rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (07/19/84)
If the Rationalist Materialist explanation of the origins
of life on Earth are correct then we sprang from the chance
combination of elements into amino acids and the chance
union of amino acids into proteins. The argumentation that is
usually advanced is that over the long eons of time the various
combinations were "tried" by nature until the right ones matched
up. The question on the floor today is "Was there enough time
for this process to take place and thus validate the explanation ?"
I submit that the answer is no.
Estimates for the age of the Universe seem to vary from 10 to 20
billion years with the Earth usually coming in at around 4-5 billion
years old.
Isaac Asimov has estimated that there are about 8 E+27 different
possible combinations of an insulin-like protein. [1] Let's use
insulin as our "test case". Now if we are arbitrarily generous
and estimate that the Earth's age is 10 Billion years old instead
of 5 Billion and we assume that for each SECOND that the Earth has
existed a different combination of insulin-like protein is produced,
then after 10 E+09 years worth of seconds we would have tried
about 3 E+17 combinations.
We could expect, on the average, to hit the winning combination
at about 4 E+27 combinations (about half). As you can see, we are
still about 10 orders of magnitude away from our probable "hit"
and our time is up.
When you move up to a more complex chemical entity like hemoglobin
(135 E+165 combinations) [2] the time situation becomes even more
astronomically improbable.
Note that my source on this combination data (Asimov) is not a
creationist or religious person.
What do you say ?
****************************
[1] Isaac Asimov, The Genetic Code, New York : The New American Library,
1962, p92.
[2] Ibid.
****************************
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (07/20/84)
> If the Rationalist Materialist explanation of the origins > of life on Earth are correct then we sprang from the chance > combination of elements into amino acids and the chance > union of amino acids into proteins. The argumentation that is > usually advanced is that over the long eons of time the various > combinations were "tried" by nature until the right ones matched > up. The question on the floor today is "Was there enough time > for this process to take place and thus validate the explanation ?" What you attempt to calculate in your article is the probability of *life as we know it* resulting from random combinations of the elements. What if there are many "right" combinations, that is, many combinations which could lead to intelligent life? In that case, your calculations wouldn't be meaningful. Whichever form of intelligent life resulted could sit around wondering why the "right" combination occured. -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories
cher@ihuxi.UUCP (Mike Musing) (07/20/84)
The scientific mumbo-jumbo presented as a proof for creationism
missed an important point: the universe is BIG. There is a large number
of planets. The possibility of amino acids originating somewhere in the
universe does not seem all that negligible if you take that into account,
even with questionable calculation methods used (I saw very different
figures from some Extraterrestrial Communication Congress).
The original question is similar to "what's the probability of Bob Brown
being born at that exactly location?". Negligible, no doubt. But,...
Mike Musingalan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (07/20/84)
> If the Rationalist Materialist explanation of the origins > of life on Earth are correct then we sprang from the chance > combination of elements into amino acids and the chance > union of amino acids into proteins. The argumentation that is > usually advanced is that over the long eons of time the various > combinations were "tried" by nature until the right ones matched > up. The question on the floor today is "Was there enough time > for this process to take place and thus validate the explanation ?" It's easy to get into trouble discussing the probability of past events. A simple example should make this clear: Suppose I toss a coin 10 times. Whatever the outcome is, I can look at it and say, "The probability of this particular outcome was only 1/2^10, but it *did* happen. How could it be random? It's too unlikely. It must have been the result of divine intervention!" -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/21/84)
> If the Rationalist Materialist explanation of the origins > of life on Earth are correct then we sprang from the chance > combination of elements into amino acids and the chance > union of amino acids into proteins. The argumentation that is > usually advanced is that over the long eons of time the various > combinations were "tried" by nature until the right ones matched > up. The question on the floor today is "Was there enough time > for this process to take place and thus validate the explanation ?" > I submit that the answer is no. 1. This assumes an agent (nature) doing the "trying", when simple random events offer a better description. 2. This also assumes some sort of linear flow to probabilistic events. (i.e., if there is a one in a billion chance of something happening, we would have to wade through a billion trials before the event occurred) A probability only represents a likelihood of an event occurring. An extremely improbable event can occur three times in a row and this would still not "violate" the probability or infer that there is an agent "directing" the events to happen. After the fact, one may proclaim that "what happened was highly unlikely", but that has no bearing on whether or not the event was "caused" or "directed" by some agent. "We" (our planet) didn't have to have "tried" all the possibilities; we just happened to have "tried" the ones that happened to work. Who knows? Perhaps there are millions of planets out there where other combinations, some unsuccessful, some successful (though not necessarily like ours) are being "tried". This planet was one (THE one?) on which there was "success"---on which life resulted. (Of course, the words in quotes, like "try" and "success", are quoted for a reason: because use of those words may make nice allegory, but they imply some external agent doing the "trying" and determining the criteria for "success", and there's no need for such an agent in the current model, and no evidence to require one.) One might still ask "Among all the improbabilities of the infinite, then, why here, why us?" But asking that question makes a bold assumption---that there is something out there that determined a "why" and acted on it. A bold assumption about the way one might LIKE the universe to be organized. That "liking" doesn't make it so, much as one might wish to believe that one's existence is not simply a result of normal physical interactions and chance.. -- If it doesn't change your life, it's not worth doing. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
vjm@rabbit.UUCP (Victor Milenkovic) (07/21/84)
--- I think the formation of life is a virtual certainty for Earth-like planets and many other kinds also. One protein per SECOND isn't too generous considering that one probably has an entire ocean filled with simple organic molecules (possible origins for which have been demonstrated in the laboratory) all bumping into each other. An ocean-full is a lot of molecules when one has 6E+23 per gram-molecular weight. Secondly, an insulin molecule isn't necessary. What one needs is a (relatively) simple self-replicating molecule. Minor modifications and cooperative clustering (like multi-celled colonies that eventually evolve into multi-celled organisms) take over from there. All this goes on in a fashion more massively parallel and over a longer time scale than what we are ever going to be able to comprehend. In a slightly less serious vein, one might consider philosophies and religions to be a form of mental life. They grow, interact with each other and with problems and ideas, reproduce (by tranference to other minds, but never on this forum!), and evolve with time. Each type of mental infection has its own form of protection. Religions say, "I'm true. Don't doubt me or you'll be punished." Rationalism says, "I'm not here. This is just the RIGHT (ahem ...) *natural* way to think. *They* are the ones who are infected." Victor Milenkovic research!vjm
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (07/21/84)
Rich Rosen and Alan Driscoll have nailed 2 of the problems with this argument. There is (at least) a third. There are several competing theories about the origin of life and the development of polymers. For a while ``energy in the form of lightning'' was in vogue; these days ``formation in clay beds'' seem to have more support. There are other theories which use cosmic radiation and radiation from radioactive minerals in the earth to provide for the required energy. No doubt there are other theories which I haven't even heard of. No matter which theory you use, however, your figures are not going resemble the random combinations model. (and they had better not -- the problem isn't in getting polymers in the first place, which is fairly easy, but in getting them in such quantity and getting them to not immediately decompose). The development of life thus seems far more likely no matter which model you use (though some models make it more likely than others.) About 8 (I think) years ago there was a Scientific American Issue on the topic. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
nowlin@ihu1e.UUCP (Jerry Nowlin) (07/21/84)
In reference to:
==============================================================================
Article 3000 of 3001, Thu 15:44.
Subject: If You've Got the Time...
From: Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}
Newsgroups: net.religion
If the Rationalist Materialist explanation of the origins
of life on Earth are correct then we sprang from the chance
combination of elements into amino acids and the chance
union of amino acids into proteins. The argumentation that is
usually advanced is that over the long eons of time the various
combinations were "tried" by nature until the right ones matched
up. The question on the floor today is "Was there enough time
for this process to take place and thus validate the explanation ?"
I submit that the answer is no.
Estimates for the age of the Universe seem to vary from 10 to 20
billion years with the Earth usually coming in at around 4-5 billion
years old.
Isaac Asimov has estimated that there are about 8 E+27 different
possible combinations of an insulin-like protein. [1] Let's use
insulin as our "test case". Now if we are arbitrarily generous
and estimate that the Earth's age is 10 Billion years old instead
of 5 Billion and we assume that for each SECOND that the Earth has
existed a different combination of insulin-like protein is produced,
then after 10 E+09 years worth of seconds we would have tried
about 3 E+17 combinations.
We could expect, on the average, to hit the winning combination
at about 4 E+27 combinations (about half). As you can see, we are
still about 10 orders of magnitude away from our probable "hit"
and our time is up.
When you move up to a more complex chemical entity like hemoglobin
(135 E+165 combinations) [2] the time situation becomes even more
astronomically improbable.
Note that my source on this combination data (Asimov) is not a
creationist or religious person.
What do you say ?
****************************
[1] Isaac Asimov, The Genetic Code, New York : The New American Library,
1962, p92.
[2] Ibid.
****************************
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}
==============================================================================
Bob,
I don't have the references you sited. If I did I'd probably be reading
them to figure out what the true significance of 8 E+27 or 135 E+165 different
combinations is. From what I remember of organic chemistry (had to take that
sucker twice!) an organic molecule is sort of like a jigsaw puzzle. There are
some ways things can be put together that are so wrong they don't even deserve
to be tried. My guess is, the ways that are too wrong for nature to try
outnumber the ways that are sort of wrong but nature might try anyway. Again,
I don't have your reference but I have a feeling the numbers you quoted are
just more statistics that become relatively meaningless in the light of
practical scrutiny.
For now lets say your numbers are correct. I have a couple alternatives
to your lack of time theory. One would satisfy most evolutionists and the
other is real whacked out. I can't prove either one of them. There is more
evidence favoring the first but I secretly root for the second because I like
the idea.
I have a feeling the initial correct combination of elements was the key,
and that once the process of evolution was thus started, random chance was not
*as much of* a factor anymore. The fact that our ancestor organic molecules
got lucky and didn't have to wait for the correct statistically probable
combination to come around was great good luck. It makes it all the more
understandable that we have yet to receive a signal from the depths of space
that can be attributed to another intelligent race of creatures. The rest of
the galaxy "probably" didn't get started as early as us.
On the other hand maybe we're the late bloomers. Maybe some intelligent
race of space travelers saw our planet as a piece of fertile ground in need of
some tending and planted the seeds of life. Maybe they even come back from
time to time to hoe a little and pull some weeds. I find this theory much
more acceptable than one employing a supernatural deity. For a theory no one
can prove, it at least doesn't defy any natural laws I know of.
So my conclusion is, I don't think you can make a case for there not
being enough time for evolution to work. But it doesn't matter. Even if you
could, it wouldn't mean that creation wins by default. It's an interesting
topic of discussion though. I couldn't figure out from your article whether
you favored creation or not. Most people who try to refute evolution do.
Jerry Nowlin
ihnp4!ihu1e!nowlindmcanzi@watmath.UUCP (David Canzi) (07/24/84)
Let's count the unjustified implicit assumptions:
1) That new protein molecules were being generated at the rate of
only one per second. Given the size of the Earth's biosphere, one would
expect much more than this.
2) That Earth was the only place where protein molecules were forming randomly.
("The universe is a big place. Perhaps the biggest." -- Simon Wagstaff)
3) That all amino acid chains of a certain length (eg. the length of
an insulin molecule) are equally likely to form.
4) That the protein molecules found in today's life forms arose by randomly
throwing together amino acids. (More likely they form from the joining of,
splitting of, and small alterations to previously existing molecules.)
5) That existing protein molecules are the only proteins capable of
accomplishing the purposes they serve in present-day life. (More likely
the proteins that do exist were the ones, among all possible "useful"
proteins, that had the good fortune to form first.)
Maybe I could come up with more, but it's late and I want to go home
and sleep...bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (07/24/84)
The argument that life had to be created because of the alleged
low probabilities of its formation otherwise fails on several
grounds.
First, picking a given protein (e.g., insulin) and showing that
the probabilities of evolving one of a particular group of insulin
molecules is small (however large the group), fails because probability
theory tells us nothing about what *has* been observed, only about
what *may be observed in the future*. To give an analogy, one
can show that the particular genetic endowment that Bob Brown possesses
would be incredibly unlikely to have arisen by chance. Should Bob
therefore conclude (to invert Descartes) "I am very improbable, therefore
I do not exist"? Surely the fallacy in this argument is obvious.
What probability theory can tell us (assuming we knew enough) would
be the probability of Bob's unborn offspring to have a particular
genetic makeup. But that is not the question at hand.
For this argument to have any validity, you would have to show that
the protein is absolutely necessary for life, not just for life as
we know it, and also has an incredibly low probability of formation.
But no one can do this, because the only example of life we have is
that on Earth, which presumably evolved from a very small group of
organisms and therefore represents only one possible solution to
the problem of the formation of life. On another planet things
probably - no, certainly - were very different.
Secondly, even if one could show that the probabilities were very low
and the proteins essential for life, it would prove nothing. The reason
is that it ignores the so-called "anthropic principle". That is, we
are here discussing this question only because we are here discussing
it. You cannot conclude from the fact that we are here anything about
how we got here, even if you could prove that for us to have gotten
here by abiogenesis, evolution, etc., was extremely unlikely. Remember,
low probability is not equivalent to zero probability.
Thirdly, if one looks at the most primitive proteins (which exist in one
form or another in all cells) one finds that the probabilities
of their formation are much higher than those calculated by
creationists. I note the case of ferridoxin, which occurs universally
in cells. It is clear that it arose by a process of doubling and
redoubling of a very short chain of neucleotides (just a few dozen).
The probability of getting the original neucleotide chain is very
high.
The latest research on the problem of the formation of life shows that
it is much more probable than had been anticipated. For both
theoretical and observational evidence on the subject, one of the
best books available is the newly published *Genesis on Planet Earth*,
by William Day (Yale 1984). This book has a fairly heavy dose of
organic chemistry, but the treatment is quite thorough and most
convincing. I recommend it highly.
I won't be around for a while, so I am sorry that I'll miss the continuation
of this discussion.
--
Bill Jefferys 8-%
Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail)
{allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp)
utastro!bill@ut-ngp (ARPANET)emjej@uokvax.UUCP (07/25/84)
#R:akgua:-89600:uokvax:8300061:000:1749
uokvax!emjej Jul 25 11:19:00 1984
/***** uokvax:net.religion / akgua!rjb / 6:01 pm Jul 20, 1984 */
...We could expect, on the average, to hit the winning combination
at about 4 E+27 combinations (about half). As you can see, we are
still about 10 orders of magnitude away from our probable "hit"
and our time is up.
When you move up to a more complex chemical entity like hemoglobin
(135 E+165 combinations) [2] the time situation becomes even more
astronomically improbable.
Note that my source on this combination data (Asimov) is not a
creationist or religious person.
What do you say ?
****************************
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}
/* ---------- */
I say that I wish apologists would learn the difference between
a priori probability and conditional probability, so I (and others)
don't have to post these explanations over and over. Many events that
occur every day are, if one considers them a priori, extraordinarily
unlikely, yet they happen. To use the above vocabulary, the winning
combination isn't the particular protein/hormone/self-replicating
molecule that happens to be in use currently, but the entire set of
such molecules. If you tell someone to pick a real number at random,
then the probability that they'll pick any particular one is zero,
but they are sure to pick one of them. (Actually, this is even a
better analogy than one might first suspect, because just as the "laws"
of chemistry and physics make the combinations of atoms non-random,
you can be pretty sure that most humans you ask will pick a rational
number, or even an integer (apart from the occasional wise guy who'll
say "pi" or "Euler's constant," and even those will only give a couple
of the most famous irrationals or transcendentals).)
James Jonespmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (07/25/84)
[from Mike Musing:] >The scientific mumbo-jumbo presented as a proof for creationism >missed an important point: the universe is BIG. There is a large number >of planets. The possibility of amino acids originating somewhere in the >universe does not seem all that negligible if you take that into account, >even with questionable calculation methods used (I saw very different >figures from some Extraterrestrial Communication Congress). How many planets are known to exist beyond our solar system? Have they been discovered or are they just assumed to exists because there are a lot of stars out there and the universe is so big? I honestly don't know. Can anyone give me a reference? >The original question is similar to "what's the probability of Bob Brown >being born at that exactly location?". Negligible, no doubt. But,... Hardly so. Bob Brown is a particular individual, whereas any of the right amino acid molecules will do. Also the location of the molecules' genesis does not matter. Also since the birth of human individuals is an established process we can, at least, expect it to happen--and we know it happens all the time. The same cannot be said of abiogenesis. If it ever occurred it must have established itself as a process. -- Paul Dubuc {cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbscc!pmd The true light that enlightens every one was coming into the world... (John 1:9)
colonel@gloria.UUCP (George Sicherman) (07/28/84)
[You do not exist yet - please be patient.] 1. How about moving this to net.origins? 2. This was hashed out a few months ago. As any statistician will tell you, PROBABILITIES MEAN NOTHING WITH RESPECT TO A SINGLE CASE. So please stop arguing about it! -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel
phil@amd.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (07/29/84)
What makes you think that only one combination of amino acids is
tried each second? With the whole earth as a test tube, it would not
be unreasonable to imagine billions being tried each second.
Remember Avogadro's number? 6 X 10E23 molecules in each mole of gas.
How many water molecules do you think there are in the oceans?
--
The guy who dies with the most toys wins.
Phil Ngai (408) 982-6554
UUCPnet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amd!phil
ARPAnet: amd!phil@decwrl.ARPAgreggt@ncoast.UUCP (Gregg Thompson) (07/31/84)
It is interesting to see how
we have disproved abiogenis (sp) or
spontanious generation and yet people
still beleive that the world and *MAN*
all started from some particles that
were floating around in an infinite
amount of space!
Comments please...
--
Gregg Thompson
{ucbvax}!decvax!cwruecmp!ncoast!greggt
{ucbvax}!decvax!cbosgd!aat!m-net!greggt
{ucbvax}!decvax!microsoft!trsvax!sneaky!greggt
{decvax}!ucbvax!dual!proper!greggt
{ucbvax}!decvax!vortex!ihnp4!wlcrjs!greggtsmb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (08/02/84)
From: greggt@ncoast.UUCP (Gregg Thompson) Message-ID: <211@ncoast.UUCP> Date: Mon, 30-Jul-84 20:57:29 EDT It is interesting to see how we have disproved abiogenis (sp) or spontanious generation and yet people still beleive that the world and *MAN* all started from some particles that were floating around in an infinite amount of space! Comments please... -- You're misinterpreting the results. What was shown was that in *reasonably short* time frames, *known species* would not show up spontaneously. To extend that result to apply over many orders of magnitude is quite a leap of faith (so to speak). Let me explain by analogy. Einstein showed that Newton's laws of motion were wrong. But until you start dealing with relativistic velocities and masses, they do quite well, yielding results that are accurate to within the normal error of measurement. In a different universe of discourse, though, you can't depend on Newton.
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (08/04/84)
Gregg Thompson speaks: > It is interesting to see how > we have disproved abiogenis (sp) or > spontanious generation and yet people > still beleive that the world and *MAN* > all started from some particles that > were floating around in an infinite > amount of space! It is interesting to see this same set of events happen again and again: 1) A bright creationist makes an interesting argument that appears, at first glance to show that evolution is impossible and/or so unlikely as to be beyond credibility. 2) A number of evolutionists poke holes in the argument, pointing out bad reasoning or implicit assumptions not supported by evidence or reason. 3) A number of creationists attempt to answer the objections. I've never seen them succeed in answering all the objections. 4) Having answered some, but not all, of the objections, some creationists act as if the original argument has been successfully defended, and the heathen hordes have been defeated. By the way, you have 46 chromosomes. 23 of your chromosomes were selected randomly, one each from each of your mother's 23 chromosome pairs. Your other 23 chromosomes were similarly selected from among your father's chromosomes. The likelihood of a particular set of chromosomes being selected by this process is 2**46, or about 10**14. Making the reasonable assumption that your parents have had fewer than 100 children, this means the odds against them having a child with the particular set of chromosomes that you got are over 10**12:1. Therefore, you are so unlikely as to be beyond credibility. If you can't see that this argument is fallacious, there is no hope for you. The same sort of fallacy in this argument was in the original article "If You've Got the Time". That argument is just as valid as this one. David Canzi
estate@abnjh.UUCP (D.R.Pierce) (08/10/84)
We are nothing more than the realization of individual aspects of a far greater mind...and the damned thing is deranged! (Visions From The Orcrest Stone) Carl D.
gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (09/04/84)
> From: Jerry Nowlin > On the other hand maybe we're the late bloomers. Maybe some intelligent > race of space travelers saw our planet as a piece of fertile ground in need of > some tending and planted the seeds of life. Maybe they even come back from > time to time to hoe a little and pull some weeds. I find this theory much > more acceptable than one employing a supernatural deity. For a theory no one > can prove, it at least doesn't defy any natural laws I know of. Maybe the "supernatural deity" is the guy coming back to pull some weeds, no? There are references to extraterrestrial beings in the first few chapters of Ezekiel. -- Hug me till you drug me, honey! Greg Skinner (gregbo) {allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo