"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.


Going back to your scoops analogy, would you agree that the scoop is
what physically selected the beans.  The physical cause was the scoop.
 The physical cause was not, "chance."  Do you agree?

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 8/6/03 3:08:44 PM