Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Earth Sky: How likely is an Earth-like origin of life elsewhere?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Paul Scott Anderson writes:

We know that life originated on Earth some 3.7 billion years ago. But we still don’t understand exactly how life came to be. Likewise, we know little to nothing about life on other rocky worlds, even those that might be similar to Earth. Is life a rare occurrence, or is it common? Or somewhere in between? Scientists debate the subject of abiogenesis, the idea of life arising from non-living material. If it can happen on Earth, can it happen elsewhere, too? A new paper from retired astrophysicist Daniel Whitmire at the University of Arkansas argues that it can.

Whitmire published his new peer-reviewed paper in the International Journal of Astrobiology on September 23, 2022.

Abiogenesis and our own existence

Basically, the paper is a counter-argument to the view held by Brandon Carter, an Australian-born astrophysicist. Carter asserts that our own existence constrains our observations of other worlds where life might exist. What does he mean? Essentially, he says, we ourselves happen to exist on a planet where abiogenesis did occur. But – since we only have our own planet as an example so far – it’s not possible for us to determine how likely it is for life to have emerged elsewhere.

Carter says that Earth can’t be considered “typical” yet … because there’s no set of known Earth-like planets to compare it to.

How likely is an Earth-like origin of life elsewhere?

Scientists tend to be conservative. They don’t like to speculate that something exists until they have the evidence in hand. So many scientists seem to accept Carter’s theory. But Daniel Whitmire doesn’t accept it. He contends that Carter is using faulty logic.

He points to what philosophers call the the old evidence problem. That philosophical problem concerns what happens when a theory or hypothesis is updated, following the appearance of new evidence. Whitmire says basically that Carter doesn’t take into account the long cosmic timescales at play in the universe, for example, the length of time it takes life to emerge on a planet. Whitmire writes:

… The observation of life on Earth is not neutral but evidence that abiogenesis on Earth-like planets is relatively easy. I … give an independent timescale argument that quantifies the prior probabilities, leading to the inference that the timescale for abiogenesis is less than the planetary habitability timescale and therefore the occurrence of abiogenesis on Earth-like planets is not rare.

Note: This attempt at philosophical reasoning stumbles with the loaded presupposition that life on Earth arose by natural processes, even though numerous decades of origin-of-life research have shown that any pathway to life from non-life would be exponentially more complicated than any natural mechanism ever investigated.

In late September, I wrote about recent discoveries that add to the accumulation of evidence that life does indeed exist elsewhere. In other words – from ocean moons like Europa and Enceladus, to the latest understanding of organics and ancient habitable conditions on Mars – conditions for life seem to abound, even here in our own solar system. In the vast Milky Way galaxy beyond, astronomers have discovered many thousands of exoplanets. So we know other solar systems exist. And, to me, as I write about these discoveries, the odds seem pretty good that life is out there somewhere.

Here’s another example from the realm of exoplanets. New studies suggest that some (or many) super-Earths might exist as water worlds that aren’t just habitable, but potentially even more habitable than Earth. Some may even be completely covered by oceans.

Whitmire and Carter’s approach – a philosophical approach – to the question of life on other worlds is interesting. But, as the philosophers argue the question, the pace of scientific discovery continues. And many scientists believe we’re now on the verge of finding our first definitive evidence of alien life. Some think it will come within the next decade or two … or sooner.

If Whitmire is right, that first discovery will be exciting indeed.

Earth Sky

Optimism about the possibility of extraterrestrial life has always been popular. However, for a natural mechanism to be able to generate the amount of information found in the vast amounts of biochemical complexity within a “simple” cell, known laws of physics would have to be violated. Ideas which violate established science are usually bogus, unless they’re simply refinements that apply in certain limits of physical parameters. (Such as Einstein’s theory of relativity, which modified Newton’s laws of mechanics in the limit of speeds approaching the speed of light.)

Comments
All is well, vivid. I think we have both been good advocates for our philosophies and perspectives, and obviously have been committed enough to keep plugging away discussing them with others with both similar and differing views.Viola Lee
October 20, 2022
October
10
Oct
20
20
2022
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
VL “My goodness. My apologies, vivid. I really didn’t anticipate my post from the past being poorly received.” No VL it is I that needs to apologize. I totally overreacted, I can’t believe I posted what I did I was out of line. How funny we have been going back and forth for 20 years! Pretty cool we both are still alive. Anyway I am sorry and I am the one that owes you an apology. Vividvividbleau
October 20, 2022
October
10
Oct
20
20
2022
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
My goodness. My apologies, vivid. I really didn't anticipate my post from the past being poorly received. I thought it was interesting and sort of fun to see the same issues being discussed way back then. I would take back my post if I could. However, I don't see why deleting my user name then means anything. Neither vivid, my name then, or my name now are real, so I don't see what difference it makes. Anyway, I'm sorry, and I apologize, for my post.Viola Lee
October 20, 2022
October
10
Oct
20
20
2022
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
Is ARN the best source for information on ID? It seems so. Somethings are missing but not much. I didn’t know they had a blog. http://www.arn.org/ Aside:the anti ID people are best classified by what they refuse to answer or ignore. Also somewhat true of pro ID commentators.jerry
October 20, 2022
October
10
Oct
20
20
2022
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT
ES58, there are many forums out there and it takes 15 minutes to set up one's own blog. There is nothing that prevents inviting people to discuss a topic that incidentally arises here, elsewhere. Though, these days, admittedly there is a policing challenge; you can easily be set up for legal liability and institutional expulsion, online censorship or even financial lockout through subversive tactics. You will note, I regularly point those who want to discuss Bible and Theology topics to go where there are highly qualified experts who set up sites for that, say, starting with Wm Lane Craig. No, that is not the problem, for some years we have been increasingly dealing with insistent, willful, dirty tactic distraction and denigration coming in key part from an organised penumbra of attack sites. ID threatens powerful worldviews, cultural and policy/political agendas and so it is targetted. The lawfare and wider deceitful agitprop that came to a head in the dirty Dover trial is emblematic of the problem. Wikipedia's hit pieces against ID typify the lying partyline talking points, yes lying as willful violation of duty to truth and to prudent restraint leading to material falsity, quarter truths and slander is, plainly, lying. Going forward, we need to recognise that the civilisation level knowledge commons has been ideologically tainted and that we need to build a reformation. In my view, this includes clarifying what knowledge, foundations of reason and the basic logic of being are, and restoring the vision that science reverse engineers nature to understand its architecture. The design inference on complex coded algorithms in the cell is a telling test case, as is willingness to acknowledge that there is considerable, serious evidence of cosmological fine tuning. These and other cases justify the design inference, growth of design theory and paradigm, as well as a wider supportive movement. But in a day of dirty attack politics, such will be embattled. KFkairosfocus
October 20, 2022
October
10
Oct
20
20
2022
02:41 AM
2
02
41
AM
PDT
VL “Note: I am not restarting this discussion. I’m just pointed out that the issues have not changed.]” You know when you bowed out of our discussion on this thread I had no problem with it because no one should be forced to carry on a discussion on this site if they no longer wish to do so, I said no problem but thanks for the discussion. So from my subjective perspective this is nothing but a hit and run non bowing out bowing back in through the back door and totally disingenuous on your part. VL (or whoever you were 20 years ago“) are there other ways to get “objective verifiable evidence?” You seem to imply that there are. What are they?” Yes nothing has changed except your screen name even though mine has been consistent all through the ARN years as well as here at UD ,that in itself is telling. So one more time how many times do I have to say this? I am not making any claim as to the nature of reality!!. I am saying, here in 2022 , that that which is objectively true is that which corresponds with reality and nothing you have cut and pasted from my conversation with you 20 years ago, whoever you were back then, contradicts what I have put forth here 20 years later. VL if you want to bow out of a conversation don’t try coming back in through the back door!! One more thing if your going to post something between you and I have the courage to use your ARN screen name. Vividvividbleau
October 19, 2022
October
10
Oct
19
19
2022
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT
KF wrote: "this and many other threads have been derailed " Why not create forums so. Topics can be pursued to an end?es58
October 19, 2022
October
10
Oct
19
19
2022
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT
VL: P.S. Just dropped back in to post the above, but leaving again. Carry on.
Don’t be a stranger. Your calm reasoned approach is refreshing.Sir Giles
October 19, 2022
October
10
Oct
19
19
2022
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT
P.S. Just dropped back in to post the above, but leaving again. Carry on.Viola Lee
October 19, 2022
October
10
Oct
19
19
2022
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT
to Vivid and other old-timers. I had occasion to look at some old files today and ran into a discussion with vivid that he and I had more than 20 years ago at ARN about the same topic from this thread that we were discussing. Thought it might be of some historical interest: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. [Note: I am not restarting this discussion. I'm just pointed out that the issues have not changed.] From 2/21/2002
Vivid writes,
“[name deleted| I really hate doing this [answering the questions that I’ve asked] as we have not finished up with what we originally started with. I hate to move on when there are still unresolved questions on the table. But you have been very patient with me, and have answered some but not all my questions ( the ones you have not answered are the most important). But as I said you have been very patient so in spite of my misgivings I will respond.
I don’t see this as “moving on” - I see it as trying to clarify what exactly the issue is. It seems like you continue to claim that I give knowledge of the external world, knowledge that is capable of accumulating “objective verifiable evidence”, a “privileged position” (your phrase.) And yet I think I am arguing the opposite - that certain kinds of knowledge that are derived from internal experiences are just as important to us even though they cannot accumulate “objective verifiable evidence” because they cannot be commonly experienced, because they are internal. Because you don’t seem to understand my position, i though it would be useful for you to state what you think is this case, and that’s why I asked the questions I did. You say “It is not my philosophical belief that the only objective verifiable evidence is empirical driven.” and you go on to say “I also would add logic as a different and also IMO a reliable way to demonstrate objective verifiable facts.” I agree that logic is as an additional component of knowledge and I also agree that logic itself cannot produce knowledge, although logic can and must be used in assembling the various portions of a belief systems. So, looking back at your quote above, I ask: other than logic and empirical experience of the external world, are there other ways to get “objective verifiable evidence?” You seem to imply that there are. ================= Here’s something you wrote (with typos cleaned up) that might help clarify the matter: Vivid writes,
However what you do believe that as it relates to what can be used as a truth claim must be factual. That is, it must be backed up with objective verifiable evidence. You indeed allow for different types of knowledge but in judging the factuality of these different types of knowledge you apply one standard...ie empirical knowledge. That's my point, not that you don’t allow that there are different types of knowledge. Just that one type of knowledge can be deemed factual and objective and the other type is unobjective, subjective, and not factually verifiable. That is why to you when it comes to metaphysical , philosophical beliefs no one can say that their beliefs are factual unless they can be empirical demonstrated. If this is not the case tell me where I am wrong about this?
But I don’t apply one standard. I believe that one type of knowledge is amenable to “objective verifiable evidence” and the other is not, but Ido not say that one is better than the other. (I have not also, by the way, used the word “fact” or “factual”) To you subjective is a bad word and objective is a good word; and only objective things are factual and subjective things are not factual; and therefore, to you, saying that metaphysical beliefs are subjective relegates them to an inferior status. But that’s not what I believe! Subjective experiences and subjective beliefs are vitally important and deserve as much, if not more, thought and consideration in our lives than do “objective ones.” (And here I am using your word, subjective, to refer to the entire class of beliefs based on our internal experience: emotions, values, aesthetics, spiritual and metaphysical experiences, and so on.) Yes indeed, the nature and content of subjective beliefs are different than the nature and content of objective beliefs, and those differences need to be recognized. So, in summary, I still think it would good for you to explain more about what you believe, especially in regards to the question I asked earlier in this post: other than logic and empirical experience of the external world, are there other ways to get “objective verifiable evidence?” You seem to imply that there are. What are they?
Viola Lee
October 19, 2022
October
10
Oct
19
19
2022
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT
SG, this and many other threads have been derailed because of trollish behaviour of too many objectors. Were there a cogent objection case to ID we would see serious argument. The absence of that is why determined ideologues resort instead to toxic distraction. KF PS, SG, what is your basis for moral response, apart from emotion or ideological agenda? Where, I cannot but note that there has been no cogent response to why the attempt to deny objective, knowable moral truth (as a case of a general pattern for any reasonably identifiable domain of thought) is self defeating. That tells us a lot in a day when the knowledge commons has been tainted through ideological capture and there is urgent need for sound reformation. BTW, Science has been embroiled in the tainting and needs to be refocussed on a systems engineering guided perspective, reverse engineering nature that identifies its architecture.kairosfocus
October 19, 2022
October
10
Oct
19
19
2022
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT
F/N: A point of reference on fine tuning, for those of serious intent:
In physics, particularly in statistical mechanics, we base many of our calculations on the assumption of metric transitivity, which asserts that a system’s trajectory will eventually [--> given "enough time and search resources"] explore the entirety of its state space – thus everything that is phys-ically possible will eventually happen. It should then be trivially true that one could choose an arbitrary “final state” (e.g., a living organism) and “explain” it by evolving the system backwards in time choosing an appropriate state at some ’start’ time t_0 (fine-tuning the initial state). In the case of a chaotic system the initial state must be specified to arbitrarily high precision. But this account amounts to no more than saying that the world is as it is because it was as it was, and our current narrative therefore scarcely constitutes an explanation in the true scientific sense. We are left in a bit of a conundrum with respect to the problem of specifying the initial conditions necessary to explain our world. A key point is that if we require specialness in our initial state (such that we observe the current state of the world and not any other state) metric transitivity cannot hold true, as it blurs any dependency on initial conditions – that is, it makes little sense for us to single out any particular state as special by calling it the ’initial’ state. If we instead relax the assumption of metric transitivity (which seems more realistic for many real world physical systems – including life), then our phase space will consist of isolated pocket regions and it is not necessarily possible to get to any other physically possible state (see e.g. Fig. 1 for a cellular automata example).
[--> or, there may not be "enough" time and/or resources for the relevant exploration, i.e. we see the 500 - 1,000 bit complexity threshold at work vs 10^57 - 10^80 atoms with fast rxn rates at about 10^-13 to 10^-15 s leading to inability to explore more than a vanishingly small fraction on the gamut of Sol system or observed cosmos . . . the only actually, credibly observed cosmos]
Thus the initial state must be tuned to be in the region of phase space in which we find ourselves [--> notice, fine tuning], and there are regions of the configuration space our physical universe would be excluded from accessing, even if those states may be equally consistent and permissible under the microscopic laws of physics (starting from a different initial state). Thus according to the standard picture, we require special initial conditions to explain the complexity of the world, but also have a sense that we should not be on a particularly special trajectory to get here (or anywhere else) as it would be a sign of fine–tuning of the initial conditions. [ --> notice, the "loading"] Stated most simply, a potential problem with the way we currently formulate physics is that you can’t necessarily get everywhere from anywhere (see Walker [31] for discussion). ["The “Hard Problem” of Life," June 23, 2016, a discussion by Sara Imari Walker and Paul C.W. Davies at Arxiv.]
more on the anthropic principle from Lewis and Barnes https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/hitchhikers-guide-authors-puddle-argument-against-fine-tuning-and-a-response/#comment-729507 There is of course no reason to think we have had enough scope for metric transitivity to be remotely relevant, and so once we see the special nature of life and its antecedents, i/l/o the islands of search in phase space, fine tuning actually is an expectation. KFkairosfocus
October 19, 2022
October
10
Oct
19
19
2022
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
KF: Notice, how the thread has been derailed, no prizes for guessing why.
It was derailed because a certain individual kept insisting that it can be objectively morally justified to kill children and the unborn. And by another individual who kept insisting that theism is limited to monotheism. Ignoring the fact that “mono” is a qualifier of the root word “theism”.Sir Giles
October 19, 2022
October
10
Oct
19
19
2022
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
Notice, how the thread has been derailed, no prizes for guessing why. But in the end derailing is a backhanded admission that the objectors do not have a substantial case but hope to stir toxic distractions. I trust, too, the lesson is clear that a broken window invites a rush to the bottom. We do not need that. Onward, it is clear that the knowledge commons have been tainted through ideological imposition and that we need to set out on knowledge independence. KFkairosfocus
October 19, 2022
October
10
Oct
19
19
2022
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
Cool, I can always use one more plaque on my wall
For "Inane comments of the year" award, all you need is a mirror.jerry
October 19, 2022
October
10
Oct
19
19
2022
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
@ Chuck You don’t need to enjoy my commentary no more than I enjoy your one-line jabs of ID. I mean your tag says it all. But you know what I’m getting at on 200, especially after you told me what constitutes a good Christian….AaronS1978
October 19, 2022
October
10
Oct
19
19
2022
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
Cool, I can always use one more plaque on my wall.......chuckdarwin
October 19, 2022
October
10
Oct
19
19
2022
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
CD at 202, I'm putting a download of your comments in for the 2022 Repetitive Comments Award.relatd
October 19, 2022
October
10
Oct
19
19
2022
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
AaronS1978/200 Don't take it personally. I suppose I also enjoy the IDer's comments calling me an "idiot," or a "dick" (that one is particularly classy), etc., in a kind of twisted way. But like I said above, IDer "comments" get to be stultifyingly repetitive.chuckdarwin
October 19, 2022
October
10
Oct
19
19
2022
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
Jerry
You have been told several times. ID is science plus logic. Or it’s the best – ID is science+ It’s the best science in the world!!!
Jerry, you're the best! :)Alan Fox
October 19, 2022
October
10
Oct
19
19
2022
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
“I have enjoyed your comments, those of Seversky, Sir Giles, JVL and Viola Lee” So literally only the people that share your point of view and politics…….AaronS1978
October 19, 2022
October
10
Oct
19
19
2022
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
Trying to find out what “Intelligent Design” science is supposed to be.
You have been told several times. ID is science plus logic. Or it’s the best -         ID is science+ It’s the best science in the world!!!jerry
October 19, 2022
October
10
Oct
19
19
2022
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
AF/196 I imagine the half-life of skeptics on this blog is relatively short. Being retired I have the luxury of time to waste between rounds of golf and training a new pup. The sociology of this blog can be fascinating at times. I have enjoyed your comments, those of Seversky, Sir Giles, JVL and Viola Lee and will continue to pop in and out. For the time being, I found this quote by Bertrand Russell about six months ago and it has become my new motto: The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time....... chuckdarwin
October 19, 2022
October
10
Oct
19
19
2022
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT
CD, we do know from a massive base of experience, that sophisticated, systems architecture comes from intelligently directed configuration. Thus, insistence that inference to design on sign is an empty trope and that instead agnosticism is preferred is a strawman caricature. But, one that inadvertently implies something huge: you do not have a cogent, plausible explanation on blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. So, in effect, you are holding out for something from non being or the like mysterious fourth undisclosed alternative. For thousands of years we have been aware of causal factors. We do not pull rabbits out of non-existent hats, mechanical necessity is a chain, not a source, chance circumstances do not plausibly give functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information, blends of the last two do not miraculously increase the odds of a golden search, intelligently directed configuration on trillions of cases routinely creates such FSCO/I. Where, the systems architecture of a massively fine tuned cosmos that sits at a deeply isolated operating point for C-Chem, aqueous medium, codes and algorithms using molecular nanotech cell based life exhibits such FSCO/I; where cell based life is also chock full of such FSCO/I. Therefore, on abductive inference to best current explanation, we are well within epistemic rights to infer design as plausible cause of such a cosmos and of the cell based life and body plans in it up to our own. That's a positive case and it trumps a denial or dismissal based on little more than hyperskeptical hostility to and ideologically loaded question begging against inferring design on signs. KFkairosfocus
October 19, 2022
October
10
Oct
19
19
2022
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PDT
@ CD Reasons I post here: 1. Yes, interactions here can be fun, Jerry is my all-time favourite though Upright Biped came close. Very few remaining now that had the stature of Vincent Torley, the madness of JoeG, or the laconic wit of Mung. 2. Trying to find out what "Intelligent Design" science is supposed to be. 3. Trying to correct egregious errors in biochemistry made by other posters. 4. A little foray into amateur philosophy, which has been enlivened by Dogdoc recently. Also I've had too much time on my hands due to a bout of COVID which seems to be clearing at last, reducing my opportunities to waste my time as well as everyone else's.Alan Fox
October 19, 2022
October
10
Oct
19
19
2022
12:10 AM
12
12
10
AM
PDT
“because I find the blog amusing“ I need not say moreAaronS1978
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus/192
Meanwhile, the trollish objectors have signally failed to address the substantial matter in the OP. We can take it to the bank, that is because they have no substantial answer.
Address what? Whether space aliens exist? Or more accurately whether planets exist where space aliens could come from? The bottom line of the OP, aside from being simply another iteration of Caspian's trope that life is too complex to have originated and evolved through natural means therefore there must be a designer, is that we don't know. So why beat this dead horse? Many months ago, I commented that I visit this blog for two reasons--to keep up on the world of ID and because I find the blog amusing. The blog has become so stultifying repetitive and obnoxiously preachy that the former is virtually non-existent, and the latter has become the only thing of interest. But it grows old too. Which leads me to one final point: the more you harangue on irrelevant posts, the more it simply shines a light on your continued violation of this "policy." You meander into everything, politics, philosophy, theology, sociology, psychology, history, etc., with impunity. So why not everyone else? What's that saying about what's good for the goose.............chuckdarwin
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
@ 191 under stoodAaronS1978
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
F/N: Meanwhile, the trollish objectors have signally failed to address the substantial matter in the OP. We can take it to the bank, that is because they have no substantial answer. We can again highlight Dr Tour's point: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-rice-u-dr-tour-exposes-the-false-science-behind-origin-of-life-research/ -- it is noteworthy that after attention was drawn, they STILL had nothing of substance there or here. KFkairosfocus
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
AS78, I understand the sentiment, however please remember the broken window theory. Lowering the level of discussion only invites trolls who have no limit on their perversity. KFkairosfocus
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
1 2 3 8

Leave a Reply