are to consider that the probability is 6/7 that the same hand
will link up next as the one just preceding.14
Let it be supposed that there are 32 sites in the chain of 445
where an isomeric amino acid either follows a glycine or comes
first in the entire chain. Each of these 32 will therefore have
a probability of 1/2 of being left-handed, as there is no handed
amino acid preceding it to exert any preference. Each of the
other 378 sites will have a probability of 6/7 that the position
involved will be occupied by the same hand as the one just
before it. When we remember the 35 glycines, this accounts
for all 445.
Computing this for the 32 sites at 1/2 probability and for
the 378 sites at 6/7 probability, we arrive at a probability of
1 in 8.7 x 1034 that a particular protein would have only L-amino
acids.15 Since a minimum of 239 such proteins is required before
there are enough for the theoretical minimal living entity,
and each would have the same probability, by the multiplication
rule, we conclude that on the average the probability would be
around 1 in 108350 that any given set of 239 would be all left-handed.
Going back to the 1052 protein molecules that ever existed
according to Dr. Eden, we may divide these into contiguous sets
of 239 for such a minimal cell. There are 1049 such sets, rounded.
By dividing this figure into 108350, and further dividing by a
million to allow for overlapping sets, we arrive at the astounding
conclusion that there is, on the average, one chance in
108295 that of all the proteins that ever existed on earth there
would be a set of 239 together which were all left-handed,
the minimum number required for the smallest theoretical cell.
Another concession was given to make it easier for chance,
in that we did not consider the time factor for the 1052 proteins
that ever existed, and calculated as if they all existed at the
same time.
Out of all the protein molecules that ever existed on earth,
the odds against there being even one set with only left-handed
components sufficient for the smallest theoretical living entity
are 108295 to 1. This is the conclusion when it is assumed that
there is a 6/7 selectivity factor for the same enantiomorphic form.
Compare that with the number of seconds since the universe
began, which is 1018 for about the longest such estimate about
15 billion years.
Even if the L-amino acids were 100 times as likely to link with
L- as with D-, the odds would be 184 billion to 1 against an
average size protein molecule having only L-amino acids. To get
the required set of 239 would make the probability slimmer than
1 in 102642 out of all the proteins that ever existed on earth.
And, even if we also allowed 100 to 1 preference in the case
of the 32 amino acids which follow glycine supposing that the
preceding portion of the chain could exert such selectivity the
probability would still be astronomical beyond the ability of the
human mind to conceive, namely, 1 chance in 5 x 10373, using
all the proteins that ever existed on earth.
To be more realistic, however, lets go back to the figure for
one minimum set if the preference is assumed to be 6/7. That
was a probability averaging 1 in 108295. Just to print the number
would require more than four full pages. It would take six
minutes to say the number in billions, speaking rapidly all the
while. These numbers are too fantastic to understand. Chapter
7 on large numbers will offer comparisons that will help.
What if we suppose, contrary to any actual evidence, that at
the start there were only forty proteins required, of only forty
units in length,16 with 6/7 preference for the same hand?
Considering three of these to be glycine, the odds would be sixty
billion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion to one that no single
set of protein molecules out of all that ever existed would have
only left-handed amino acids. (That is 60 x 1069 to 1.)
No natural explanation which can adequately explain this
left-handed mystery is in sight. We have just seen that the odds
against its happening by chance are so tremendous as to be
completely incomprehensible.
If, on the other hand, there was a Creator of living things,
He could have decided for reasons of His own to use just L-amino
acids in proteins. He would have placed the proper L-enzymes
and coding in the cells which would form only left-handed amino
acids for use in proteins.
the monarch butterfly? In the next chapter, we will discover
that natural selection is completely inadequate as a solution.
1
C. S. Lewis, Miracles, A Preliminary Study (New York: Macmillan Co.,
1947), p. 19.
2
This data via personal communications from Morowitz, October and November, 1971.
This reflects Morowitz most recent estimate from continuing research with
co-workers at Yale. Earlier estimates were that the smallest possible living thing
would be much less complex. (Harold J. Morowitz and Mark E. Tourtellotte,
The Smallest Living Cells, The Living Cell, ed. Donald Kennedy [San
Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1965], pp. 31-39. Also: Harold J. Morowitz,
Biological Self-Replicating Systems, Progress in Theoretical Biology, ed. Fred
M. Snell, Vol. 1 [1967], pp. 52-57.)
3
Hans R. Bode and Harold J. Morowitz, Size and Structure of the
Mycoplasma hominis H39 Chromosome, Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 23 (1967),
p. 198. For number of proteins, Morowitz, personal communication, November,
1970.
4
Although recognizing that there are hypotheses of origin from simpler forms
than this, Dr. Morowitz agreed that in actual experimental evidence, there is no
assurance that anything simpler could meet the test of autonomous replication
and viability (personal communication, 1971).
5
Harold J. Morowitz, Energy Flow in Biology (New York: Academic Press,
1968), p. 84. Also data by personal communication, 1971.
The total molecular weight of 239 protein molecules is 11.6 x 106. The average
molecular weight per amino acid residue is around 109 in some bacteria.
6
Harold I. Morowitz, Life and the Physical Sciences (New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1963), p. 35.
7
Also in Appendix 1, p. 243.
8Were assuming linkup automatically without enzymes, etc., since we are
here interested only in the L- and D- probability matter. (This is an exceedingly
generous assumption, making it easier for chance to succeed.)
9Darrell Huff, How to Take a Chance (New York: W. W. Norton and Co.,
Inc., 1959), p. 22.
10For the nonmathematician (as most of us are), there is a simple way to
change from 2 to 10 as a base. If we multiply 2 by itself until the total is about
equal to a power of 10, we find that 210 is about the same as 103. The convenient formula, then, is to take the exponent of 2 and multiply it by 3 in order to
obtain the power of 10 which is approximately equal to it. Applying this to our
figure of 2410, we multiply the exponent by 3, and the result, the figure 123,
is the proper power of 10. 2410 is therefore roughly 10123. If tables of common logarithms are available, one need merely look in the first column opposite 2.
11Murray Eden, in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation
of the Theory of Evolution, ed. Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan
(Philadelphia: Wistar Institute Press, 1967), p. 17.
12As you may remember from mathematics in school, to multiply large
numbers which are written with exponents or powers, you merely add the exponents.
To multiply 103 x 104 would be 103+4 = 107. To divide, all that is necessary
is to subtract one exponent from the other. 10123 divided by 1052 is 1071.
13The common expression, the odds, may be defined as the ratio of failures
to successes. If there is one chance in ten of success, then there are nine chances
in ten of failure. The odds against success in that case are nine to one. When
the probability of success is one in a very large number, then it is approximately
correct to use that same large number also when speaking of the odds against
that event. Otherwise, one would have to write out the entire figure in nines, to
get the exact number, which is one less than the probability figure.
14In this, a concession is being given to chance, in that we are figuring the
preference at 6/7 even before there are several of the same hand in consecutive
order. This would perhaps more than balance any steric selectivity that might
conceivably be exerted by any helical section prior to a glycine residue in the chain.
151/232 x 6378/7378 = 1 in 8.7 x 1034.
16As will be seen later (page 113) there may be a lower limit of fifty units,
under which proteins are not stable in solution.
17Biological Sciences, 1971 Britannica Book of the Year, p. 166, regarding
tape recording by biologist Margaret A. Vince of Cambridge University.
18As in other areas of science, attempts to answer questions have usually
revealed only another, more sophisticated set of questions. Philip Handler, ed.,
Biology and the Future of Man (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970) p.130.
19Linus Pauling, Vitamin C and the Common Cold (San Francisco: W. H.
Freeman & Co., 1970), p. 89.
20Proverbs 25:2.