dopey  wrote 

> > > > > [moderator's query: Jim, are you arguing that
production of offspring
> > > > > does NOT in any way constitute sampling of P1 DNA? - JAH]
> > > 
> > > I won't equivocate: yes, they are replications thereof, not samples.
> > > 
> > > [moderator's note: I will have to fire up a newsreader to post
> > > a response to this; it is clearly wrong. After all, 50% of
> > > parental DNA does not make it into the zygote every single
> > > time; how is this NOT sampling? 
> > 
> > Let's start with a definition of, "sample."
> 
> A non-zero set of individual elements taken from a collection of such
> elements. A "sample" may be "exhaustive" if it
includes every member of
> the original collection; otherwise, it is a "partial" sample.




> 
> In this sense, the genes possessed by, say, the F1 generation,
> represent a partial sample of the genes possessed by the P1 generation.
> Do you disagree with this characterization, and if so, why? Do you
> disagree with the definition, and if so, why, and howzabout you offer
> an alternative definition if so?
> 
> > 
> > > Are you confused about the 
> > > nature of diploid organisms with haploid gametes? 
> > 
> > Like you say, "50% of parental DNA does not make it into the 
> > zygote every single time."  So I don't think I'm confused.  
> > 
> > Maybe, before we continue this investigation, we should take 
> > measures to avoid the potential confusion associated with the 
> > relatively sophisticated nature of sexual reproduction.  Maybe 
> > we should stick with single-celled, nonsexual reproduction for 
> > our example.  It shouldn't matter, should it?
> > 
> > Jim
> 
> I think this is a bad idea, probably, because drift can be expected to
> move more rapidly in organisms with sex -- that is opposed to your
> proposal, where "offspring" are, absent mutation, completely identical
> to "parents". And mutation and drift are, of course, different things.
> But clearly, recombination is at the heart of drift, and leaving it out
> sort of begs the question, doesn't it?


I went to dictionary.com and got the following:

Sample:
Statistics. A set of elements drawn from and analyzed 
to estimate the characteristics of a population. Also 
called sampling. 

For me it just doesn't seem to fit.  Firstly, the genes 
in the offspring aren't "drawn" from the parent, they're 
copied.  Secondly, the purpose of the genes copied from 
the parent have nothing to do with estimating a 
population.  Thirdly its bit of a stretch, at best, to 
refer to the genes in the parent as a population.  So 
in my mind it's a bad analogy, at best and the analogy 
becomes worse still when you refer to differences in 
the genes of the offspring from those of the parent as 
"sampling error".  (And even if we overlook all of these 
conceptual shortcomings it's still plainly fallacious 
to refer to sampling error as causal.)

Regards,

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 8/8/03 3:15:18 PM