"Now let us examine the possibility of the spontaneous formation of protein
molecules from a non-living system. We may assume, for purposes of argument,
that, in the course of chemical evolution, there had already come into
existence a mixture containing a great quantity of various amino acids. As
we have seen, the free energy change for formation of the peptide bond is
such that, at equilibrium, about one percent of the amino acids would be
joined together as dipeptides, granting the presence of appropriate
catalysts.. The cances of forming tripeptides would be about one hundredth
that of forming dipeptides, and the probability of forming a polypeptide of
of only ten amino acids as units would be something like 10^-20. The
spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known
proteins seems beyond all probability."~Harold Blum, Time's Arrow and
Evolution (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1955) cited by
A.E.Wilder-Smith Man's origin, Man's Destiny, (Wheaton: Harold Shaw
Publishers, 1968), p. 60.
In calculating the odds against forming cytochrome c Robert Gange describes
the amount of paper needed to store the number written out.
"Picture an 8.5 x 11-inch sheet of paper with letters printed on both
sides. Let's allow eighty columns by sixty-six lines of letters, giving us
just under 5,300 letters on each side of the paper, or 10,600 letters per
sheet. Putting the sheets into piles, we can stack about 320 sheets per
inch, giving us just over thirty-six thousand letters in a cube one inch on
a side. Now what volume of space do we need to store enough sheets whose
total number of letters equals the certainty that chance did not produce
cytochrome C? When I first did the calculation the answer astounded me. We
need the space of almost forty thousand universes, each 30 billion
light-years wide!" Robert Gange, _Origins and Destiny_ (Waco: Word, 1986),
p. 75
I have suggested that the odds are not so bleak for the formation of these
structures because all these calculations depend on the premise that one and
only one sequence will perform the function. I have thought of an analogy
which illustrates what I am trying to say.
Consider the sentence
"Whan that Aprille with his shoures sote
The droghte of Marche hath perced to the rote,
And bathed every veyne in swich licour,
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;"
This is a funny sequence of letters. It is similar to English but it is
different. But even so, some information is conveyed to the modern man
(especially if you sound it out).
What are the odds that this sequence formed by chance? There are 27 letters
(including the space) and 122 positions. Thus the odds of this one
particular sequence forming are 1 chance out of 27^122 which is a very big
number. But that is the same chance of finding any 122 character length
sequence. What are the odds of any sequence perfoming the function this
sequence performs? That is very difficult to calculate.
I will mutate this sentence.
When that jAprille with his shours sete
The droght of March hath peirced to the rote,
And bathed every veine in swich licour,
Of which vertue engendred is the flour;
This might be a little more understandable
Another round of mutations.
When that April with his showrs swete
The droght of March hath peirced to the root
And bathed every vein in such licour,
Of which vertue engendered is the flour.
One last mutation
When that April ;with his showers sweet
The drought of March hath peirced to the root
And bathed every vein in such licour,
Of which virtue engendred is the flower.
These 4 lines are the first four lines of the Canterbury
Tales. The first is in Middle English and even today, is
capable of conveying some meaning but not very efficiently
to the modern man. The first time I saw those first four
lines, I had some difficulty understanding it all.
The thing which is wrong with the probability argument is
that it always assumes that only one sequence will be able
to perform the function. If the function is to tell us about the
relation between March drought, April showers and May
flowers, there are 4 different sequences above which perform
the function with varying degrees of success. Thus the chances
are now known to be 4/27^122. But I can think of many
many ways of performing this function.
Consider the sequence
Stoclastic methods are inable of konnecting amino acids into
usable forms as thes methods are unable to form the 191 ledders
of this sentence into a usable from which contains infornation.
While this occasionally looks like my spelling, it does perform
the function of conveying the information. But it is very bad.
Consider the following:
Stoclastic methods are incapable of connecting amino acids into
usable forms just as thes methods are unable to form the 195
letters of this sentence into a usable form which contains
information.
Stochastic methods are incapable of connecting amino acids into
useable forms just as these methods are unable to form the 198
letters of this sentence into a useable form which contains
information.
Chance can not form proteins anymore than sentences.
The odds of forming a single protein by chance are about as
likely as forming this 118 letter sentence by chance which is
39^123.
The chance of forming any protein by pure chance is about as
likely as forming this 141 letter sentence by pure chance alone
which is 39^141.
The probability of making a protein by random chance alone is
about as unlikely as forming a 180 character sequence of this sentence by
random
processes which in this case is 39^180.
Chance is ineffectual as a causative agent for anything.
Chance processes are unlikely to form proteins.
Sentences can not be formed by random chance neither can life..
Sendences can nod be made by random chance; neither can proteins
***
The point is that there are multiple solutions to the function "tell me
how unlikely chance is to create sentences. Even mis-spelled
senctences can convey the meaning intended as the many
mispellings and typos on the net attest.
This illustrates what I have been trying to say about the phase
space of DNA systems. The problem is not as simple as is
often presented in our arguments against evolution.
In the case of the Middle English of the Canterbury Tales,
That sequence of letters performed its function for its "organism"
(I.e. Middle English) as the last translation performs for its "organism"
(i.e. Modern English) This is very similar to the different
protein sequences found in pigs, cows and humans but which perform
the same function.
glenn