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!harpo!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!bill From: bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) Newsgroups: net.misc Subject: Re: The Probability of Life from Non-life Message-ID: <154@utastro.UUCP> Date: Mon, 27-Feb-84 14:15:08 EST Article-I.D.: utastro.154 Posted: Mon Feb 27 14:15:08 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 29-Feb-84 13:17:46 EST References: <1786@cbscc.UUCP> Organization: UTexas Astronomy Dept., Austin, Texas Lines: 136 In an effort to keep this as short as possible, I have responded only to Paul Dubuc's most important points. The reducing atmosphere, the question of concentrating amino acids, or the exclusive use of L amino acids, have been well covered by others in recent contributions. >> 1) I don't know what point that Bill is trying to make by saying >> that Brown's argument is "as old as the hills". That may be true, >> but it is does not disqualify the argument. Also, Bill stated that >> evolutionists have repeatedly pointed out the fallacies of this >> argument. Could you give a reference? A recent article is "Creationist Misunderstanding, Misrepresentation and Misuse of the Second Law of Thermodynamics" by Stanley Freske, *Creation/Evolution*, Spring 1981. I'm sorry that I can't give you any earlier ones, but I have read some (even many years ago) and they do exist. The point is that the argument is clearly fallacious, yet creationists insist on trotting it out. >> 2) I don't think the assertion that Brown is setting up a "straw man" >> is correct. When biology textbooks attempt to give us an explanation >> of the origin of life, they cite the conditions of the early earth >> that Brown has in his paper, and Stanley Miller's experiments as a >> starting point. Brown explains the problems with some of the abiogenesis >> scenarios (I have read others). I have to disagree with you here. Although Brown (and Coppedge, who was responsible for the calculation) do refer to Miller, and to Bode and Morowitz, the final model they produce is so unlike what scientists *really* postulate for abiogenesis that it amounts to setting up a straw man. If they want to criticise abiogenesis, they should specifically criticise what biologists have proposed, rather than criticising a position of their own devising. >> ...Brown's assertion that the conditions [old Earth and reducing atmosphere] >> would not have existed is not an important part of his argument. The >> point is that, though he may think them debatable, they are taken as >> true anyway for the purposes of the calculations made. I think that Brown is grandstanding here, and on many other of his points that he "generously" concedes to "make it easier to create life." I don't fault him for using standard debating tricks, but I want people to be aware of them. >> Again, the assumptions [Brown's points 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and >> 13] were not attributed to evolutionists but were made to test the >> probability of abiogenesis occurring. I think that >> without some of them the calculations would be impossible to make in >> the first place. The probability of abiogenesis without them should >> me much smaller. That is the whole point. I strongly disagree. In particular, condition #9 makes abiogenesis much harder (see below). >> I don't think any *particular combination* was specified in the calculations. >> Any *useable* amino acid chain was considered a success and preserved for >> the formation of the simplest cell, which would require 239 different kinds >> of proteins. I stand (slightly) corrected. Coppedge's actual assumption (#9, as quoted by Brown) is: >> Allow one substitution in each chain, even at the "active sites", with >> no ill effects. This is hardly different from requiring particular proteins to be formed. The allowable proteins can differ from the target proteins only in one position. Notice how a very restrictive assumption has been cleverly slipped in in the guise of "making it easier" to form life. Freske addresses this point in his article, which criticises a similar calculation by Gish. He says, "Gish doesn't mention whether anyone has systematically examined the properties of any significant number of [amino acid] sequences. but even if thousands had been investigated, this would be nowhere near [1 in] 10^119 [which Gish assumed], and it would be just as reasonable to assume that 1 in a trillion(10^12), 1 in a billion (10^9) or even one in a million (10^6) has the desired characteristics. Actually, the evidence we have points in this direction. For example, examination of hemoglobins of different species shows that only 7 out of a total of 140 sites always has the same amino acid (Perutz, 1968 [*Nature*, Vol. 219, p. 902]). The probability of these 7 sites being correctly occupied, assuming again 20 different amino acids, is 1 in a little over a billion (1.3x10^9)." >> Again, why is the burden of proof laid on creationists? They have to >> prove that any conceivable mechanism (life precursors) did not exist. Coppedge's calculation is based on an unreasonable model of how life might have come into existence, a model that ignores the possiblilty of life precursors, which are generally believed by scientists to have been necessary. If Brown wants to maintain that Coppedge's calculation "proves" life could not have formed abiogenetically, it is up to him to show that the normal assumptions scientists make are untenable. Otherwise there is no valid proof. >> Creationists are often belittled because they believe in a Creator and >> search for scientific evidence to support that belief. This is supposed >> to show their inherent narrow mindedness and a great hinderance >> to their meaningful contribution to science. I see buried in this attitude >> the assumption that atheistic presuppositions are inherently superior >> and more objective than theistic ones. One who studies origins with >> the idea that a creator is responsible is being narrow minded while >> one who studies it under the conviction that there is no God behind >> it all is not. I don't get it. Has God been proven not to exist so as >> to make those who believe in his existence foolish and narrow minded? >> Why is scientific research to support non-theistic conclustions justified >> and research to support theistic conclusions mocked? Paul, I hope that you are not implying that every scientist who believes in abiogenesis or evolution is an atheist. If so, it will be my turn to have hurt feelings. I see no problem whatever in the idea that the Creator endowed our universe with physical laws that allow life to form abiogenetically and with reasonably high probability. I find it much harder to believe that God created the universe and all species a mere 10,000 years ago, and then (I would have to say maliciously) left us with an overwhelming amount of evidence that the universe is 15 billion years old, and that abiogenesis and evolution have occurred. My father, who was trained as a biochemist before he entered the ministry, has pointed out to me on many occasions that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. The task of science, as I see it, is to understand the physical laws of the universe and to explain the diverse phenomena we see in accordance with that understanding. It is not in the spirit of science to explain phenomenona that we do not understand at a particular time by appealing to special intervention by the Creator. Of course, everyone has the right to *believe* anything he or she wishes. What they do not have the right to do is to teach religious beliefs *as science* in the public schools. If they object to their children being taught certain things in school, it is their duty to teach their their own beliefs at home or in their religious organizations. But KEEP IT OUT OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS! -- Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {ihnp4,kpno,ctvax}!ut-sally!utastro!bill (uucp) utastro!bill@ut-ngp (ARPANET)