Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cvl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!rlh
From: rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Perhaps probability
Message-ID: <1339@cvl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 23-Aug-84 12:28:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: cvl.1339
Posted: Thu Aug 23 12:28:16 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 25-Aug-84 06:52:39 EDT
Organization: U. of Md. Computer Vision Lab
Lines: 107


>>
>>               The point is that probability, like any tool, is subject to
>> gigo - the results obtained are only as valid as the input supplied. The
>> argument against the the "probability arguments against evolution" applies
>> to the assumptions made, not to the statistics derived therefrom. The
>> The
>> assumptions of the argument are:
>> 
>>  - that all possible combinations of any two (atoms, amino-acids) are
>>    equally probable;
>>  - that there is only one possible right combination which will fulfill
>>    any given protein's function;
>> 
>> The "fatuousness" of the argument is in the assumptions, not the statistics.
>> The assumptions are demolished; the argument is invalid. Any similar
>> argument not based on these assumptions is not affected.

>Failure on our part to demonstrate the validity of our argument
>(although I haven't conceded that) doesn't validate the 
>proposition that complex organic compounds arose by non-directed
>processes.  The point of my article was to indicate that no
>evidence has been put forth to demonstrate such a proposition,
>and that the arguments for it proceed along the lines of
>speculation (as they necessarily must).  The ideas advanced
>within those arguments may be based on known and accepted
>scientific phenomena, but they prove nothing relative to the
>validity of the proposition.  Because organic processes
>occur in certain ways, given that the organic compounds exist
>today, proves zero about how they got that way in the first
>place.  If it's so easy to get these compounds together,
>someone please submit references regarding their creation
>(unfortunate word) in the laboratory from the raw materials.
>And also regarding what keeps them from decomposing as fast
>as they arise.

What we have here is not just failure to demonstrate the validity of
the argument. The argument is invalid. In particular the second
assumption, "that there is only one possible right combination which
will fulfill any given protein's function", is known to be false.
Pig insulin is not identical to human insulin but works just as well
even in humans (the human immune system sometimes reacts to it because
it is not present during fetal development). In fact virtually all
proteins (all that have been tested) vary from species to species in
varying degrees. Hemoglobin (which was also used as an example) is so
variable that in many species it is barely recognizable (in mollusks
and some insects copper is even used instead of iron).

Also note that a protein does not have to be generated all at once.
As soon as even a rough approximation is in use an optimal protein will
be produced in a relatively short time (millions of years) by the
replacement of one amino acid at a time. I can guess a 10 digit
number in an average of 50 guesses if I can guess each digit
independently.

Note that new proteins have been "created" within the last century. In
particular, enzymes that deactivate pesticides in insects. Resistance
to DDT was non-existent at the turn of the century; now almost all
insect pests have it.

>Please observe that I do not put this forth as an argument
>*for creation*, but rather as a reason not to be satisfied
>with the evolutionary arguments.

And the above is not evidence for evolution. It is only a refutation of
an argument against evolution. Argument for evolution follows.

I haven't seen much of the evolutionary evidence on this net. This
should not be taken as a sign that such evidence does not exist.
It only shows that we (you may have guessed already that I believe in
evolution) do not state our case very well. To most scientists
("evolution scientists" the existence of any other kind has not yet
been established) being asked to prove that the world is more than
10,000 years old is like being asked to prove that the world is not
flat. They don't know where to start. Also remember that flat earthers
and creationists have more practice at defending there views. I
probably should not have written this paragraph. It is not intended as
a personal attack. It is only an explanation of the way many people see
the situation.

One argument for evolution concerns the variability of proteins
described above. Biologists have sorted all known species into families
and sub-families on the basis of physical characteristics. The theory
of evolution says that these families are actually genetic relationships.
If changes not effecting the function of a protein happen at an
approximately constant rate the theory predicts that close relatives
(according to the physical characteristics) should have more similar proteins
than distant relatives. This prediction was made before, and was the
immediate reason for doing, the first maps of the variation of proteins
between species. The actual data fits the theory almost exactly.
The difference between the protein sequences of two species increases
with distance in the "family tree". This in effect produces a second
"fossil record". In order to refute evolution you must refute or
discount both this and "conventional" fossils.

Of course God could have created all the plants and animals with this
"family tree" built in. I see no reason for him to do so except,
perhaps, to throw us off the track. I.e., God created the earth and
designed it to look like it had evolved (he apparently did a good job
in that respect). Of course, if you believe this there is no way it can
be disproven.

I await your scientific evidence for creation.

			Ralph Hartley
			rlh@cvl
			siesmo!rlgvax!cvl!rlh