Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: I Myself am Left-Handed Message-ID: <491@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 27-Nov-84 17:31:48 EST Article-I.D.: uwmacc.491 Posted: Tue Nov 27 17:31:48 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 29-Nov-84 03:14:57 EST Distribution: net Organization: UW Primate Center Lines: 54 > [Merlyn Leroy] > These arguments (that the probability of life arising by chance is > calculated to be near zero, and that it violates the second law of thermo- > dynamics) have been hashed and re-hashed so much that I don't know why I'm > replying...but here goes. I'm mystified as well, given the arguments presented below... > If I shuffle a deck of cards and deal out the entire deck, the > probability that a *specific* sequence is dealt is 52!; however, if I deal A probability of 52! is indeed quite high. > out the deck and say "This is AMAZING! I have dealt a sequence that has only > a 1 out of 52! chance of happening!! This must be my lucky day!" - my > observation is meaningless, since I must get SOME sequence. 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 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 case. (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. > Are you amazed at how cities have streets arranged alphabetically?) Cities are, to some extent, designed. This is a poor analogy. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois "Jesus Christ is not Cute." John Fahey