joe{at}removethispart.genetics.washington.edu wrote 

> [McGinn asserted that genetic drift involved a fallacy, the Gambler's
>  Fallacy, and gave a specific web page reference about that fallacy.
> 
> I asked how using the usual genetic drift calculations commits this
> fallacy, and said I thought it did not.   No answer from McGinn,

I did answer.  

 except to say
> that the discussion was about whether genetic drift is
"causal".  So I said:  
> ]
> 
> [JF]
> >> No, the issue I am raising is not whether there is some form of
> >> causation, etc etc etc (which I leave to McGinn to debate with others)
> >
>  [McGinn]
> >Sorry Joe, but I think you're being dishonest here and I'm 
> >not putting up with it.  The subject of this debate will be 
> >obvious to anybody that cares to read up through this 
> >thread.  It is also obvious that you lost the debate.  
> >(And this is hardly the first time.)
> 
> I score these debates differently, but in any case the specific
> question I was raising was how the Gambler's Fallacy was being
> committed by people doing genetic drift calculations.

As I explained about five times now, the fallacious 
part of the Gambler's fallacy, as with the fallacious 
part of Genetic Drift, involves conclusions/assumptions 
about its causal validity based on the employment of 
statistics.  

> 
> >>  [McGinn]
> >> >Well, I won't pretend to speak for you, but this was 
> >> >the subject I was discussing.  (Uh, so.  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.])
> >> 
>  [JF]
> >> Yup, not ever, because I don't care and leave that issue to others.
> >
>  [McGinn]
> >I disagree.  You entered the discussion.  You lost.  And 
> >now you're trying to save face by pretending that you 
> >were discussing something other than the subject that 
> >was actually under discussion.  
> 
> Still waiting for McGinn to provide any evidence about his assertion
> of a Gamblers' Fallacy in genetic drift calculations.  A simple
> "I guess I was wrong about that" from him would settle the matter.

If you can point out where I ever made any such claim 
I'll be glad to retract it.  (But I know I never made 
any such claim.)

> Or an explanation.  Instead we get triumphalist patting of himself on
> the back, and nice evaluations of others' scientific abilities, such as:
> 
> >Ya know, Joe, when it comes to science you're one hell 
> >of a good politician.

I'm incredulous to your claim that you have no interest 
in the issue of whether or not genetic drift is causal?  
It'd be like being an auto mechanic and not having an 
opinion as to whether water was a good substitute for 
gasoline.  

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 3:36:19 PM