Guy Hoelzer  wrote 

> >> Finite samples of variable populations, such as all
> >> real populations, tend to have different proportions
> >> than the source population.
> > 
> > Agreed.  (Have I ever disputed this?)
> > 
> >> This is, of course, what we mean by the process of
> >> genetic drift.
> > 
> > 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?)
> 
> As I have written on sbe before (I don't recall which thread) my view on the
> logical relationship between drift and selection has been modified over the
> past few years.  

I've seen it.

While you argue that drift is part of (a subset of?)
> selection, I argue exactly the opposite.  Natural selection is a subset of
> drift.  Therefore, I do not claim that they are mutually exclusive
> processes.  Drift operates all of the time, while selection kicks in
> sporadically (I have always maintained this position).  Natural selection
> occurs only when there is a bias is introduced to the proportional changes
> influenced by the functional relationship between the organism (focusing on
> selection at the organism level) and its environment.
> 
> In other words, "this process" is genetic drift and is not
sufficient to
> describe the process of natural selection.

Aren't you saying, literally, that genetic drift and 
random causation are one and the same?  If this is 
what you are saying then, I'm sure you will agree, 
it is inaccurate to state that genetic drift is 
caused by random caustion because then you will be 
making a self-referential statement.  If this is not 
what you are saying then what empirical (observable) 
criteria would we or could we employ to differentiate 
between genetic drift and random causation?

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 7/29/03 10:56:15 AM