EO>>What is being questioned by the atheists is not evolution, per se, but the
>>classical "time + random chance" formulation. Because of a lot of the
>>problems that I am pestering Glenn with (and are acknowledged in the
>>literature), there simply doesn't appear to be enough time and/or favorable
>>conditions for evolution to occur by random chance.
BH>Creationists have claimed that evolutionists teach "time + random chance,"
>but I'm not sure the creationists and the evolutionists agree on the role
>of random chance. I think most evolutioists would agree that random
>processes generate variation in the gene pool, But they are quick to point
>out that envirinmental factors then select from those random variations the
>variations that have survival value. Dan Ashlock, one of the evolutionist
>regulars on t.o. once said something like, "evolution isn't random at all.
>The unfit individuals get killed."
Bill,
The phrase "time + chance" probably is a little crude and doesn't accurately
reflect what I meant. Let me use an anology.
Imagine a flat table top that is pockmarked with depressions. Some of the
depressions are very shallow, some are deep, etc. We put a few golf balls
on this surface and shake the table a little so they will roll randomly roll
around the table. Very quickly, all of them will fall into a depression,
some of them in shallow ones (that they can easily pop out of), others in
deeper ones. If we continue shaking the table, eventually (if given an
infinite amount of time) all of them will wind up in the deepest holes. But
it may take a long time for all of them to reach the deepest holes because
some will get caught in moderately deep local minima and get stuck for a
long time. Also, up on the table top surface, it is a random walk process
to get to the deep holes. There is nothing driving them in the direction of
the deep holes; it is just an accidental trip across the surface until they
fall into a well they can't get out of. That is my picture of the
evolutionary theory that was taught in an Honors Seminar in biology as an
undergraduate or when I read something from 20-30 years ago. The shaking of
the table is the random genetic variation and the deep holes are the
environmental factors that select for stable, successful configurations.
Now, put the table at a 45 degree angle, start the golfballs at the top and
let's say the deepest holes are at the bottom. The balls reach the deep
holes much faster because there is a driving force pushing them there. When
they hop out of the shallow minima, they aren't free to wander in any random
direction, they are pulled by gravity in the direction of the deepest holes.
That is the picture I get from people presenting the evolutionary theory
today. I don't know if the tabletop was completely flat in the past, but it
seems to me people are raising the slope to get rapid evolution.
Perhaps my impression is just a result of my shallowness of education in
biology or the bias on the part of my undergraduate professor, but it seems
to me there has been a real change over the years. And, I think the
"slanted table top" view is obviously a superior model and may turn out to
be the correct one. But from what I've read in the area of chemical
evolution (which I'll admit is not super-current), the "flat table top" is
on the way out.
__________________________________________________________
"Looking back, there's a thread of love and grace
Connecting each line and space I've known" -David Meece
==========================================================
Eddie Gene Olmstead, Jr. Chemistry Department
Asst. Professor of Chemistry Gordon College
Email: olmstead@gordonc.edu 255 Grapevine Road
Phone: (508) 927-2300 Ext. 4393 Wenham, MA 01984