Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Newsgroups: net.bio,net.origins,net.sci Subject: Re: The missing step -- self-reproducing organisms Message-ID: <142@psivax.UUCP> Date: Mon, 19-Nov-84 13:12:19 EST Article-I.D.: psivax.142 Posted: Mon Nov 19 13:12:19 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 21-Nov-84 01:28:15 EST References: @gatech.UUCP> <3469@ecsvax.UUCP> <10810@gatech.UUCP> Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen) Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA Lines: 53 Xref: sdcsvax net.bio:129 net.origins:539 net.sci:226 Summary: <> After my earlier posting on this subject I recieved a request to explain my reasoning behind concluding that the probability of life evolving on an Earth-like planet was "very" high, given enough time. The following seems to express it very well: > If you would rather suggest that statistics is involved with the analysis > of potentiality, instead, then in the specific case of the current disscusion > living organisms and their evolution, I think that you would be hard pressed > to suggest that any other possibility for either molecular or cellular > organization is available. The biochemical and physiological basis for > "living organisms" is so consistent among all, and I mean all, the samplings > that are available on this planet that it is very difficult to suggest that > we represent one of a set of survivable random configurations. Although > the apparent level of complexity in the evolution of "living organisms" is > quite high, there is no reason to suspect that on that path there were any > other possible routes than the specific one that was taken. And without > the demonstrated occurence of other potential states, the discussion of > what the probability of any specific stage should be, is quite premature. > > .... and their attitudes > were that randomness played a great role in the construction and direction > of evolutionary development. These ideas I feel give randomness too high of > a hand in the game. I would rather think it was much more deterministic > than they would have had us believe. >-- >Carter Bullard >ICS, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta GA 30332 >CSNet:Carter @ Gatech ARPA:Carter.Gatech @ CSNet-relay.arpa >uucp:...!{akgua,allegra,amd,ihnp4,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!carter However, I would like to add some additonal evidence that the deterministic concept that Mr. Bullard presents is reasonable. First there is the evidence of widespread existance of organic compounds in interstellar space, clearly of no-biological origin. Then there is the great ease with which Dr. Urey and others like him have created *complex* organic systems in the lab from non-biological sources with relatively crude methods. These organic systems include poly-nucleic acids, polypeptides, and closed membrane systems resembling living cells. All this in only about 20 years. This indicates, first that organic compounds *are* present everywhere the conditions are right, and secondly that the chemistry of organic compounds tends towards producing life-like systems under Earth-like conditions. In other words, at least the earliest stages of the origin of life are deterministic and inevetible, and the later stages may be reasonably concluded to be equally deterministic. This is especially true since a crude form of "natural selection" may well apply to proto-biotic systems. Stanley Friesen P.S.: My qualifications in this area include a B.S in Biology with emphasis on Systematics and Evolutionary Theory.