>>>Chris Cogan: ...
Nevertheless, I thought I'd remove any potential excuse for such "mistakes"
by listing and describing six ways in which the evolutionary process is *not*
random, and by carefully specifying the respect and sense in which it *is*
supposed to be random or a chance process.
*******************************************
DNAunion: And I would like to point out reasons that evolution IS
random/chance. Note as we go along, that several of your premises contradict
what mainstream evolutionists say.
Of course, as with many of my other long posts, this comes from my personal
notes, and the conversion of double-quotes and ellipses and other symbols
will not be complete: I tried to find them all and retype them, but I
probably missed some. From my personal notes:
I have often been "chastised" for mentioning probability in relation to
evolution (or abiogenesis). Those who oppose such a notion state that
natural selection is the primary force, and considerations of chance can
basically be disregarded as chance's/randomness's contributions to evolution
are trivial. Their views are echoed by one of the most strident
anti-Creationist and anti-ID scientists: Richard Dawkins.
"According to Dawkins ([The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton,] 1987, p. 49),
"Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe, but the most important
ingredient is cumulative selection which is quintessentially nonrandom.""
(The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities,
William A. Dembski, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p58)
But Darwinian evolution involves two primary mechanisms - mutation and
selection. How does chance affect these?
Genetic mutations occur by chance - evolution has no foresight: it does not
preselect which mutations to create. As such, even if natural selection
could pick the single most fit protein when handed 1 billion, it would still
be completely helpless to find that fit protein were it not originally
produced by random mutation. Hence, natural selection is not "all powerful"
- it is, in fact, "totally helpless" if not provided the necessary raw
materials with which to work. Therefore, chance plays the major role in
genetic mutations.
Second, what happens after a mutation is generated. Well, obviously, natural
selection comes into play. Yes, but there are also random/chance mechanisms
at this level.
[QUOTE]"Although natural selection is the major driving force of evolution,
chance effects (random genetic drift) also play an important role especially
in the case of small populations where random fluctuations in allele
frequencies are very significant." (Protein Evolution, Laszlo Patthy,
Blackwell Science, 1999, p40) [/QUOTE]
The author goes on to state that "neutralists", as opposed to
"selectionists", even hold chance events as [i]the[/i] major player.
[QUOTE]"In contrast with the selectionist hypothesis, Kimura has suggested
that the majority of molecular changes in evolution are due to the random
fixation of neutral or nearly neutral mutations. According to the neutral
theory of molecular evolution, the majority of evolutionary changes as well
as the polymorphisms within species are caused by random genetic drift of
alleles that are selectively neutral or nearly neutral. [i]In the neutral
theory of molecular evolution the emphasis is on the statement that the fate
of alleles is determined primarily by random genetic drift[/i]. Although it
acknowledges that selection does operate, it claims that chance effects are
of major importance." (emphasis added, Protein Evolution, Laszlo Patthy,
Blackwell Science, 1999, p41)[/QUOTE]
So it seems that chance/randomness [b]do[/b] play a very large role in
evolution. Okay, so now we know that chance is required for the creation and
sometimes the spread of beneficial mutations. But there's more.
A beneficial mutation does not necessarily become fixed (established at the
expense of competing alleles) in a population because of chance.
[QUOTE]"An important consequence of this conclusion is that an advantageous
mutation does not always become fixed in the population but [i]may be lost by
chance[/i]. The results of Kimura's work are of great theoretical
importance, since they show that the earlier views that saw evolution as a
process in which advantageous mutations are always fixed and only
advantageous mutations are fixed are oversimplified." (emphasis added,
Protein Evolution, Laszlo Patthy, Blackwell Science, 1999, p41)[/QUOTE]
What did that last part of the last sentence mean: "... the earlier view that
... only advantageous mutations are fixed [is] oversimplified."? It means
that even some deleterious mutations can become fixed due to chance.
[QUOTE]"In fact, the calculations show that neutral and [i]even slightly
deleterious mutations[/i] may have a definite probability of becoming fixed
in a population." (emphasis added, Protein Evolution, Laszlo Patthy,
Blackwell Science, 1999, p41)[/QUOTE]
Let's recap.
(1) Chance plays the most vital (only?) role in creating new alleles.
(2) Chance plays a large role in changes in allelic frequencies in small
populations.
(3) According to neutralists, chance plays the major role in medium and large
populations also.
(4) Beneficial mutations may be lost due to chance.
(5) Slightly deleterious mutations may become fixed due to chance.
Okay, so what have I presented here that wasn't already known by anyone who
has studied evolution? Nothing. This is all textbook material. It is just
that the average person is not told these things: typically, only the
pro-evolution material ever makes it to the general public (this is not
anti-evolution material, but why give the public any reason to doubt
evolution even the slightest???).
So, do I claim to have just refuted evolution? Absolutely not. But I do
believe that these quotes show that progressive evolution is not as likely to
occur as the average person is lead to believe: the rosy picture painted by
"mainstream" evolutionists (as seen on Discovery Channel, TLC, BBC, etc.) has
just been smudged a little bit.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 04 2000 - 19:10:19 EST