ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) (08/26/85)
I've been reading net.origins for the last two weeks and I must admit that as far as structure, format and general intelligence of responses and questions and basic respect for posters it blows away most other newsgroups. I'm a fairly frequent poster to net.religion (should I not have admitted that?) so I've seen how poorly a newsgroup can be structured and posted to, but this group is definitely one of the nicer ones; assuming one likes to read about 250 lb. birds. I've seen a figure floating around that I'd like to hear some sort of comment on. A guy with a masters in biochemistry from Michegan (I think) gave the figure of 10^450 as the odds of life having been created by evolution. Supposedly this is a somewhat well known figure that takes into account all the time alotted for the various reactions to take place to start life off and then for the evolutionary process to have gotten as far along as it has. Not having access to alot of the necessary info, I'm wondering what most biologists/chemists/??? might have to say about this figure. A second question this guy brought up is that the basic formulation of amino acids and proteins is possible and has been experimentally proven, but according to him, the next step, the polypeptide chains (forgive any glaring errors, I'm an expert in neither biology or chemistry) are almost impossible to account for. Given the nature of the complexity of the reactions (the need for a complex linking of singled handed chains in order to carry genetic information) and the fact that most of the reactions breakdown 10^5 times faster in water than they take place it would seem difficult to assume organic evolution is how it actually happened. I freely admit that this question arises from a deficit of relevant scientific information. If it's a simple answer I'd like to see it. If it's a complex question, I'm looking for a good (i.e. accurate, thorough), not overly technical (readable by someone without a masters in biochemistry) book that goes through some of the difficulties in organic evolution and speciation along with cosmic evolution from a scientific point of view (i.e. it doesn't have to jibe with Genesis). Does such a beast exist or would everyone like to see such a book? Rick Frey (...!ihnp4!sdcsvax!sdcc6!ix415)
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/27/85)
In article <2197@sdcc6.UUCP> ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) writes: > >I've seen a figure floating around that I'd like to hear some sort of >comment on. A guy with a masters in biochemistry from Michegan (I >think) gave the figure of 10^450 as the odds of life having been created >by evolution. Supposedly this is a somewhat well known figure that >takes into account all the time alotted for the various reactions to >take place to start life off and then for the evolutionary process to >have gotten as far along as it has. Not having access to alot of the >necessary info, I'm wondering what most biologists/chemists/??? might >have to say about this figure. > Well, it has two primary weaknesses. It is a calculation of the probability of *exactly* the life we know occuring, it does *not* take into account the possibility that there might well be other paths. Also it is based on a very imperfect knowloedge of the mechanisms whereby life arose, so it must make numerous assumptions about facts not in evidence. The recent article in Scientific American on clay-life shows how new discoveries might easily overthrow most of these assumptions, since the clay based mechanism has a much different set of probabilities involved. >A second question this guy brought up is that the basic formulation of >amino acids and proteins is possible and has been experimentally proven, >but according to him, the next step, the polypeptide chains (forgive any >glaring errors, I'm an expert in neither biology or chemistry) are almost >impossible to account for. Given the nature of the complexity of the >reactions (the need for a complex linking of singled handed chains in >order to carry genetic information) and the fact that most of the >reactions breakdown 10^5 times faster in water than they take place it >would seem difficult to assume organic evolution is how it actually >happened. > Well, I do not know if this was true when he wrote his estimates, but in fact polypeptides and other complex molecules and structures have in fact been produced under simulated primaeval conditions. In short, at present this is not true! >I freely admit that this question arises from a deficit of relevant >scientific information. If it's a simple answer I'd like to see it. >If it's a complex question, I'm looking for a good (i.e. accurate, >thorough), not overly technical (readable by someone without a masters >in biochemistry) book that goes through some of the difficulties in >organic evolution and speciation along with cosmic evolution from a >scientific point of view (i.e. it doesn't have to jibe with Genesis). >Does such a beast exist or would everyone like to see such a book? > Well, I do not have a good book title handy, but there have been numerous articles in Scientific American, and probably in other similar magazines which give good simple explanations. Of course, as in all areas of science there are *no* final answers, and there never will be - that is the nature of science, to always look for better answers. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
hogan@rosevax.UUCP (Andy Hogan) (08/30/85)
> I've seen a figure floating around that I'd like to hear some sort of > comment on. A guy with a masters in biochemistry from Michegan (I > think) gave the figure of 10^450 as the odds of life having been created > by evolution. Supposedly this is a somewhat well known figure that > takes into account all the time alotted for the various reactions to > take place to start life off and then for the evolutionary process to > have gotten as far along as it has. Not having access to alot of the > necessary info, I'm wondering what most biologists/chemists/??? might > have to say about this figure. > Rick Frey > (...!ihnp4!sdcsvax!sdcc6!ix415) Hey! A good question! What's wrong with this guy? :-) As a ???, I'm curious too. I'd really like to know what facts and assumptions he used, though I probably would not be able to question the facts (they would still be interesting, though.) For example, your next paragraph implies the reactions are assumed to happen in water; I believe there are alternatives (cf. the "clay" article in Scientific American a few months ago.) My main interest is HOW the number is arrived at. I've never seen a study of this or any similar questions (like the probability of life on other planets) that was really convincing. They are usually full of assumptions, or at least unknown probabilities with a very large range of feasible values (often many orders of magnitude.) -- Andy Hogan Rosemount, Inc. Mpls MN path: ...ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!rosevax!hogan Quality used to be free, but now it merely has a fantastic ROI.
jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (08/31/85)
> I've seen a figure floating around that I'd like to hear some sort of > comment on. A guy with a masters in biochemistry from Michigan (I > think) gave the figure of 10^450 as the odds of life having been created > by evolution. I don't know how the guy came up with this number. To evaluate the application of probability to evolution, it is necessary to address two basic questions: (1) What is the probability that earth's particular life form has evolved? (2) What is the probability that any life form can evolve? One can make an assumption that all combinations of amino acids are equally probable, enumerate these combinations, and come up with a number, which is presumably 10^(-450). The assumption that all possible configurations are equally probable is probably not accurate, but let us accept it. So we can assume that the probability for question (1) is extremely small. However, to discuss the probability of evolution one has to answer question (2). And I don't think anyone can really answer this question. We don't know how many amino acid combinations would lead to life, and it is not known whether life's building blocks can only be based on the set of 20 amino acids, 4 RNA nucleotides, and 4 DNA nucleotides. Without answering this question, we cannot make any useful statement on the probability of evolution. If we somehow could determine the probability for question (2), say, to be 10^-8. This is a small probability value but not negligibly small. In this case it would not matter whether the probability for question (1) is 10^-450 or 10^-900, since it would be one of many possible outcomes. > A second question this guy brought up is that the basic formulation of > amino acids and proteins is possible and has been experimentally proven, > but according to him, the next step, the polypeptide chains (forgive any > glaring errors, I'm an expert in neither biology or chemistry) are almost > impossible to account for. Given the nature of the complexity of the > reactions (the need for a complex linking of singled handed chains in > order to carry genetic information) and the fact that most of the > reactions breakdown 10^5 times faster in water than they take place it > would seem difficult to assume organic evolution is how it actually > happened. Let me note: Proteins are polypetide chains. They are polymers of constructed out of 20 different amino acids. At present, the mechanism for the formation of the first self replicating molecules is not known. There are various assumptions related to this issue, but the mechanism is very speculative. It can be stated, that the formation of the first living organisms does not violate the laws of nature, (mechanics, electricity, thermodynamics, etc) even if the mechanism is unknown. The answers to the type of questions raised here requires more research in molecular biology. Although we have seen considerable advances in this field, it is still in its infancy. We have only partial answers to these questions, and probably many of these answers are inaccurate. Scientific theories are evolving constantly till they reach some kind of pseudo plateau. Take for example the atomic theory. The Thompson model viewed the atom as a cherry pie, where the nucleus occupies the entire volume of the atom while the electrons were stuck in it like cherries on a pie. This model answered many questions till Ratherford demonstrated by alpha particle experiments that the nucleus is very dense and occupies only small fraction of the atomic volume. In the past, natural events were attributed to supernatural forces (e.g. gods are responsible for thunder and lightning). As science progressed it turned out that there excellent naturalistic explanations for these phenomena. We should learn from our past experience and be patient, and not necessarily invoke the supernatural whenever we don't have an immediate answer. I don't think we want to return to the middle ages. -- Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (09/01/85)
The other day I sat down to play bridge. On the first deal I picked up spades A K 6 4 hearts Q 10 8 3 2 diamonds 3 clubs J 8 4 Did you know that the odds are 635,013,559,599 to one against being dealt that particular hand? Clearly Divine intervention! Or could there be a flaw in the argument? (those of you who do not see the relevance of this bridge hand to creationism should think carefully before flaming)