Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihu1e.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihu1e!nowlin
From: nowlin@ihu1e.UUCP (Jerry Nowlin)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.misc
Subject: Re: If you've got the time
Message-ID: <283@ihu1e.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 21-Jul-84 14:14:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihu1e.283
Posted: Sat Jul 21 14:14:49 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Jul-84 03:30:51 EDT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 101

In reference to:

==============================================================================
     Article 3000 of 3001, Thu 15:44.
     Subject: If You've Got the Time...
     From: Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}
     Newsgroups: net.religion

     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 you say ?

     ****************************

     [1] Isaac Asimov, The Genetic Code, New York : The New American Library,
     1962, p92.

     [2] Ibid.

     ****************************

     Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}
==============================================================================

Bob,

     I don't have the references you sited.  If I did I'd probably be  reading
them to figure out what the true significance of 8 E+27 or 135 E+165 different
combinations is.  From what I remember of organic chemistry (had to take  that
sucker twice!) an organic molecule is sort of like a jigsaw puzzle.  There are
some ways things can be put together that are so wrong they don't even deserve
to  be  tried.   My  guess  is,  the ways that are too wrong for nature to try
outnumber the ways that are sort of wrong but nature might try anyway.  Again,
I  don't  have  your reference but I have a feeling the numbers you quoted are
just more statistics that  become  relatively  meaningless  in  the  light  of
practical scrutiny.

     For now lets say your numbers are correct.  I have a couple  alternatives
to  your  lack  of  time theory.  One would satisfy most evolutionists and the
other is real whacked out.  I can't prove either one of them.  There  is  more
evidence  favoring the first but I secretly root for the second because I like
the idea.

     I have a feeling the initial correct combination of elements was the key,
and that once the process of evolution was thus started, random chance was not
*as much of* a factor anymore.  The fact that our ancestor  organic  molecules
got  lucky  and  didn't  have  to  wait for the correct statistically probable
combination to come around was great good luck.  It  makes  it  all  the  more
understandable  that  we have yet to receive a signal from the depths of space
that can be attributed to another intelligent race of creatures.  The rest  of
the galaxy "probably" didn't get started as early as us.

     On the other hand maybe we're the late bloomers.  Maybe some  intelligent
race of space travelers saw our planet as a piece of fertile ground in need of
some tending and planted the seeds of life.  Maybe they even  come  back  from
time  to  time  to  hoe a little and pull some weeds.  I find this theory much
more acceptable than one employing a supernatural deity.  For a theory no  one
can prove, it at least doesn't defy any natural laws I know of.

     So my conclusion is, I don't think you can make  a  case  for  there  not
being  enough time for evolution to work.  But it doesn't matter.  Even if you
could, it wouldn't mean that creation wins by default.   It's  an  interesting
topic  of  discussion though.  I couldn't figure out from your article whether
you favored creation or not.  Most people who try to refute evolution do.

Jerry Nowlin
ihnp4!ihu1e!nowlin