Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site watcgl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!watcgl!drforsey From: drforsey@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Forsey) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Evolution vs. Creation Message-ID: <607@watcgl.UUCP> Date: Sat, 23-Jul-83 18:16:10 EDT Article-I.D.: watcgl.607 Posted: Sat Jul 23 18:16:10 1983 Date-Received: Sun, 24-Jul-83 02:51:22 EDT References: <789@utcsstat.UUCP>, <506@ulysses.UUCP> Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 26 smb@ulysses' analogy is somewhat misleading. If the environment was indeed like a flat surface, no variation, no changes then evolution could not occur. Lets extend the analogy to a flat surface with a triangular depression in the middle. Fling the balls randomly across the table and then jiggle the whole thing for a while. In a completely random system, with completely random perturbations try to *not* end up with all the balls sitting in the hole. The flat surface analogy is an excellent example of how the 'randomness' of evolution is missconstrued by so many. Randomness of this type is about a big a rebuttal of evolution as it would be a rebuttal to the processes involved in a chemical reaction. Just because the motions of the atoms themselves are random, it does not mean that the process itself is random. Dave Forsey Computer Graphics Laboratory University of Waterloo Waterloo Canada.