Jeffrey Turner  wrote 

> > The minimal definition of evolution is "a change in the heritable
> > characteristices of a population over time." This does not require
> > speciation. The change can be due to random genetic drift or natural
> > selection or possibly other mechanisms. All scientists agree that it's
> > possible to have evolution without speciation and without adaptation.
> 
> Yeah, well.  Given that loose a definition, sure it is.  Drift is
> ubiquitous.  It just isn't very important in the real world.  Be glad
> you've got college boards of trustees to pay your salaries.



> > We shouldn't have to be defending random genetic
> > drift against those who would dismiss it as a mechanism of evolution.
> 
> Electrical circuits all have noise, too.  In understanding the
> mechanisms we generally time average measurements so that noise
> doesn't get in the way of our understanding of fundamental
> principles.  Go study your genetic noise, I won't interrupt your
> navel gazing again.
> 
> > Those sorts of things should be moved to talk.origins or some other
> > newsgroup that's intended for people who don't know much about 
> > evolution.
> 
> Zounds, thou hast cut me to the quick.  I know enough about evolution
> to realize that genetic drift doesn't explain anything about it.
> Drift happens, yawn.

Jeffrey, you're a breath of fresh air here in SBE.

Here's another approach you might take in opposition to this
nonsensical supposition that drift represents a form of evolution
distinct from natural selection.  As you know they claim that genetic
drift is the result of random causation.  And if we follow the logic
of this argument that would mean that natural selection must be the
result of nonrandom causation.  Ask them to substantiate this.  You
won't get a response.

Jim
---
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 3/21/04 8:23:09 PM