Originally posted by lee_merrill
View Post
But let's step back and look at the larger situation, shall we? You've been arguing for pages that a random walk is a good model for genetic drift. The ONLY reason you have given for that to be the case is that you think so. When asked for supporting evidence, all you've been able to do is share the results of google searches for "random walk + drift". You don't even bother - or are completely incapable - of trying to understand whether they're relevant to the issue you're trying to argue.
What does that leave us with? You either know what these citations say, and are incredibly dishonest - just hoping that nobody will notice the fact that you're throwing irrelevancies out in the hope it'll look like you have an argument. Or you have insufficient knowledge of biology to know that what you're putting out is irrelevant.
Which is it?
I'm not going to participate in this conversation further until you answer that question.
Comment