joe{at}removethispart.gs.washington.edu wrote 

> >Genetic drift is nothing but a more complex and, therefore, more 
> >conceptually intractable version of the gambler's fallacy.  
> >
> >You could also do search in google using: Gambler's fallacy 
> >
> >It seems there are two types of gambler's fallacy, as described 
> >on the following webpage:
> >
> >http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/gamblers-fallacy.html
> >
> >I think the one associated with genetic drift is the second of 
> >the two on this page. 
> 
> I went there and saw a page on the common fallacious belief that
> having got some heads, tails are "due".  This has nothing whatsoever
> to do with genetic drift calculations,

I agree.  But this wasn't the issue I raised.  I suggest reading my
post again.

 which do not commit this
> fallacy.  They use binomial distributions in the ordinary, correct, way.

Not the issue.  Read it again.

> Genetic drift is a consequence of the fact that each generation
> starts from the results of the previous, and in fact assumes that the
> Gambler's Fallacy does not occur.

Nobody that falls for a fallacy does so purposively.  That they assume
they are not being fallacious is as much a part of the problem as is
the problem itself.

  Having drifted up, we have no tendency to
> drift on average downward in the next generation.  No Gambler's Fallacy here.
> The opposite, in fact.
> 
> Most of the rest of McGinn's objection is that he doesn't like any
> theory in science that has randomness in it:

I have no problem with randomness in science.

> 
> >Unfortunately the concept of genetic drift, in and of itself, 
> >does nothing more than raise unanswerable questions:
> >
> >It's silly to suggest that "chance" can be causal.  For example, 
> >you can employ statistics to better predict when a baseball player 
> >will hit a home run.  But does chance hit the ball over the fence?  
> >No, the baseball player does.
> 
> In which case, what does he say about Brownian motion or
> Mendelian segregation?  Thermal noise?  I can't recall
> McGinn ever disputing these, but he should, if that is his position.

I can't find the logic in this question.  What am I supposed to
dispute about these phenomena?  (BTW, chance is not a phenomena.  Only
phenomena, entities, are causal.)

Ji--
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 6/18/03 3:03:00 PM