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