On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 01:58:42 +0000 (UTC), "John Edser"
 wrote:


>RN has yet to fully respond to the illustration
>I provided of one selective event where
>implicitly, Darwin simply compared the
>total number of fertile forms reproduced
>within one population by each parent.

Larry Moran has a very nice response to you dated 3/29 which is far
better than anything I could report.

I will not comment on your unusual interpretation of the role of
genetic drift and of the usage of the term 'expected value' in
referring to random processes. Instead, I will merely let people read
what you have said on the issue and decide for themselves.
Incidentally, what Darwin did or did not do on the notion of fitness
has immense historical value in studying the history of science.  You
might want to consider, though, that the field of evolutionary biology
has changed a bit in the last 150 years.

I participate in about a dozen news groups, about evenly divided
between computer programming and science.  Your method of initialing
entries by author may have been suggested at one time, but is most
definitely not the standard used anywhere else.  Nor is it the
standard used here.  Still, it is the content, not the style, that is
important. I will not adhere to your convention nor will I ask you to
adhere to the convention used virtually everywhere else in
newsgroupland.
---
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 3/30/04 6:50:47 AM