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!hou3c!hocda!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!bill From: bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Responses and Responses, Part 1 of 2 Message-ID: <540@utastro.UUCP> Date: Sun, 16-Sep-84 17:07:01 EDT Article-I.D.: utastro.540 Posted: Sun Sep 16 17:07:01 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 08:37:42 EDT References: <1362@qubix.UUCP> Organization: UTexas Astronomy Dept., Austin, Texas Lines: 53 [Me] > > First, picking a given protein (e.g., insulin) and showing that > > the probabilities of evolving one of a particular group of insulin > > molecules is small (however large the group), fails because probability > > theory tells us nothing about what *has* been observed, only about > > what *may be observed in the future*. [Larry Bickford] > This *assumes* the evolution of insulin (or any other protein) as an > accomplished fact. More circular reasoning. > In a later article, Bill uses his uniqueness as a result of mixing his > parents' genes as an analogy. If such an analogy were valid, we might as > well eliminate probability studies. (So what if a bridge player were > dealt 13 spades - big deal, it's just as probable as any other hand! And > of course we shouldn't be suspicious when all of the other players have > 13 cards of the same suit...) Now if the probability that the Jefferys' > genes would have formed a non-viable entity were quite high, then I > might view Bill as something special. (If such were the case, I'm sure > the National Enquirer would also have found a way to report on him... :-) There's nothing circular in my reasoning, Larry just misses the point. I was responding to an article that alleged to show that the insulin we observe today could not have evolved by chance. My point is that you cannot argue, from the fact that we observe a particular molecule today, that it did *not* evolve by chance, any more than you can argue that my gene complement did not arise by chance processes involving my parents' genes. No assumption about the fact of the evolution of insulin is involved at all in my argument. Larry's second point is very important. A crucial problem of the probability arguments is their unstated assumption that of all possible genetic combinations, anly a vanishingly small proportion actually code for biologically active polymers. This assumption is totally without experimental foundation, and in fact is contradicted by the evidence, some of which I cited in my article. Unfortunately, Larry did not see fit to respond to that evidence. It is a fact that the genetic material in life as we know it on Earth represents only a very small fraction of the total set of possibilities. The fact that life on Earth uses this particular gene pool is not grounds to believe that it is a nearly unique solution to the problem of life. Indeed, the evidence I cited is strongly to the contrary. Thus, to argue about the probability of obtaining this or that molecule known on Earth is simply not valid or even relevant to the question of abiogenesis. -- Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)