"Jim McGinn"  wrote in message
> "Malcolm"  wrote
>
> > How am I committing either of these fallacies?
>
> See the first post in this thread.
>
You wrote:

If we can't assume this one to one correspondence [between
this chaotic causation and these unpredicted/unpredictable changes
in a population's genes over time], why have
neoDarwinists surrendered themselves to the assumption that these
(universally observed) unpredicted/unpredictable fluctuations in
populations' genes are fully attributable to chaotic causation
from the environment?  Two reasons:
1) They failed to distinguish between the causative effects of
chaotic phenomena (chaotic causation from environmental factors,
what Darwin described as randomness and explicitly included in
his description of NS) and "chance," which is not causative.
2) The gambler's fallacy: a psychological phenomena that can only
take place if chance is assumed (see 1 above) to be causative.
---
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 8/6/03 6:28:16 AM