rjb@akgua.UUCP (07/19/84)
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 say ?
****************************
[1] Isaac Asimov, The Genetic Code, New York : The New American Library,
1962, p92.
[2] Ibid.
****************************
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}
AT&T Technologies, Inc.............. Norcross, Ga
(404) 447-3784 ... Cornet 583-3784alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (07/20/84)
> 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 ?" What you attempt to calculate in your article is the probability of *life as we know it* resulting from random combinations of the elements. What if there are many "right" combinations, that is, many combinations which could lead to intelligent life? In that case, your calculations wouldn't be meaningful. Whichever form of intelligent life resulted could sit around wondering why the "right" combination occured. -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories
alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (07/20/84)
<Here we are, all doing time...> A small probability means a finite probability. Maybe the universe developed the right combination of chemicals a few minutes after the 'big bang.' That seems a lot more probable then having gotten here by having some God say 'poof! life exists!' As to what i have to say about all this: i say that if your example and reasoning and numbers are valid, and the Raional Materialists are correct, then the chance that there is life in the universe which has a separate origin from ours, is very small. sdcrdcf!alan
alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) (07/20/84)
> 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 ?" It's easy to get into trouble discussing the probability of past events. A simple example should make this clear: Suppose I toss a coin 10 times. Whatever the outcome is, I can look at it and say, "The probability of this particular outcome was only 1/2^10, but it *did* happen. How could it be random? It's too unlikely. It must have been the result of divine intervention!" -- Alan S. Driscoll AT&T Bell Laboratories
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/21/84)
> 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. 1. This assumes an agent (nature) doing the "trying", when simple random events offer a better description. 2. This also assumes some sort of linear flow to probabilistic events. (i.e., if there is a one in a billion chance of something happening, we would have to wade through a billion trials before the event occurred) A probability only represents a likelihood of an event occurring. An extremely improbable event can occur three times in a row and this would still not "violate" the probability or infer that there is an agent "directing" the events to happen. After the fact, one may proclaim that "what happened was highly unlikely", but that has no bearing on whether or not the event was "caused" or "directed" by some agent. "We" (our planet) didn't have to have "tried" all the possibilities; we just happened to have "tried" the ones that happened to work. Who knows? Perhaps there are millions of planets out there where other combinations, some unsuccessful, some successful (though not necessarily like ours) are being "tried". This planet was one (THE one?) on which there was "success"---on which life resulted. (Of course, the words in quotes, like "try" and "success", are quoted for a reason: because use of those words may make nice allegory, but they imply some external agent doing the "trying" and determining the criteria for "success", and there's no need for such an agent in the current model, and no evidence to require one.) One might still ask "Among all the improbabilities of the infinite, then, why here, why us?" But asking that question makes a bold assumption---that there is something out there that determined a "why" and acted on it. A bold assumption about the way one might LIKE the universe to be organized. That "liking" doesn't make it so, much as one might wish to believe that one's existence is not simply a result of normal physical interactions and chance.. -- If it doesn't change your life, it's not worth doing. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
brianp@shark.UUCP (07/21/84)
+ From: rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob])
+ Lines: 56
+ ... 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.
Of course, you are an expert on the initial stages of the development
of life on various types of planets. How many planets have you watched
while they developed life? And if there IS anyone who knows a lot about
the way life developed here, their ideas aren't necessarily correct.
+ ...and we assume that for each SECOND that the Earth has
+ existed a different combination of insulin-like protein is produced,
One protein molecule per second sounds so slow, that one would think you to
be un-serious. There are a whole bunch of amino acids in the ocean, and
they don't have sufficient cognitive abilities to even underSTAND the notion
of taking turns. Once the right reactions get going, there should be lots of
proteins getting formed every millisecond...
+ 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.
Only if you assume that the mechanism is a bunch of amino acids politely
taking turns to join up together. If you have other mechanisms at work,
things get wonderfully complicated.
+ Note that my source on this combination data (Asimov) is not a
+ creationist or religious person.
So? Scientists aren't SUPPOSED to be omniscient little know-it-alls.
The history of science is filled with theories that were either
improved or disproved.
Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianplaura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (07/21/84)
Rich Rosen and Alan Driscoll have nailed 2 of the problems with this argument. There is (at least) a third. There are several competing theories about the origin of life and the development of polymers. For a while ``energy in the form of lightning'' was in vogue; these days ``formation in clay beds'' seem to have more support. There are other theories which use cosmic radiation and radiation from radioactive minerals in the earth to provide for the required energy. No doubt there are other theories which I haven't even heard of. No matter which theory you use, however, your figures are not going resemble the random combinations model. (and they had better not -- the problem isn't in getting polymers in the first place, which is fairly easy, but in getting them in such quantity and getting them to not immediately decompose). The development of life thus seems far more likely no matter which model you use (though some models make it more likely than others.) About 8 (I think) years ago there was a Scientific American Issue on the topic. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (07/24/84)
The argument that life had to be created because of the alleged
low probabilities of its formation otherwise fails on several
grounds.
First, picking a given protein (e.g., insulin) and showing that
the probabilities of evolving one of a particular group of insulin
molecules is small (however large the group), fails because probability
theory tells us nothing about what *has* been observed, only about
what *may be observed in the future*. To give an analogy, one
can show that the particular genetic endowment that Bob Brown possesses
would be incredibly unlikely to have arisen by chance. Should Bob
therefore conclude (to invert Descartes) "I am very improbable, therefore
I do not exist"? Surely the fallacy in this argument is obvious.
What probability theory can tell us (assuming we knew enough) would
be the probability of Bob's unborn offspring to have a particular
genetic makeup. But that is not the question at hand.
For this argument to have any validity, you would have to show that
the protein is absolutely necessary for life, not just for life as
we know it, and also has an incredibly low probability of formation.
But no one can do this, because the only example of life we have is
that on Earth, which presumably evolved from a very small group of
organisms and therefore represents only one possible solution to
the problem of the formation of life. On another planet things
probably - no, certainly - were very different.
Secondly, even if one could show that the probabilities were very low
and the proteins essential for life, it would prove nothing. The reason
is that it ignores the so-called "anthropic principle". That is, we
are here discussing this question only because we are here discussing
it. You cannot conclude from the fact that we are here anything about
how we got here, even if you could prove that for us to have gotten
here by abiogenesis, evolution, etc., was extremely unlikely. Remember,
low probability is not equivalent to zero probability.
Thirdly, if one looks at the most primitive proteins (which exist in one
form or another in all cells) one finds that the probabilities
of their formation are much higher than those calculated by
creationists. I note the case of ferridoxin, which occurs universally
in cells. It is clear that it arose by a process of doubling and
redoubling of a very short chain of neucleotides (just a few dozen).
The probability of getting the original neucleotide chain is very
high.
The latest research on the problem of the formation of life shows that
it is much more probable than had been anticipated. For both
theoretical and observational evidence on the subject, one of the
best books available is the newly published *Genesis on Planet Earth*,
by William Day (Yale 1984). This book has a fairly heavy dose of
organic chemistry, but the treatment is quite thorough and most
convincing. I recommend it highly.
I won't be around for a while, so I am sorry that I'll miss the continuation
of this discussion.
--
Bill Jefferys 8-%
Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail)
{allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp)
utastro!bill@ut-ngp (ARPANET)pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (07/25/84)
[from Mike Musing:] >The scientific mumbo-jumbo presented as a proof for creationism >missed an important point: the universe is BIG. There is a large number >of planets. The possibility of amino acids originating somewhere in the >universe does not seem all that negligible if you take that into account, >even with questionable calculation methods used (I saw very different >figures from some Extraterrestrial Communication Congress). How many planets are known to exist beyond our solar system? Have they been discovered or are they just assumed to exists because there are a lot of stars out there and the universe is so big? I honestly don't know. Can anyone give me a reference? >The original question is similar to "what's the probability of Bob Brown >being born at that exactly location?". Negligible, no doubt. But,... Hardly so. Bob Brown is a particular individual, whereas any of the right amino acid molecules will do. Also the location of the molecules' genesis does not matter. Also since the birth of human individuals is an established process we can, at least, expect it to happen--and we know it happens all the time. The same cannot be said of abiogenesis. If it ever occurred it must have established itself as a process. -- Paul Dubuc {cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbscc!pmd The true light that enlightens every one was coming into the world... (John 1:9)
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (07/27/84)
See the parent article for details, but the basic idea it advances is that
evolutionism doesn't cut it because the probability of evolution having
happened is way too low.
It's an old argument. We've been around it at least once since this group
was created. It's also a bad argument (though it's not as bad as the
Second-Law-of-Thermo arguments). There are flaws in the numbers; there are
also flaws in the assumptions, such as assuming that either Earth is the
only planet that could evolve life or that every planet in the universe
with life-supporting potential has life. One of the worst mistakes is
using probabilistic arguments to predict a single case. (To illustrate:
the probability of tossing a fair coin 8 times and getting exactly the
sequence H H T H H H H T is less than one half of one percent. However,
that sequence is as likely as any other!)
--
Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086
...A friend of the devil is a friend of mine.colonel@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
lmc@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!lmcestate@abnjh.UUCP (D.R.Pierce) (08/10/84)
We are nothing more than the realization of individual aspects of a far greater mind...and the damned thing is deranged! (Visions From The Orcrest Stone) Carl D.