John Edser  wrote or quoted:
> Tim Tyler  wrote:

> > > 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".

Huh?!?

Evolution is certainly normally defined as I described.

It's been the subject of many experimental tests over the years.

It's not "non refutable".  Rather it's proven beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm afraid that what you are saying makes no sense.

Apparently random processes form the foundation of many scientific laws.

I refer you to the Boyle's law and the theory of ideal gasses - which
are based on the hypothesis that gas molecules interact at random.

What might be "non-refutable" is whether the mutations (or whatever)
are *really* random - but frankly, nobody cares two hoots about that.
-- 
__________
 |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/  tim{at}tt1lock.org  Remove lock to reply.
---
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 9/25/04 9:57:21 PM