Guy Hoelzer  wrote 

Can you please tell us what you think sampling error refers to
> other than chaotic causation?  

I'm assuming from reading this sentence that you equate 
sampling error to chaotic causation.  (Right?)  If this 
is the case then I see an easy solution.  If "sampling 
error," and "chaotic causation," are truly interchangeable, 
as you suggest, you/we should be able to use them 
interchangeably in the argument without any loss of 
meaning.  Try it.  

Beyond that, if this doesn't convince you, I suggest you 
explicate your definition of, "sampling error."  

If you say that it entails something
> metaphysical (spiritualistic in your lexicon), then I think you are
> asserting an interpretation that differs from that of every evolutionary
> biologist, AFAIK.  The standard interpretation of sampling error is entirely
> mechanical.

I suggest you explicate your definition of, "sampling 
error."  See how well it mirrors the definition of 
"chatotic causation," that I delineated in this thread.

> 
> That being said, I like the use of chaotic causation because it provides a
> time-forward emphasis on the process rather than the retrospective emphasis
> of the term sampling error.

You lost me here.  (I think you have to be more precise with
language.)

> 
> >>> How could the mechanism of natural selection
> >>> take action without chaotic causation?
> > 
> > It couldn't, as Darwin described.  (But he employed the
> > word random instead of chaotic.)
> 
> I have read Darwin, as have many others in sbe.  I agree that Darwin
> mentioned random effects on rare occasion,

So what you're saying is that I'm right, but only on rare occasions?  

 but he never attributed an
> important or necessary role to them regarding the process of natural
> selection AFAIK.  

I think you are trying to deny the obvious here.

You have been asked by others to provide a quote
> indicating otherwise, which is something I would like to see.

I'm not really interested in arguing about what somebody else
thought/said.  Tell us what you think and why.



> It is equally nonsense to base an argument on the assertion that natural
> selection exists.

Which I've never done.

Regards,

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 7/10/03 12:38:09 PM