ragland37{at}webtv.net (Michael Ragland) wrote 

> You write, "What about it, 
> Joe? Do you still maintain that genetic drift is causal? [For what it's
> worth, I'm under no illusion that I will actually get an answer to this
> question. Not now. Not ever]." Felsenstein replies, "Yup, not ever,
> because I don't care and leave that issue to others. I have not (ever)
> entered that discussion and won't now." 
> 
> In what appears to be an effort to discredit Professor Felsenstein's
> response

I would characterize his response as dismissive.

> you locate several academic abstracts of his and state, "I
> inferred from the comments below (I capitalized the specific phrases)
> that you consider genetic drift to be a form of evolutionary causation
> distinct from natural selection. Am I misreading you? (For example,
> maybe you don't intend these comments as indicating causation distinct
> from NS.) Or has your position shifted in which case you'd like to
> retract these comments? 
> 
> You stated genetic drift calculations were based on the Gambler's
> Fallacy. 

Show me where I stated genetic drift calculations 
were based on the Gambler's Fallacy.  (Note: the 
Gambler's fallacy has nothing to do with the 
accuracy of any calculations involved.  It has to 
do with conclusions/assumptions based on the 
employment of statistics.)

> This is what Professor Felsenstein was addressing. He wasn't
> addressing whether genetic drift is causal or not. 

Well then, as far as I'm concerned, it is his fault 
for not reading my post carefully. (And yours as well.)

> Now perhaps to you
> Mr. McGinn your assertion genetic drift calculations are based on the
> Gambler's Fallacy is equivalent to asking whether genetic drift is
> causal or not. It is not. Professor Felsenstein asks, "So where is
> there, in the calculations, an invalid assumption of independence that
> makes the calculations incorrect enough to worry about? 

I ignored this questions because I never made any claims 
that the calculations were invalid.  In fact the accuracy 
of the calculations has nothing whatsoever to do with the 
issue.  Moreover I pointed this out to you in my response 
to your last post (but maybe you haven't see it yet) and 
if you look back up through the thread you'll see that 
this wasn't the first time I pointed this out.  



> In regards to whether genetic drift is causal Professor Felsenstein
> states, "I don't care and leave that issue to others. I have not (ever)
> entered that discussion and won't now." In the context of s.b.e. I think
> perhaps it is accurate Professor Felsenstein doesn't care, leaves that
> issue to others, and hasn't entered that discussion. I didn't see any
> archived posts McGinn found where Professor Felsenstein discussed
> whether genetic drift was causal or not.

Just as it's not necessary for a clergyman to 
specifically discuss whether or not, for example, 
he believes in the power of prayer in order for one 
to infer his position, it's not necessary for Joe 
to specifically discuss whether or not he believes 
GD is causal for us to infer his position on this 
issue.  Clearly and indisputably Joe's words, in 
the passages I quoted, indicate a belief in GD 
being causal.  I'm just trying to determine whether 
or not, and to what degree, he stands by these words 
or if he'd like to retract them.  He's perfectly 
within his rights to refuse to discuss the matter 
if he chooses.  But I think I'm perfectly within my 
rights to point out that, from what I've seen, he 
has already taken a position.

> 
> Since Professor Felsenstein is a population geneticist and teacher it is
> disingenous to think he would not discuss genetic drift. 

You said it, not me.

> Any population
> geneticist who teaches at a university discusses it. Mr. Moran wrote an
> article for talk.origins on it. In fact, Mr. McGinn, most biologists
> acknowledge random genetic drift as a different (but sometimes
> interrelated) evolutionary force besides natural selection.

Uh, yes.  This was the issue I was addressing.

> There is a difference in teaching genetic drift and drift calculations
> and engaging in a philosophical debate whether genetic drift is causal
> or not.  

It's not a philosophical debate.  It's a debate about 
a theme central to science, how we characterize cause 
and effect.  That yourself and Joe may wish to dismiss 
it as philosophical is, IMO, a big mistake.  
Nevertheless I believe you are both well within your 
rights to assume what you wish.  (BTW, I'm not inferring 
that he's derelict of duty because of his reluctance to 
discuss the issue of whether GD is causal.)

> 
> Personally, I think randomness is an element in the universe. Professor
> Felsenstein comments,
> "It is very apparent that these birth, death, and segregation events are
> closely enough modeled by random occurrences that this is a highly
> useful description."

Again, I wasn't debating its usefulness.  If you can 
be so kind as to point out where it is that I 
supposedly idicated otherwise I will do my best to 
correct/retract these words.



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 7/2/03 6:31:52 AM