Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site digi-g.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!digi-g!brian From: brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: I Myself am Left-Handed Message-ID: <418@digi-g.UUCP> Date: Mon, 3-Dec-84 11:51:56 EST Article-I.D.: digi-g.418 Posted: Mon Dec 3 11:51:56 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 5-Dec-84 01:17:54 EST References: <491@uwmacc.UUCP> Reply-To: brian@digi-g.UUCP (brian) Distribution: net Organization: Digigraphic Systems Corp., Mpls, MN Lines: 67 Summary: .,$s/>>/me .,$s/>/Paul Dubois >> Creationists >> seem to assume that there is ONE and ONLY ONE combination of proteins, >> amino acids, etc. that are capable of supporting life, when this is not >> the case. > >This is in fact not true, and the statement betrays an ignorance of >two things: > >(i) some creationist arguments proceed on the basis that >many biological combinations would be suitable. I will not present >the argument, but the idea is generally that even an astronomical >number of suitable combinations would be too few to give any sort >of reasonable probability, because of the size of the sample space. >(This is not to defend such arguments, however; they often suffer >fallacies in the assumptions.) > >(ii) non-creationists sometimes make the same argument as the one >derided above, or one similar to it. > The original argument implied, by the probabilities quoted, exactly ONE combination of (acids|proteins|etc) producing life. If an argument comes along that allows for 'an astronomical' number of combinations, yet still calculates the origin of life to be near zero, there are other arguments waiting in the wings. (e.g. the fact that not all pre-organic and organic chemicals form with equal probability, which is blithely ignored by most arguments I've seen in this newsgroup). >> (They are also impressed by the fact that almost all of the >> naturally occuring assymetrical organics have the same "handedness" (L >> instead of D), while experimentally 'cooked up' ones are an even mix of >> about 50% L, 50% D. Give me a break! They are designated L or D by >> HUMANS, there is no intrinsic left- vs right-handedness in the molecules! > >I would appreciate it if Mr. Leroy would explain what he is trying >to show here. The labels may indeed be arbitrary, but reversing >the labels changes neither the near-homogeneity of handedness of >biological organics, nor the racemic nature of experimentally >produced ones. > Ahem. Exactly. The labels are arbitrary. Almost all of the naturally occuring organics are designated L. They could all be designated D. They could be designated L if they had an odd number of hydrogen atoms, and D if they had an even number of hydrogen atoms. They could be L if discovered on Mon/Wed/Fri, and D if discovered on Tues/Thur/Sat/Sun. Scientists, being kind to aspiring biologists, named them consistently. Why are creationists amazed that 'all' of the natural organics are L??? >> Are you amazed at how cities have streets arranged alphabetically?) > >Cities are, to some extent, designed. This is a poor analogy. > This analogy referred to the consistent naming scheme given to both naturally occuring organic chemicals, and city streets. >Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois > >"Jesus Christ is not Cute." John Fahey Merlyn Leroy {ihnp4,ihnp4,ihnp4}!umn-cs!digi-g!brian "Neither is John Fahey." J.C.