Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation (Part 3)
Message-ID: <462@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 12-Apr-85 10:17:31 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.462
Posted: Fri Apr 12 10:17:31 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 14-Apr-85 06:37:25 EST
References: <330@iham1.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Distribution: net
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 42
Summary: 

In article <330@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP writes:
>f)  ''If life really depends on each gene being as  unique
>    as  it  appears  to  be, then it is too unique to come
>    into being by chance mutations.'' [Frank B. Salisbury,
>    (Plant  Science  Department,  Utah  State University),
>    ''Natural Selection and the Complexity of the  Gene,''
>    NATURE, Vol. 224, 25 October 1969, p. 342.]

As promised, I stopped at the Museum of Comparative Zoology library last
night to look up this citation.  And its rebuttals.

As expected, this is a quotation out of context.  The argument the author
is constructing is much more complicated than is indicated by this one
sentence.

The author is examining the "given enough time, and chemicals, life will
arise" argument, and is trying to fit numbers to it.  His major assumption
is that enzymes are needed, so he examines the probabilities of their
forming at random.  He takes into account that there can be quite a bit of
variability of enzymes that will still work, but admits failure to bring
his computed probabilities to a reasonable level.

The purpose of the quoted sentence is to invite others to look at his
assumptions, rather than to deny that life could have arisen spontaneously.

A quick search of the Science Citations Index provided several articles
responding to his.  The most telling criticisms were:
1)  That he selected a modern enzyme with an extremely high specificity as
    his model.  Early life would not have needed such high specificity in
    enzymes, and so would have a much larger number of possible enzymes to
    start from.
2)  That early enzyme formation was a random phenomenon.  There might well
    have been chemical evolution before life really began.

It is amusing to note that he actually mentioned (towards the end) that
special creation would explain the origin of enzymes.  But he added that
it provides little guidance in formulating scientific experiments.
Does anyone know why he threw this in?  Did Utah practice creationist
Lysenkoism at the time, or was Salisbury a creationist?
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh