Instead of an update, I want to specifically point readers to Evolgen's extended post on the nearly neutral theory. He takes my 10 yard pass on genetic drift and jukes and jives all the way to the end zone (with a good block from John Hawks). The take home message is that science is about successively more accurate approximations of nature, with the caveat that in probabilistic field like much of genetics the "answer" is the
most likely explanation (expectation), around which there will be exceptions to the rule galore (variance)
. Chad's initial post seems to have been a little epidemic in this corner of SB, let's see if it abates now....
