"Anon."  wrote 

> >>>>>Now explain how this is, supposedly, distinct from
> >>>>>the process of NS.  (Or are you arguing that since you
> >>>>>mean it to be GD that, therefore, it's not NS?)
> >>>>
> >>>>With drift, the expectation of the frequency is equal
to the current
> >>>>frequency.  
> >>>
> >>>Why do you assume this?
> >>
> >>That's the definition - I suppose I should call it "pure
drift".
> > 
> > So you are not saying this is the way it is, you're 
> > saying this is the way it's been defined.  Right?
> > 
> Yes, as we're talking about the theory.  I believe that this theory 
> provides a good model of what happens in the real world, but I'm not 
> going to confuse a theory with the real world.

Good, then GD, by your own admission, is a theoretical construct that
does nor represent the real world.  This is exactly my point.

> 
> > 
> >>>In less technical terms, this mens that if you had a large
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>(=infinite) number of identical populations, each one
with an allele at
> >>>>frequency p, then in later generations, they would all
have different
> >>>>frequencies of the allele (due to drift), but the mean of the
> >>>>frequencies would be p.
> >>>>
> >>>>If you have selection, then the mean of the
frequencies would not be
> >>>>equal to p.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Why do you assume this?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Well, that's the definition of selection in a stochastic system.
> > 
> > 
> > So you are not saying this is the way it is, you're 
> > saying this is the way it's been defined.  Right?
> > 
> I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.

And I will do the same.

> 
> > 
> >>>>Oh, and if we know enough about the properties of the
populations, then
> >>>>we can calculate the variance in the frequencies too.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Doesn't variance *really* apply to samples?  (ie. smaller
samples have
> >>>higher degrees of variance.)  Are these *really* samples? 
Think about
> >>>it.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Are what really samples?
> > 
> > 
> > The "later generations," that you indicate above.
> > 
> In that case, yes, they are samples.  The process of passing on genes is 
> a sampling process, as Mendel found out.

Maybe you are again saying that you are defining it as a sample and
that the fact that it is not a sample in reality has to do with your
proposition that the current paradigm is a theoretical construct that
does nor represent the real world.

[moderator's query: Jim, are you arguing that production of offspring
does NOT in any way constitute sampling of P1 DNA? - JAH]

I think we're actually making some progress.

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 8/3/03 8:55:38 PM