> >>>>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.

> BOH:-
> This is wrong.

JE:-
Dr O'Hara has never understood the experiment
I have proposed (please refer to Dr O'Hara's
entirely confused rely).

Random processes are all, ubiquitous, i.e.
no matter what you do you _cannot_ remove them.
Unless you can remove them you cannot test
"drift as evolution" to refutation. All you
can do is to fail verify it when selection
is removed for a significant period of time
via the experiment I proposed.

> BOH:-
> Here are a few actual examples in the literature where
> people have actually used real data to test whether evolurion could be
> due to drift:
> Fisher, R. A., Ford. E.B., (1947). The spread of a gene in natural
> conditions in a colony of the moth Panaxia dominula L. Heredity 1:143-174.
> Koskinen M.T., Haugen, T.O., Primmer, C.R. (2002).  Contemporary
> fisherian life-history evolution in small salmonid populations.  Nature
> 419: 826-830.
> Manly, B.F.J. (1985).  The Statistics of Natural Selection.  Chapman &
> Hall, London, U.K.
> Mueller, L. D., Wilcox, B. A. , Ehrlich, P. R. , Heckel, D. G. , Murphy,
> D. D. . 1985. A direct assessment of the role of genetic drift in
> determining allele frequency variation in populations of Euphydryas
> editha. Genetics 110: 495-511.
> I've thrown in Manly because he has a re-analysis of the Fisher & Ford
> data, as well as several other tests.  BTW, this list is not complete,
> only a few choice picks from a manuscript of mine.

JE:-
Dr O'Hara has failed to understand the
point of this discussion : TO PROVIDE
POPPERIAN POINTS OF REFUTATION for the
proposed evolutionary process of
drift acting without selection.

NO such points of refutation are
proposed (or can be proposed) in
any of the above. It remains _impossible_
to refute a claim that just a random process
can cause evolution when evolution is defined
as just _any_ gene freq. change in a deme.
This being the case the "drift as evolution"
school has reduced evolutionary theory to
a non testable status on par with "creation
science".


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 9/25/04 9:57:21 PM