Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site shark.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!drutx!houxe!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!shark!brianp
From: brianp@shark.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: If You've Got the Time...
Message-ID: <903@shark.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Jul-84 20:15:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: shark.903
Posted: Fri Jul 20 20:15:03 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Jul-84 03:14:30 EDT
References: <895@akgua.UUCP>
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 33

+   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!brianp