"Malcolm"  wrote in message
news:...
> "Jim McGinn"  wrote in message
> > >
> > You lost me.
> >
> I gave an example of a mouse with a recessive allele for a furry tail being
> lost when it was eaten by a hawk. I said that "we say chance (meaning
> genetic drift) has eliminated the furry tail allele. You said "I would say
> that Natural Selection has eliminated the allele".

Okay.  I'm with you so far.

> After some discussion, I wondered if you were defining "Natural
Selection"
> differently, so I asked you the question about beans being selected a) by a
> scoop and b) by a sieve. You replied that neither of these cases
> approximated to Natural Selection.

Right.  They are analogies.  (IMO, NS is something that 
does'nt become clear through analogy, it becomes more 
vague and more confusing.)

> Since I would regard the sieve example as a case of natural selection, and
> the scoop selection as something excluded, this was somewhat bewildering,
> since you are using a broad definition of NS to include a mouse being eaten
> by a hawk, but not beans falling out of a sieve.

I've been expecting you to develop your "bean falling 
out of a sieve" argument.  And, supposedly, you were 
going to clarify your position on caustion.  Now it 
seems like you're backtracking and I don't know why.

> >
> > Wrong version of gambler's fallacy.  Do some research.
> >
> I appreciate you don't want to repost the same stuff over again. However
> what i have described is the normal meaning of "gambler's fallacy".

It's not the one I referred to.  (You're not the first 
to make this error.)

> > > >
> > > > Who decides what characteristics are heritable?
> > > >
> > > It's a bit technical, and there are some difficulties,
particularly with
> > > human populations. Basically there needs to be genetic variation
> > > within the population, and the genes must contribute significantly to
> > > the variation seen in the phenotype. Then you have a heritable trait.
> >
> > It's a prediction based on incomplete knowledge, right?
> >
> The definition is heritability = variation in genotype / variation in
> phenotype.
> 
> varaition in phenotype is variation in genotype + variation due to
> environment.
> 
> The problem is that it is often difficult to measure, particulerly in
> humans, because the environment is partly inherited. It can be used quite
> successfully to predict how well stock will respond to breeding programs.
> However it gets very controversial when you try to measure the heritibility
> of something like "intelligence" or "aggression" in humans.

I'm sorry, but I'm lost again.  Are you equating 
phenotypic variation to genetic drift?

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 7/31/03 8:39:49 PM