Ron Okimoto  wrote 

> > It's a subset, not a sample.  Regardless of what label 
> > we put on it, it is not causal.
> 
> It is a sample.  If you took the parents and were able to 
> produce a second set of offspring you would get another 
> sample.  If you took another set of parents with the same 
> allele frequencies and produced another set of progeny 
> that would be another sample and "causal" doesn't seem to
> have anything to do with interpretation of whether it is 
> a sample or not.

Samples are a means of measuring a population.  Right?  
This is my understanding.  How in the world you get sample 
from a replication process, which as nothing to do with 
measuring a population and, frankly, has nothing to do with 
measurment of any kind is something I'll leave you to ponder.  
Nevertheless, I agree, as you seem to indicate above, that 
this has nothing to do with causation.  As a matter of fact 
this, assuming I'm interpreting you correctly, is my point.

> > > It is like pulling potential progeny out of a pot, but 
> > > they are just being hatched or born.  I don't see the 
> > > relevance of your beef here.  What does this have to 
> > > do with your problem with genetic drift.
> >
> > Please be more specific and explicit.

> Beats me you seem to be harping about patterns in later 
> posts and none of your quotes talk about patterns.

?

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 7/25/03 8:39:22 PM