wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (07/23/84)
I have been following this 'time enough' argument and can see a hole in the 'not enough time' argument. You guys are assuming that the trys at combinations are taking place one after another, or in serial. Well, if you have this gigantic pot of soup in which these 'trys' are taking place, wouldn't it be more of a parallel action? Wouldn't 'biwions and biwions' (sorry Sagan) of 'trys' be occurring at once, given a whole ocean full of the stuff? Only one try a second is begging the question. Do raindrops fall once per second? No, and neither do chemical reactions occur on a serial basis. Remember the old 'magic' reaction where a liquid is turned instantly from clear to blue due to chemical reaction? This is not a serial reaction, it is parallel. I submit that the 'search' for an amino acid would have taken place in a parallel format which would have included ALL of the soup, not just one small portion of it? Now, all you guys go back to your calculators and figure out how much soup there was, then add in your time factor. In other words, given a finite amount of soup, and the amount of time the universe has been around (combinations could have been taking place even before the formation of the earth), how long would it take to hit the amino acids? I think this puts a different light on the subject. Further, once the first 'hit' is made (the first combination needed in building the acid) how much shorter or longer is the time factor in making the second 'hit' (the second combination factor needed to build the acid)? Could succeding 'trys' or 'hits' be shortened? Would the combination factors needed to put together an amino acid be a dominant reaction. That is, in many chemical reactions, there are primary or dominant reactions and secondary reactions, right? Would the formation of an amino acid have been a dominant reaction, thus subordinating other reactions? These are all just questions that have been bothering me since this subject came up. Anyone want to reply? T. C. Wheeler
dann@bmcg.UUCP (07/25/84)
Regarding the discussion between Lyle McElhaney & Bob Brown:
If I remember my Scientific American articles in the area of
biochemistry, Lyle's argument about H2O does not apply here.
There are something like 20 different amino acids. Each of
them has a pair of chemical bonding areas, one on each side
of the molecule, which are identical from amino acid to
amino acid. Thus, the amino acids may be strung together
like beads with no particular preference as to the order of
stringing. In a soup of amino acids, with nothing guiding
the assembly order, one sequence is as good as another and
any results are purely random. Within a living cell, how-
ever, the order of protein assembly from amino acids is
carefully directed by DNA and RNA templates.
There is one added complication. Many proteins are "folded"
in complex fashions. Portions of the amino acid chains
overlap and are fastened together with weaker side bonds,
which do not use the two main connecting points on the
molecule. Within a living cell, this folding and fastening
is done by other complex proteins (called enzymes) which act
as catalysts. So, even if you accidently get the right
sequence of amino acids to form a particular protein, you
still have to fold and attach the side bonds. I think insu-
lin has only one side attachment.
Scientific American has published a book containing a col-
lection of articles describing this stuff. Really thought-
provoking, I highly recommend it to anyone interested.
By the way, insulin is really trivial by comparison to many
other vital proteins. Take a look at the structure of hemo-
globin sometime if you want to see a real work of art!
Dann McCreary
Burroughs Advanced Systems Group
{sdcsvax || ihnp4!sdcrdcf || cepu }!bmcg!dann