[AndrewC]

I was merely pointing out that you did not state jennyp's argument correctly. You still fail to do so. I made no comment about the correctness of jennyp's argument (it is correct, however.) I was only commenting on your misrepresentation.

I didn't represent it exactly. That is obvious. I gave my interpretation of what I saw as an implication and that was to Vade. Now where would I get the impression that if a neutral gene was not eliminated it would have to be fixed? Could it be that I read a link that Vade posted that made the following statements?

Drift is thus like a genetic fly paper. The walls are loss and fixation, and sooner or later (depending on the population size), the fly (allele frequency) will hit a wall and be "stuck". These properties of genetic drift have been demonstrated empirically many times but they also are easy to see in computer simulations. .

Now given the choices as outlined in Vade's link, if extinction(loss) is rejected, what remains?

P.S. The link is in post 1642.

[Doctor Stochastic]

You continue to bring in irrelevant comments. You stated jennyp's result incorrectly. That's the point I was making. If you misstate one person's result, why should I pay any attention to other comments of yours?