"Malcolm"  wrote 

> > NS is not a force, it's a process.
> >
> OK. Strictly we shouldn't say "the forces of evolution" or
"genetic drift
> can be an evolutionary force". These are processes, whilst force requires
> energy acting to move matter in a given direction.
> However natural language does extend the meaning of words.

As I demonstrated it doesn't just, "extend," the 
meaning it introduces a completely different and 
inaccurate meaning.

> >
> > But, to answer your question, I have no trouble at all with the notion
>  that
> > the process of NS eliminated the furry tail allele.
> >
> For NS to eliminate the furry tail allele, the allele has to be selected
> against. If the allele also made the mouse's coat slightly lighter, and this
> made the mouse more conspicuous, causing the hawk to attack it rather than
> its fellow, then this would be a clear case of NS at work.
> 
> However the allele was recessive, and wasn't a contributing factor to the
> hawk's decison to attack the mouse.

Yes, I understood that.

> 
> It may well be that no available genotype (combination of the genes present
> on the island) would have made any difference - the hawk could have caught
> either mouse but not both of them. Thus NS isn't working at all.

Why not? (You are jumping to the conclusion that since 
the incident you describe involves causation that is 
random that, therefore, it is not NS.  You still haven't 
explained why we should assume that NS never involves 
random causation.  

> 
> However what if we accept that the furry tail allele itself isn't
> contributing to the mouse's demise, but the mouse has another allele, maybe
> for short legs, which is making it run slower and thus causing the hawk to
> attack it rather than the other mouse? Now NS is working, on the "short
> legs" allele.
> 
> So has NS eliminated the furry tail allele? No, because genes get shuffled.
> It is pure chance,

Chance isn't causal.

> or caused by biochemical events in meiosis,

Why in the world would you assume that, "biochemical 
events in meiosis," are not part of NS.  (Don't tell 
me, let me guess: because they involve "chance.")

 that the
> furry tail allele ended up in the same body as the short legs allele. NS
> only works if the allele contributes to its own chance of survival.

Where did you get this notion that, "NS only works if 
the allele contributes to its own chance of survival?"  
I'm completely unaware of any rule, law, or principle 
that would allow you to make such a claim.

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 7/22/03 12:08:44 AM