preece@uicsl.UUCP (02/04/84)
#R:cbscc:-158200:uicsl:7500043:000:433 uicsl!preece Feb 3 10:59:00 1984 I find it much easier to believe that under conditions we can only speculate about life did occur, regardless of the probabilities, than to believe that there is a conscious creator of the universe. I simply believe that when we know enough we will know how life came to be. We haven't known very much for very long; it's silly to predicate probabilities on our current state of knowledge. scott preece ihnp41uiucdcs!uicsl!preece
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/09/84)
The essay that provoked this discussion made some very grand statements about probability, and then made some rather unlikely concessions to bring the probability of life emerging up to some level that was still incredibly low. What it didn't do was to consider things such as: The probability of multiple improbable events is not obtained by multiplying the probabilities of the individual events if the occurrence of one changes the probability of the others (conditional probability is not the same as absolute probability) The time scale for the emergence of oxygen in the atmosphere is pretty well agreed (See, for example, the Sept 83 Scientific American: essentially zero before 2 GyBP (gigayears before present) 1% at 2GyBP, 4% at 1 GyBP, 25% at 0.5 GyBP, reaching 100% of its present value only about 300 million years ago). A reducing atmosphere is NOT an ad-hoc assumption made by "evolutionists" to support an otherwise untenable argument. If D and L forms (defined by their optical rotation properties, not, as someone suggested, because they occur in life) were equally likely to combine to form life, but not to nourish one another, then the one that started first would probably overwhelm the other unless the world was enormous). [This is like the problem of where is the antimatter in the universe. It COULD exist in separate galactic clusters from the matter, but more probably the excess matter destroyed most of the antimatter before it could separate and form galactic clusters.] Catalytic reactions can occur many millions of times faster than uncatalyzed reactions. Surfaces can sometimes bind suitable elements or molecules. Those that can bind to the ones already there have a preference in making large clusters. Some people have suggested that life began on damp clay, not in free water. This is not improbable, if we see the analogy between the template-assembly process on clay and the vastly more complex template-assembly process now used by DNA/RNA. Laboratory experiments that show the conditions that give rise to amino acids also tend to destroy them are experiments that have lasted for hours, not billions of years. It takes only a finite reaction rate (however small) to ensure that there will be SOME of the product hanging around at all times. There will be some finite reaction rate among those products, occasionally leading to more stability of the product. Perhaps one such more stable molecule was produced in one of the laboratory experiments? Who would notice? All in all, I'm very glad it was an undergraduate essay! -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
Anonymous@inmet.UUCP (02/24/84)
#R:cbscc:-158200:inmet:6400093:000:1 inmet!Anonymous Feb 23 11:16:00 1984