Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site denelcor.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!hao!denelcor!lmc From: lmc@denelcor.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: RE: Time and the Amino Acid Motorcycle Message-ID: <517@denelcor.UUCP> Date: Fri, 27-Jul-84 01:47:52 EDT Article-I.D.: denelcor.517 Posted: Fri Jul 27 01:47:52 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jul-84 21:17:35 EDT References: <1131@bmcg.UUCP> Organization: Denelcor, Aurora, CO Lines: 34 Ah, you are correct. Alas, my example has only restricted application. However, there are two other points that need to be made to make the insufficient-time argument invalid (both have been touched on by others in the discussion; I merely reinterate): 1) The active site of the insulin molecule (in all of its various forms) is rather a small portion of the entire protein; in a general protein, it may be several short portions of the protein brought into juxtaposition by the three dimensional form of the molecule. This is how it is possible that pig insulin can be effective for humans -- the different parts can be radically different as long as the active site remains the same. The chances of putting together the relatively small active site randomly are much better than matching the entire protein. 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. Please understand, I am not a biochemist, and therefore my arguments aren't as rigorous as they could be. My first argument was designed to show that the random sticky-marble theory of molecule/protein/dna creation is not appropriate because the atoms/amino acids have properties which encourage certain ways of binding. There are many other parts to the argument, which must all be considered as a whole to explain away the otherwise low probability of organic complexity. -- Lyle McElhaney (hao,brl-bmd,nbires,csu-cs,scgvaxd)!denelcor!lmc