John Edser  wrote or quoted:
> 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.

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.

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.
-- 
__________
 |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 9/20/04 9:55:26 PM