"Stephen Harris"  wrote 

> I am also curious about how the gambler's fallacy is committed.
> AFAIK, genetic drift is a predominantly random process and
> relies on a probabilistic foundation?

Here we are, discussing whether or not genetic drift 
exist as anything more than a logical fallacy, and you 
start your argument with the phrase, " . . . genetic 
drift is . . .".  

> I can't find consistency in his attribution/accusation that genetic
> drift is not describing random events in the genetic drift process.

I never made any such attribution/accusation.  And the 
inconsistency you percieve has to do with your 
psychological inability--plainly apparent here (read 
what you wrote, read it slowly, deliberately)--to 
differentiate between randomness and chance.  Note how 
your inability to differentiate between these two 
different concepts causes you to assume that I've made 
claims that I haven't.

> I suppose he must be assuming that the random events are indeed
> not random so that they have a predictable outcome. 

Here, once again, you are employing randomness (lack of 
symmetry) and chance (lack of predictability) 
interchangeably.  It's as if you don't have the mental 
capacity/predisposition to make and hold this distinction.

> Perhaps there is an assumption that evolution is causally
> deterministic 

An assumption in all of science is that cause precedes 
effect and vice versa.  Determinism is a philosophy.  
It has no bearing on any of this.

so that there is no such thing as randomness
> or chance, exept as a "lack of knowlege"  

This is surreal.  Note how, once again, you are employing 
chance and randomness interchangeably.  

> and that everything
> can be described in terms of natural selection because NS
> is basically a deterministic description. But then there is  evidence
> that randomness as "lack of knowledge" is frowned upon approach.

Frowned upon approach?  Randmoness involves a lack of 
symmetry of phenomena.  It has nothing WHATSOEVER to 
do with "lack of knowledge."  I've explained this to 
you about seven times now and you still can't get it 
straight in your head.  

> Perhaps there once was a bloke sucked into the psychological
> blackhole of  gambler's fallacy whose thinking now serves as a warning
> about the delusional consequences of vagueness and inconsistency
> epitomized in projections of dodging dire reality who is now destitute.

Perhaps every bloke on this planet is like this.  IOW, 
perhaps humans naturally tend to mistakenly employ chance 
(probability) and randomness (lack of symmetry over space 
and time) interchangeably?  Perhaps this is the whole 
reason people BELIEVE this notion that GD represents a 
form of evolutionary causation separate from NS.  Has this 
never occurred to you?  Perhaps unless a person makes a 
concerted mental effort to differentiate between these two 
very different meanings ([1]lack of symmetry and [2] lack 
of knowledge of arrangement) they will keep falling back 
into the same fallacy over and over and over and over and 
over and over and over again.  Let's take yourself for 
example, I've implored upon you for two weeks to not employ 
chance and randomness interchangeably in this discussion 
and--as your words above demonstrate--it just goes in one 
ear and out the other.  

Perhaps you have to start being honest with yourself about 
the fact that if you were to prevent yourself from employing 
these two diffferent concepts interchangeably that you would 
no longer have an argument at all.  Perhaps you should be more 
careful to not make this mistake over and over and over and 
over and over and over again with every post you put forth on 
this topic.

Try it.

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 7/21/03 1:33:20 PM