centric
model. It dates all the way back to Muller et al
who argued that mutation could replace selection.
It took many years for the falsity of this claim
to be realised. Quite clearly, mutation,
random variation (either temporal or non
temporal) cannot provide evolution without
selection. Also, very clearly, selection
without temporal variation can provide evolution. 
What is the point of reducing evolutionary
theory to just a non testable status
by defining a random process as causative
to evolutionary change when such a definition
remains entirely unnecessary?

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 9/23/04 4:56:08 PM