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!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: A few questions on possibilities and odds.
Message-ID: <684@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Aug-85 15:20:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.684
Posted: Tue Aug 27 15:20:54 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 2-Sep-85 03:26:54 EDT
References: <2197@sdcc6.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 59
Keywords: probability biochemistry organic evolution
Summary: 

In article <2197@sdcc6.UUCP> ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) writes:
>
>I've seen a figure floating around that I'd like to hear some sort of
>comment on.  A guy with a masters in biochemistry from Michegan (I
>think) gave the figure of 10^450 as the odds of life having been created
>by evolution.  Supposedly this is a somewhat well known figure that
>takes into account all the time alotted for the various reactions to
>take place to start life off and then for the evolutionary process to
>have gotten as far along as it has.  Not having access to alot of the
>necessary info, I'm wondering what most biologists/chemists/??? might
>have to say about this figure.
>
	Well, it has two primary weaknesses. It is a calculation of
the probability of *exactly* the life we know occuring, it does *not*
take into account the possibility that there might well be other
paths. Also it is based on a very imperfect knowloedge of the
mechanisms whereby life arose, so it must make numerous assumptions
about facts not in evidence. The recent article in Scientific American
on clay-life shows how new discoveries might easily overthrow most of
these assumptions, since the clay based mechanism has a much different
set of probabilities involved.

>A second question this guy brought up is that the basic formulation of
>amino acids and proteins is possible and has been experimentally proven,
>but according to him, the next step, the polypeptide chains (forgive any
>glaring errors, I'm an expert in neither biology or chemistry) are almost
>impossible to account for.  Given the nature of the complexity of the
>reactions (the need for a complex linking of singled handed chains in
>order to carry genetic information) and the fact that most of the
>reactions breakdown 10^5 times faster in water than they take place it
>would seem difficult to assume organic evolution is how it actually
>happened.
>
	Well, I do not know if this was true when he wrote his
estimates, but in fact polypeptides and other complex molecules and
structures have in fact been produced under simulated primaeval
conditions. In short, at present this is not true!

>I freely admit that this question arises from a deficit of relevant
>scientific information.  If it's a simple answer I'd like to see it. 
>If it's a complex question, I'm looking for a good (i.e. accurate,
>thorough), not overly technical (readable by someone without a masters 
>in biochemistry) book that goes through some of the difficulties in 
>organic evolution and speciation along with cosmic evolution from a 
>scientific point of view (i.e. it doesn't have to jibe with Genesis).  
>Does such a beast exist or would everyone like to see such a book?
>   
	Well, I do not have a good book title handy, but there have
been numerous articles in Scientific American, and probably in other
similar magazines which give good simple explanations. Of course, as
in all areas of science there are *no* final answers, and there never
will be - that is the nature of science, to always look for better
answers.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa