Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site uwmacc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Perhaps probability Message-ID: <209@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 20-Aug-84 14:28:03 EDT Article-I.D.: uwmacc.209 Posted: Mon Aug 20 14:28:03 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 22-Aug-84 02:55:31 EDT Organization: UWisconsin-Madison Academic Comp Center Lines: 89 Creationists brandishing probability arguments against evolution have been told that probability cannot meaningfully be applied to the question "how did what's here happen to become as it is". If this is true, then it would appear a reasonable reply to request that evolutionists refrain from such arguments as well. I refer specifically to articles excerpted below, all of which attempt, in rather, shall we say, imprecise terms, to show that formation of complex organic molecules is not really so improbable after all. But if probabilistic considerations are inadmissible as evidence, then such arguments are as fatuous as those of the creationists are alleged to be. Right? > From: brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson) > Once the right reactions get going, there should be lots of > proteins getting formed every millisecond... "Should be." > sdcrdcf!alan > A small probability means a finite probability. Maybe the universe > developed the right combination of chemicals a few minutes after the > 'big bang.' That seems a lot more probable then having gotten here by > having some God say 'poof! life exists!' "Maybe. Seems." > From: alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll) > What you attempt to calculate in your article is the probability > of *life as we know it* resulting from random combinations of the > elements. What if there are many "right" combinations, that is, > many combinations which could lead to intelligent life? In that "What if." > From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) > No matter which theory you use, however, your figures are not going > resemble the random combinations model. (and they had better not -- the > problem isn't in getting polymers in the first place, which is fairly > easy, but in getting them in such quantity and getting them to not > immediately decompose). The development of life thus seems far more > likely no matter which model you use (though some models make it more > likely than others.) "Seems." > Victor Milenkovic research!vjm > I think the formation of life is a virtual certainty for Earth-like planets > and many other kinds also. One protein per SECOND isn't too generous "I think." > From: lmc@denelcor.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney) > 2) The proteins were undoubtedly put together before the specific use for > that protein became apparent. Thus, the first hemoglobin protein's oxygen > binding site probably "fell into place" randomly before there was a > requirement for it. Biological inertia kept it around until, one day, its > ability to carry oxygen was "written into the script" of some organism, and > from then on natural selection improved it's effeciency to do that one > task. That hemoglobin happens to be the common oxygen carrying protein for > all vertebrates does not mean that other mechanisms could not do it; it > happened to be the one that was handy when the time was ripe. "Undoubtedly. Probably. Interia kept it around. Improved its efficiency. The one that was handy." There were better arguments than these, such as the one concerning water formation, but I trust you get the point. Evolutionists insist that their arguments are valid while those of creationists are not. The above shows otherwise. "Maybe there was a creator." "What if God did such-and-such?" You don't like that, I suppose. What puts any of the above excerpts in a different class? Only that they were offered by members of the "scientific" side of the question -- and so therefore are not to be questioned!! ---- P.S. I realize I haven't dealt at all with "what are the scientific arguments for creation", which seems to be the burning question at the moment. I shall attempt it at a later date. The question is admittedly difficult. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois And he is before all things, and by him all things consist... Colossians 1:17