> Date: 23 AUG 1996 20:42:03 -0400 > From: Richard M Kliman <firstname.lastname@example.org> > Newgroups: sci.bio.technology, sci.bio.misc, sci.math, > bionet.molbio.evolution, bionet.microbiology > Subject: Re: Several questions on evolution, and mutation (rate) > >In article <4vfvkr$446@news>, Larry Adams <email@example.com> wrote: >>Are the odds of inanimate materials coallescing to form life greater or lesser >>than those for the appearance of the human eye? > > The first is more likely than the second. I can say this categorically > because the second is absolutely dependent on the first...unless the > probability that evolution would lead to humans with eyes is 100%, in > which case the two would be equally likely. > > As far as the probability that inanimate materials would coalesce to form > life goes... who knows? First off, the question assumes a false > dichotomy between inanimate materials and what we now consider to be > life. Secondly, it assumes that we actually have insight into these > probabilities. Unless you are willing to offer verifiable alternative > hypotheses, I think the best we can say is that life and human eyes *have* > evolved - and wouldn't it be cool to know as much of the story as we can?
Well, I don't know that we can say with CERTAINTY that life evolved but people certainly do SAY it. I've heard calculations that to just form one protein (amino acid?? I think) by chance, one of the building blocks of life is 10 to the 46th power - and that's not even life. So the probability for life is significantly greater than that. And the time involved is significantly greater than the longest estimates for the age of the earth - so what conclusions should you draw from this??
> Rich Kliman
*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^ * David Beorn, firstname.lastname@example.org (internet) * * Virginia FREENET * *-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^