"Stephen Harris"  wrote 

>  SH wrote:
> > > I am not aware of a claim for this "one to one
> > > correspondence", . . .
> >
>  JM wrote:
> > Me neither.
> >
>  SH wrote:
> > > I just doubt that this is claimed by educated proponents
> > > of genetic drift.
> >
> SH: Meaning they do not claim it or assume it.

Good luck proving this.  All you have to do is read 
their words to realize that they did assume it.  Besides 
it doesn't matter what they assumed.  Without one to one 
correspondence genetic drift is dead.

> 
> > I doubt it too, they just assumed it.  (As you've surely noticed.)
> >
> 
> SH wrote:
> No I have not. 

Oh come on.  Have you not an ounce of intellectual honesty?

This is your own assumption of what they think.

> I don't have to assume.  I can read their words.

> That means (they) do not claim or assume 1 to 1 correspondence.

If they don't claim one to one correspondenc then Genetic 
Drift is refuted as a cause separate from NS.  How is this 
not obvious to you.  (I suggest reading back through this 
thread.  Once we established a distinction between chaotic 
causation and chance (which is not causal) this discussion 
was over: genetic drift is a result of the gambler's 
fallacy, nothing more.

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 7/8/03 6:45:44 AM