Steve Schaffner  wrote in message
news:...
> jimmcginn{at}yahoo.com (Jim McGinn) writes:
> 
> > Steve Schaffner  wrote 
> > 
> > > I don't get it.  Why is it incorrect to say that genetic 
> > > drift is a cause of speciation?  
> > 
> > Because, as I indicated, it is neither a causal entity or a 
> > causal process.  It (genetic drift) is nothing but an 
> > observation.  And this is all it is.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > Drift may need to be combined with another process, like 
> > > geographic separation,
> > 
> > Geographic separation is not a process.  It is a circumstance.
> 
> "Separation" means both the state of being separated and the process
> of becoming separated.
> 
> > > in order to cause speciation, but under the right 
> > > circumstances it certainly can do so.
> > 
> > I think you are exemplifying the problem here.  The issue 
> > here is whether or not it is correct to refer to genetic 
> > drift as either a cause or a causal process in any way 
> > whatsoever.  
> 
> That's your issue.  I was asking about r norman's dismissal of drift
> as a cause of speciation, which interested me.  Your issue doesn't 
> interest me at all.

I'm interested in truth, accuracy, and I'm not afraid of getting
rigorous to achieve it.  Where did you lose interest?  Truth? 
Accuracy?  Rigor?

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 3/15/03 1:02:46 PM