Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utastro.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!bill From: bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.origins Subject: Re: If You've Got the Time... Message-ID: <268@utastro.UUCP> Date: Tue, 24-Jul-84 12:10:49 EDT Article-I.D.: utastro.268 Posted: Tue Jul 24 12:10:49 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jul-84 09:27:35 EDT References: <896@akgua.UUCP>, <2993@rabbit.UUCP> Organization: UTexas Astronomy Dept., Austin, Texas Lines: 60 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)