"Stephen Harris"  wrote 

> > Can we assume a one to one correspondence between
> > this chaotic causation and these unpredicted/unpredictable 
> > changes in a population's genes over time?  No way!



> I am not aware of a claim for this "one to one 
> correspondence", . . .

Me neither.

> > I can see how the gambler's fallacy might apply if 
> > a one to one correspondence is claimed.

I don't think anybody ever bothered to think about it before 
(as with many aspects of the neoDarwinistic paradigm).  

> I just doubt that this is claimed by educated proponents 
> of genetic drift.

I doubt it too, they just assumed it.  (As you've surely noticed.)



>  . . . there is no 1 to 1 correspondence.

I agree.  "Game Over" for genetic drift.

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 7/5/03 7:00:19 PM