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
CD, you simply confirm yourself as irresponsible and trollish. You know full well that you have been directed elsewhere for serious discussion of the Triune concept of God, I simply pointed to the scutum fidei and shamrock as very simple points showing that unity is a more complex concept than you may imagine; which still stands by default as you failed to speak to substance. As you full well know, UD is not the place for long discussion of complex Scripture driven debates on theological matters; hence your repeated trollish attempt to drag off topic. As for your onward dismissiveness on simple facts about why theism has primary reference to monotheism, that speaks for itself, you refuse to even recognise why God has taken on characteristics of a proper name; which, AC, is independent of your our our preferences, that is a matter of longstanding history, but then the 1984 game rewrites history as it pleases, having no regard for truth or right reason. Where, of course, both Plato and Cicero were pagans (not theists), and the attempt to plaster all theists as hopelessly biased and dismissible before they open their mouths is as ugly a piece of bigotry as one could want. Which, notice, you CD, conspicuously failed to correct. Given the wider context, you show just how ideologues have broken the knowledge commons and why it is time to declare knowledge independence. KFkairosfocus
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
@ 188 Lol example not explain I deserve thatAaronS1978
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
@ 187 I like you lucid explain for your argument style ;) noice! https://tenor.com/sbt1.gifAaronS1978
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
@186 https://images.app.goo.gl/WtQh7eUimuaAapB97Alan Fox
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
@ 184 sure whatever you say buttercupAaronS1978
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
@ClearlyaD1ck 183 Lol I never claimed to be a good Christian or even good for that matter. Nor do I use the Bible for any argument, short of correcting misquoting from your end. And vulgar name calling!? I’m insulted, more like clever labeling of a manipulative childish troll. Can’t blame me for calling it like it is. And I might call people names but at least I don’t go on to sites with the sole purpose trolling communities and wasting their time like you do my tolerant liberal friend.AaronS1978
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
@Aaron1978S (181) When trying to achieve an effective insult, you should be aware that your own lack of coherence can backfire on you, as it has in your comment.Alan Fox
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
AaronS1978/181 At least I don't resort to vulgarity and name-calling when posting my comments, my good Christian friend......chuckdarwin
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
AC: My understanding is that christians use “God” as a name, so they capizalize it. However I don’t use it as a name, so for me it would be incorrect to capizalize god (like capitalizing “human”). Do I have the right understanding?
I would agree. Christians capitalize God because that is the name they apply to their god.Sir Giles
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
@ KF Ignore the troll it’s not a clever and deserved barb it’s CD being a d1ck he is willfully intolerant, will definitely not see anything from your point of view, he is not here for any form of knowledge on a conflicting view, he is here to throw dirt in peoples eyes and rile people like you up. On this thread alone he has willfully repeated an atheist trope and continuously jabs at Christians. @ CleverDumb@ss and there was no schooling idiot you should be insulted because how stupid you are. The only thing laughable is the circus chimp that you are thinking you’re intelligent I mean, I dumbed the concept down for a child using Marvel comics, which I immediately said that concept escapes you when you’re addressing specifically, Christianity. There’s no level of schooling for you here, you’re just a willful idiot and you’re purposely being a d1ck.AaronS1978
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
KF/177 It is a clever (and deserved) barb--at least clever enough to rock your world. It's not surprising that VL is bowing out; This is the state of the "discussion" going on in this thread: First, AaronS1978 @ 167 tries to school me on the trinity (or is it, Trinity?) by referring to comic book characters. I don't know whether to laugh or be insulted. Next, you use the old St. Patrick's three leaf clover children's story (particularly popular in Catholic grade schools) as if that is more heuristically enlightening than Marvel comics. Then, you launch into a frankly weird set of posts concerning the rules of capitalization vis a vis various deities using words like "praxis," "patent" and "pederast," (nice alliteration) topped off with this gem:
[I]s anyone seriously willing to argue for an infinite actual, causal-temporal, thermodynamically constrained past?
What that word salad has to do with the trinity or names of gods, totally escapes me. If it wasn't for the sheer amusement I get from this blog, I'd be running for the door too.....chuckdarwin
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT
F/N: A basic note on Zeus, to draw out an ontological point https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zeus
According to a Cretan myth that was later adopted by the Greeks, Cronus, king of the Titans, upon learning that one of his children was fated to dethrone him, swallowed his children as soon as they were born. But Rhea, his wife, saved the infant Zeus by substituting a stone wrapped in swaddling clothes for Cronus to swallow and hiding Zeus in a cave on Crete. There he was nursed by the nymph (or female goat) Amalthaea and guarded by the Curetes (young warriors), who clashed their weapons to disguise the baby’s cries. After Zeus grew to manhood he led a revolt against the Titans and succeeded in dethroning Cronus, perhaps with the assistance of his brothers Hades and Poseidon, with whom he then divided dominion over the world.
Zeus is a proposed contingent being, not even in the same class of being as God. And yes, that is highly significant. e.g. as the ground of moral government must be inherently good, utterly wise and necessary being. It is unsurprising that Zeus is seen as an often irresponsible playboy and pederast. KFkairosfocus
October 18, 2022
October
10
Oct
18
18
2022
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT
AC, the history of anglophone praxis is significant and the patent, relevant context. This language does not capitalise every noun, but capitalises proper names. In that context and reflecting much wider and deeper praxis such as abbreviations and substitutions of respect sch as LORD English has capitalised God when referring to the God of ethical theism, the -- notice, not a or an -- supreme being [sometimes that gets the capitals too], the inherently good and wise Creator [another case in point], a necessary and maximally great being worthy of respect, of loyalty and of the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good that accords with our evident, morally governed nature. You also need to be aware of the context, one that sought to stigmatise all theists as hopelessly biased and warped in thinking so dismissible without serious concern on pointing to the objectivity of moral knowledge. It is highly significant, that the pointing out of how the rejection of objective moral knowledge is itself a claimed objective point of knowledge on that subject and refutes itself has been side stepped. The ill founded marginalisation of moral knowledge is a misanthropic, anticivilisational, ruinous and potentially deadly trend. KFkairosfocus
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
11:41 PM
11
11
41
PM
PDT
CD, you may think it is a clever barb to push an imaginary dismissive term hyper+ in my mouth. Polytheism is enough all on its own, historically speaking of cases of dozens to hundreds to indefinitely many -- easily thousands plus -- of gods in pantheons that include major and minor gods. Try, Lares and Penates for size. The attempt to brush aside what I have spoken to, global and selective hyperskepticism, shows a failure to recognise a serious disease of thought in our day. Global hyperskepticism tries to deny the possibility of knowledge and ends in self referential incoherence. Selective hyperskepticism tries to shut out unwelcome warranted claims by in effect demanding that "extraordinary" claims require conveniently unattainable extraordinary evidence. In fact all that can be responsibly required is adequate warrant suitable for the class of matter, without evidentiary double standards. But then, what we are seeing here is in reality the fallacy of the hostile, indoctrinated, polarised and likely closed mind. This is the context in which I have put on the table an adaptation of the JoHari window pivoting on usage by intel agencies. Ideologues having taken the knowledge commons captive to their agendas, it is time for reformers to declare knowledge independence and seek to reform knowledge on a sounder footing. As a key test case, consider the coded, algorithmic information and associated molecular nanotech in D/RNA thus use of language and goal directed processes in the architecture of the cell. Strong signatures of design. KF PS, is anyone seriously willing to argue for an infinite actual, causal-temporal, thermodynamically constrained past? PPS, is anyone seriously willing to argue with sound observational evidence that Tour's concerns are of no substantial character regarding claimed spontaneous origin of cell based molecular nanotech life? See https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-rice-u-dr-tour-exposes-the-false-science-behind-origin-of-life-research/ for details. I am pretty sure that if the usual penumbra of objectors had sound answers we would not see a grand total to date of six comments in that thread. That tells us a lot.kairosfocus
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT
SG, that you apparently think and are willing to publicly argue that capitalisation of a character name, Zeus, is substantially equivalent to a general title, God, taking on aspects of a name because of its unique and significant reference lets a family of cats out of the bag. You would be well advised to revise your understanding of what informed people mean when they speak of divine things, referring to God or to the theistic understanding of God. No, this is by no means a minor storm in a teacup, God and matters about God, contrary to a lot of ill informed, hostile atheistical and fellow traveller rhetoric, are central to a sound understanding of our civilisation, for one, and for two corruption of language is the undermining of one of the key tools that enables a civilisation to function well. Undermining language itself on pivotal topics, is a destructive pattern that predictably will not end well, hence, 1984. And BTW, notice, in normal use, the primary meaning of theism is a short form for monotheism, which makes sense given the history of our civilisation. When distinctions need to be made in particular relevant contexts, we speak of poly-, heno-, pan- or panen- as well as related concepts such as animism etc. That several of these prefixes are quite rare itself underscores the point. I doubt that I have had to speak of henotheism half a dozen times in my life, even though it is a significant historic pattern connected to classical pagan cultures and those of the fertile crescent and its river valleys. KFkairosfocus
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT
@Sir Giles & kf:
Zeus is capitalized. Odin is capitalized. Poseidon is capitalized. Thor is capitalized. Osiris is capitalized. Horus is capitalized. Even my name is capitalized. Does that make me God?
My understanding is that christians use "God" as a name, so they capizalize it. However I don't use it as a name, so for me it would be incorrect to capizalize god (like capitalizing "human"). Do I have the right understanding? In my native language it's much easier to deal with this: every noun is capitalized. So things like kinds of machines, countries, monotheistic gods, polytheistic gods, concepts, are always written the same way.AndyClue
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT
CD, "Christianity routinely obfuscates to cover its bases" is an example of denigratory projection of a strawman, and you would be well advised to seek understanding rather than project caricatures, the scutum fidei and question, is a shamrock one leaf or three may help you begin. This is consistent with the 1984 game pivoting on corruption of language. There are movements afoot that in summary hate our civilisation and seek to denigratorily caricature every significant institution, symbol or historic figure, document etc that would normally be upheld by reasonably informed people, even in the context of seeking onward reformation. We therefore need to ask fairly pointed questions as to whether we see responsible reform or misanthropic, power hungry anticivilisational attitudes that, if they gain power would predictably fall into lawless ideological, destructive or outright murderous oligarchy. Which, historically, is the natural state of government and it is why there is a saying that the revolution eats its children. KFkairosfocus
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PDT
I’m truly sorry you are leaving, VL.Belfast
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PDT
VL re 170 No problem thanks for the discussion. Vividvividbleau
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
KF: God is capitalised, carrying the effective force of a proper name? That’s a huge clue as to the primary understanding of divinity in our civilisation for the past 1500 years or so
Zeus is capitalized. Odin is capitalized. Poseidon is capitalized. Thor is capitalized. Osiris is capitalized. Horus is capitalized. Even my name is capitalized. Does that make me God? Again, you are getting all hot under the collar over an insignificant matter of whether the term “theism” is restricted to your flavour of “ism”. The fact that various qualifiers are frequently added to this term (eg, mono, poly, pan) clearly indicates that “theism” is an inclusive term, not a restrictive one.Sir Giles
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT
No, of course I didn't mean that. But I am bowing out from UD again, so we'll just have to leave this discussion unfinished.Viola Lee
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT
VL Still waiting for your response to my post # 81 VL “because the question as to how logical truths correspond to reality (logical reality?) is also an issue” Vivid “I read this to mean that the LNC may not have a correspondence with reality correct?” Vividvividbleau
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT
“If you broaden it out enough to bring Mormons into Christianity’s big tent, then you have polytheism “ I think Mormons more closely resemble henotheism. Vividvividbleau
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
I’m sure you can grasp the idea of the “living tribunal” from marvel comics, three that are one entity. I mean the concept is very common, in multiple literatures of one being that is composed of multiple but still is a single entity, however I’m sure the concept escapes you when it comes to addressing your favorite religion(emphasize sarcasm)AaronS1978
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
CD Hey captain stereotype here https://www.catholic.com/qa/isnt-holy-trinity-christian-polytheism I’ll file it under “won’t read”AaronS1978
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
CD at 164, The trinity means what? The Catholic understanding is one God composed of three persons - Father, Son and Holy Ghost or Spirit. No polytheism. You should learn what Mormons actually believe: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-mormonsrelatd
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT
SG/161
If theism actually means mono-theism, why the use of terms like mono, poly and pan theism?
Because Christianity routinely obfuscates to cover its bases. For example, there is a very strong historical and logical argument that can be made that the Christian doctrine of the trinity leads inescapably to the conclusion that Christians are polytheists, not monotheists. If you broaden it out enough to bring Mormons into Christianity's big tent, then you have polytheism on steroids (or to use KF-speak, "hyperpolytheism") because everyone baptized in the temple has a shot at being a god in the afterlife.....chuckdarwin
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
SG, you continue typing, snipping and sniping. Picking up from 122, notice how -- apart from in antitheistic circles who grudge even that much respect -- God is capitalised, carrying the effective force of a proper name? That's a huge clue as to the primary understanding of divinity in our civilisation for the past 1500 years or so. One in which theism is in effect a short form for monotheism and the normal term for believers in many gods has been pagans, with polytheism a key characteristic, sometimes called idolatry; the attempt to fuse the two by treating theism as an umbrella term is in fact a clanger -- and frankly it is disrespectful too: there is a vast and irreconcilable disparity between theism and paganism. So, keep on trying to make up a narrative to make that vanish, it tells us that you are playing 1984 games and that the corruption of our language is making its way into dictionaries. As we know from too many other cases. The bottomline on long history is, theism is as primary meaning a short form for monotheism and that needs to be recognised and respected. KF PS, as historical marker, Webster's 1828, "THE'ISM, noun [from Gr. God.] The belief or acknowledgment of the existence of a God, as opposed to atheism. theism differs from deism, for although deism implies a belief in the existence of a God, yet it signifies in modern usage a denial of revelation, which theism does not."kairosfocus
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
SG/161chuckdarwin
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT
KF: To go there, as 122 shows, you had to skip over defn 1 in that dictionary:
I noticed that you cherry-picked the second dictionary I referenced. The first line in Merriam-Webster:
belief in the existence of a god or gods
And here is Oxfords:
belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.
Which, btw, is very close to how I defined it for CD. And here is Wikipedia:
Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of a supreme being or deities.
If theism actually means mono-theism, why the use of terms like mono, poly and pan theism? But I find it incredibly amusing that you are getting your panties in a knot over how I have defined theism.Sir Giles
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 8

Leave a Reply