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

> I've been following the interchange between Jim McGinn and Professor
> Felsenstein and I have to say Professor Felsenstein's comments and
> points are sound. He writes, "He [McGinn] acknowledges that the
> calculations are useful,

That's right, I don't dispute the supposition that 
one can employ statistics to study evolution to some 
useful end.  I've never disputed this supposition, 
and never will.

> says they are fallacious,

I never said the calculations are fallacious.  (You 
seem to have trouble with basic facts.)

> and changes the subject back to whether drift 
> "is causal".

If and when you actually read the thread you'll see that 
whether or not drift "is causal" always was the subject, 
right from the outset.  (Why don't you actually reread the 
thread instead of drawing off vague impressions of 
something you obviously didn't understand, assuming 
you read it at all.)


Below are my first words in entering this thread:

**************(begin cut and paste)******************

> M.R.
> This article on genetic drift raised more questions than it answered.

J.M.
Unfortunately the concept of genetic drift, in and of itself, 
does nothing more than raise unanswerable questions:

It's silly to suggest that "chance" can be causal.  For example, 
you can employ statistics to better predict when a baseball player 
will hit a home run.  But does chance hit the ball over the fence?  
No, the baseball player does.  Check out this link:

http://www.coastalfog.net/buddhism/causeandeffect2.html

***************(end cut and paste)*******************

> It doesn't seem logical for McGinn to claim the 
> calculations are fallacious and then acknowledge
> their usefulness.

I agree.  It isn't logical.  Thus the reason I never made 
any such claim.  (How is it not obvious that Joe brought 
this subject up after it was apparent that he'd lost the 
argument?  You are swallowing it hook, line, and sinker.)

> McGinn seems to erroneously think whether genetic
> drift is "causal" or not has some bearing on whether genetic drift
> calculations are fallacious. 

I think you need to read the thread again.  You've completely 
fictionalized it.  (Also, your journalistic skills are 
atrocious.  Why are you arguing from the standpoint of what I, 
"seem to erroneously think?"  Why don't you actually quote my 
words, like I just did yours?)

> He asks Professor Felsenstein whether
> genetic drift is causal or not and Felsenstein declines 
> to answer that,

You're so simpleminded you didn't realize that this was a big 
victory in my part.  I've been trying for quite some time now 
to get these elusive neoDarwinists to come clean on this issue.  
Joe was unable to dispute my assertion that the widespread 
belief in genetic drift being causal pivots off nothing more 
than a mistaken understanding of statistics, the gambler's 
fallacy.  This is what took place.

Why are you not writing a post asking Joe why he suddenly 
lost interest in this question?  Do you believe his 
explanation?  Why do you think he declined to go into detail 
as to why he suddenly lost interest?  
Was he disinterested in this question before he realized 
that he had mistakenly assumed I was talking about the 
first of the two versions of gambler's fallacy (see link 
below) when I was actually talking about the second?  No.
(Did you yourself look at that website?  Obviously not. 
Or, if you did, you didn't understand it.)  More to the point, 
why did he suddenly lose interest only after he had correctly 
surmised the gravity of my argument and not before?  Because, 
unlike yourself, he realized the game was over.  He only had 
two options left.  Admit that he was mistaken or employ 
political tactics to pretend that he wasn't interested in 
this issue.

Felsentein only discusses subjects when he can preserve the 
illusion that he knows what he's talking about.  

**************(begin cut and paste)******************

J.M.
It seems there are two types of gambler's fallacy, as described 
on the following webpage:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/gamblers-fallacy.html

I think the one associated with genetic drift is the second of 
the two on this page. 

***************(end cut and paste)*******************



> Will we ever get McGinn to back up his statement?"

What statement?  (Why don't you quote me?)



> This is perplexing as random genetic drift truly exists

Creationists tend to start arguments from the assumptions 
that God exists.  

>  Evolution can be 
> thought of as a change in allele frequency,

I can think of my car as an airplane, but this doesn't 
mean it will fly.

> and finite population size alone ensures that evolution will
> occur through sampling error. If you want to consider this a
"cause" of
> random genetic drift then be my guest. 

This is surreal.  Now you've, somehow, managed to put 
me on the other side of the issue.  I'm the one saying 
it is inappropriate to consider this causal.



> So, I have a question. If natural selection and random genetic drift are
> the main forces of evolution but aren't working as strongly or
> effectively as they did in our evolutionary past, should we continue to
> consider them the main forces in our evolution?

I think this last statement demonstrates that if 
you believe in genetic drift you'll believe in anything.

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 6/30/03 1:37:27 PM