Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site denelcor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!denelcor!lmc
From: lmc@denelcor.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney)
Newsgroups: net.misc,net.origins
Subject: Re: If you've got the time
Message-ID: <512@denelcor.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 30-Jul-84 01:21:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: denelcor.512
Posted: Mon Jul 30 01:21:36 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jul-84 07:39:23 EDT
References: <283@ihu1e.UUCP>
Organization: Denelcor, Aurora, CO
Lines: 54

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