dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (11/28/84)
> [Merlyn Leroy] > These arguments (that the probability of life arising by chance is > calculated to be near zero, and that it violates the second law of thermo- > dynamics) have been hashed and re-hashed so much that I don't know why I'm > replying...but here goes. I'm mystified as well, given the arguments presented below... > If I shuffle a deck of cards and deal out the entire deck, the > probability that a *specific* sequence is dealt is 52!; however, if I deal A probability of 52! is indeed quite high. > out the deck and say "This is AMAZING! I have dealt a sequence that has only > a 1 out of 52! chance of happening!! This must be my lucky day!" - my > observation is meaningless, since I must get SOME sequence. Creationists > seem to assume that there is ONE and ONLY ONE combination of proteins, > amino acids, etc. that are capable of supporting life, when this is not This is in fact not true, and the statement betrays an ignorance of two things: (i) some creationist arguments proceed on the basis that many biological combinations would be suitable. I will not present the argument, but the idea is generally that even an astronomical number of suitable combinations would be too few to give any sort of reasonable probability, because of the size of the sample space. (This is not to defend such arguments, however; they often suffer fallacies in the assumptions.) (ii) non-creationists sometimes make the same argument as the one derided above, or one similar to it. > the case. (They are also impressed by the fact that almost all of the > naturally occuring assymetrical organics have the same "handedness" (L > instead of D), while experimentally 'cooked up' ones are an even mix of > about 50% L, 50% D. Give me a break! They are designated L or D by > HUMANS, there is no intrinsic left- vs right-handedness in the molecules! I would appreciate it if Mr. Leroy would explain what he is trying to show here. The labels may indeed be arbitrary, but reversing the labels changes neither the near-homogeneity of handedness of biological organics, nor the racemic nature of experimentally produced ones. > Are you amazed at how cities have streets arranged alphabetically?) Cities are, to some extent, designed. This is a poor analogy. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois "Jesus Christ is not Cute." John Fahey
brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy <Brian Westley>) (12/03/84)
.,$s/>>/me .,$s/>/Paul Dubois >> Creationists >> seem to assume that there is ONE and ONLY ONE combination of proteins, >> amino acids, etc. that are capable of supporting life, when this is not >> the case. > >This is in fact not true, and the statement betrays an ignorance of >two things: > >(i) some creationist arguments proceed on the basis that >many biological combinations would be suitable. I will not present >the argument, but the idea is generally that even an astronomical >number of suitable combinations would be too few to give any sort >of reasonable probability, because of the size of the sample space. >(This is not to defend such arguments, however; they often suffer >fallacies in the assumptions.) > >(ii) non-creationists sometimes make the same argument as the one >derided above, or one similar to it. > The original argument implied, by the probabilities quoted, exactly ONE combination of (acids|proteins|etc) producing life. If an argument comes along that allows for 'an astronomical' number of combinations, yet still calculates the origin of life to be near zero, there are other arguments waiting in the wings. (e.g. the fact that not all pre-organic and organic chemicals form with equal probability, which is blithely ignored by most arguments I've seen in this newsgroup). >> (They are also impressed by the fact that almost all of the >> naturally occuring assymetrical organics have the same "handedness" (L >> instead of D), while experimentally 'cooked up' ones are an even mix of >> about 50% L, 50% D. Give me a break! They are designated L or D by >> HUMANS, there is no intrinsic left- vs right-handedness in the molecules! > >I would appreciate it if Mr. Leroy would explain what he is trying >to show here. The labels may indeed be arbitrary, but reversing >the labels changes neither the near-homogeneity of handedness of >biological organics, nor the racemic nature of experimentally >produced ones. > Ahem. Exactly. The labels are arbitrary. Almost all of the naturally occuring organics are designated L. They could all be designated D. They could be designated L if they had an odd number of hydrogen atoms, and D if they had an even number of hydrogen atoms. They could be L if discovered on Mon/Wed/Fri, and D if discovered on Tues/Thur/Sat/Sun. Scientists, being kind to aspiring biologists, named them consistently. Why are creationists amazed that 'all' of the natural organics are L??? >> Are you amazed at how cities have streets arranged alphabetically?) > >Cities are, to some extent, designed. This is a poor analogy. > This analogy referred to the consistent naming scheme given to both naturally occuring organic chemicals, and city streets. >Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois > >"Jesus Christ is not Cute." John Fahey Merlyn Leroy {ihnp4,ihnp4,ihnp4}!umn-cs!digi-g!brian "Neither is John Fahey." J.C.
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (12/16/84)
>>> Creationists >>> seem to assume that there is ONE and ONLY ONE combination of proteins, >>> amino acids, etc. that are capable of supporting life, when this is not >>> the case. >> >>This is in fact not true, and the statement betrays an ignorance of >>two things: >> >>(i) some creationist arguments proceed on the basis that >>many biological combinations would be suitable. I will not present >>the argument, but the idea is generally that even an astronomical >>number of suitable combinations would be too few to give any sort >>of reasonable probability, because of the size of the sample space. >>(This is not to defend such arguments, however; they often suffer >>fallacies in the assumptions.) >>(ii) [deleted, irrelevant -- pd] > The original argument implied, by the probabilities quoted, exactly > ONE combination of (acids|proteins|etc) producing life. If an argument > comes along that allows for 'an astronomical' number of combinations, > yet still calculates the origin of life to be near zero, there are other > arguments waiting in the wings. (e.g. the fact that not all pre-organic > and organic chemicals form with equal probability, which is blithely > ignored by most arguments I've seen in this newsgroup). The original argument may have implied it. Your commments were phrased in terms of creationists in general. My remarks stand. >>> (They are also impressed by the fact that almost all of the >>> naturally occuring assymetrical organics have the same "handedness" (L >>> instead of D), while experimentally 'cooked up' ones are an even mix of >>> about 50% L, 50% D. Give me a break! They are designated L or D by >>> HUMANS, there is no intrinsic left- vs right-handedness in the molecules! >> >>I would appreciate it if Mr. Leroy would explain what he is trying >>to show here. The labels may indeed be arbitrary, but reversing >>the labels changes neither the near-homogeneity of handedness of >>biological organics, nor the racemic nature of experimentally >>produced ones. > Ahem. Exactly. The labels are arbitrary. Almost all of the naturally > occuring organics are designated L. They could all be designated D. > They could be designated L if they had an odd number of hydrogen atoms, > and D if they had an even number of hydrogen atoms. They could be L > if discovered on Mon/Wed/Fri, and D if discovered on Tues/Thur/Sat/Sun. > Scientists, being kind to aspiring biologists, named them consistently. > Why are creationists amazed that 'all' of the natural organics are L??? Let's see if we can communicate, we're missing each other somewhere. When I talk about arbitrariness of labelling, I mean the *group* of L-amino acids as opposed to the *group* of D-amino acids. The labels of the groups could be reversed and it would make no difference - the near homogenity of handedness of biological organics would be preserved. By your comments, particularly about labelling on the basis of day of discovery, I assume (perhaps incorrectly?) that you mean for any given *amino acid* the two forms could be labelled arbitrarily. This would render the labels meaningless, since there would be no common properties among the elements of each group. Asserting that there is no intrinsic left- or right-handedness of the molecules is in one sense true. But that is hardly the same thing as saying there is no common property. There is. All of the L-amino forms follow the CORN law: when one looks down the bond joining the H-atom to the alpha-carbon, one can read off, in clockwise order, the *CO*OH group, *R* group, and *N*H_2 group. A shared structural characteristic: not arbitrary. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois "I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being." Psalm 104:33