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