Re: Second law of Thermodynamics

Arthur V. Chadwick (
Sat, 22 Nov 1997 22:53:39 -0800

At 09:14 PM 11/22/97 -0600, Glenn wrote:
>I would respond with 2 things: First, the bacteria has had 3.5 billion years
>of selection to look for a better solution than Joyce was able to find in 2
>years. Second, this is a property that ribozymes don't have in nature as I
>understand the situation. Joyce wanted to evolve an ability that didn't
>exist in nature.
>So I am not surprised that better solutions can be found. The point is that
>functionality is spread far more widely throughout sequence space than
>Christians teach.

Which Christians? (That includes us, doesn't it?)
>But Art, you miss the whole point of the example. I am not trying to prove
>that life originated from molecules (although this has implications in that
>regard). I do not have the ability to put together a origin of life
>scenario. I am trying to show that the classic probability argument that
>Christians put forth is very flawed. The standard arguments makes two
>erroneous assumptions:
>First they assume that a molecule either works or doesn't work, on or off, 0
>or 1. But functionality is not the simple. Some work, albeit slowly, other
>work rapidly.
>Secondly they asume generally that only one sequence will work. Both of
>these assumptions are wrong.

Well, "they" are just wrong. Sorry I missed your point.