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.