donn@hp-dcd.UUCP (07/10/84)
Once per second, in a several billion (trillion, quadrillion?) gallon calderon such as the primal ocean? Chemical reactions are highly parallell, not at all serial! Any chemists out there willing to try for a better guess at reaction rates? Donn Terry HP Ft. Collins. [hplabs!]hp-dcd!donn
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!nowlincolonel@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.ARPAlmc@denelcor.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney) (07/30/84)
Oh, its number games you want. Well, Isaac Asimov has a might more to say
about the possible combinations of things in biochemistry. Shall we take a
look?
"The number of ways in which those 96 amino acids [in an Insulin
molecule] can be arranged in a chain to form a protein molecule is
three googols; that is, 3E100. I won't go through gyrations to
prove that that is a big number. Take my word for it. The total
number of subatomic particles in a trillion suns is nothing in
comparison." ("Victory on Paper", in "Only a Trillion")
In the same set of essays (dated 1957) is the essay "The Unblind Workings
of Chance", in which Asimov directly addresses the problem:
"If you have read Chapter Three, you may be able to make a shrewd
guess as to what the [chances of make the correct arrangement of
amino-acids] would be. For those of you who have not, I will only
say that the chances are more infinitesimal than you or I can
imagine. ... This was pointed out, rather triumphantly, by Lecomte
du Nouy, in a book named Human Destiny, published in 1947.
The de Nouy argument had quite a following (and still does) among
people who approved the conclusion and were willing to overlook the
flaws in the line of reasoning. But, alas, the flaws are there and
the argument contains a demonstrable fallacy."
He goes on through a typically Asimovian lecture on biochemical reactions
which shows that (atoms, molecules, ions, amino-acids, whathaveyou) do not
combine in random order, but rather have preferred ways of combining, based
on mechanical and electro-magnetic effects at the molecular level.
Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that (to use the specific
example) the specific molecular structure of pig insulin is the only one
that will be effective; indeed, a good percentage of possible combinations
of the amino-acids in insulin may be equally (or even better) suited to
perform in insulin's stead; the one that pigs use happens to work for human
needs, even though it is not identical to human insulin.
The whole argument is in Asimov's book "Only a Trillion", and is
reinterated in "The Planet that Wasn't", in the essay "The Judo Argument".
In 1955 Stanley Miller exposed molecular hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and
other trace elements to an electric spark, and in a mere week, obtained
several organic molecules including two amino-acids, way before chance
predictions could have had an effect. Likewise, Sidney Fox exposed a
mixture of amino-acids to heat and obtained proteins. (True, they were not
proteins which are produced by life as we know it, but that is no argument
as to the viability of life based on them. We don't have a corner on life-
producing possibilities, only one that we *know* will work.)
(I have taken the liberty to move the discussion from net.religion (which
good folks don't much appreciate these arguments) to net.origins, where it
belongs. Please, lets keep it there.)
--
Lyle McElhaney
(hao,brl-bmd,nbires,csu-cs,scgvaxd)!denelcor!lmc