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
Related “Your reasoning is poor.” Keep drinking the kool aid Related. BTW I agree with Aaron your comments are astoundingly ignorant . Vividvividbleau
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
AS1978, Who is financing China right now? Businesses in the United States. They are sending China American dollars. Billionaires don't care. They want CHEAP Chinese labor and CHEAP Chinese products. Go to a store. Any store. And see that most items you pick up have Made in China on them. THAT'S what I mean. PROFITS are the most important thing. And you know what? According to the business sources I read, if the U.S. government decides to stop doing business with China, they've already got a NEW source of cheap labor and cheap production already set up - Mexico.relatd
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
@148 WHAT?! Who cares?! Are you insane? Who cares if one of the most power governments in the world currently is a collection of totalitarian dictators willing to sacrifice their own peoples well being to save face to the rest of the world. They are one of the most deceptive nations on the planet. Why in the world would it NOT matter. “So some people decided to risk their lives, and risk side effects, so they wouldn’t lose their jobs? What was the alternative? Do nothing? No vaccine? Don’t even try to make a vaccine? People get flu sots every year. Every year. No noise about flu shots and the various shots you have to get to travel to a foreign country.“ You were wrong the first time you argued this with me and you are still wrong about the vaccine now. I’m not gonna even get into this with you and I will simply leave you with a perfect example of the attitude of Pro covid vax morons Joe Biden “do you want to know how to prepare for a hurricane? You get the vaccine” Anything you say about this topic falls upon deaf ears with me for very good reasonsAaronS1978
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
1984 explained https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQxOKXEff4Ikairosfocus
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
Jerry at 155, Would you mind posting a link or a few lines about where morality comes from if it's not religion or theism? And if you mention "human nature," please define it.relatd
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
Now, if you want to address by claim on those grounds, I welcome the discussion. But if you are just going to argue about the correct definition of theism, I am not interested.
You are misrepresenting what has been said. I asked you to justify your position and you have not responded. I can show that there is a basis for morality that does not include religion or theism. That does not mean that one's theistic views does not influence their understanding of morality. This was discussed in detail on this site over 18 months ago. Everything is a repeat as is most of the comments on this site.jerry
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
PPS, another in the wild, Swinburne's opening remarks in his The Coherence of Theism, Oxford:
By ‘theism’ I understand the doctrine that there is a God in the sense of a being with most of the following properties: being a person without a body (that is, a spirit), present everywhere (that is, omnipresent), the creator of the universe, perfectly free, able to do anything (that is, omnipotent), knowing all things (that is, omniscient), perfectly good, a source of moral obligation, eternal, a necessary being, holy, and worthy of worship.
I am doing this, not so much because I like to discuss "religion," but primarily so we can further understand how newspeak, doubletalk, doublethink games are being played with language by the agendas of crooked yardstick thinking posing as champions of knowledge and science. For weeks, maybe more, we have been seeing it with codes and algorithms, instantiation as a recognisable case, and oh we can tag as analogies and dismiss. It is time to expose corrupt, crooked abuses of a key, precious tool for thought, reasoning, communication, truth. But then, if someone denies plain duty to truth, right reason and warrant, much less sound conscience or even patent manifest facts, what else are we to expect? Nor is such excusable, we are playing with first principles of sound civilisation here.kairosfocus
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
SG, you used up your free shot, badly. Go back to your comment at 120:
Collins: the belief in the existence of a God or gods
To go there, as 122 shows, you had to skip over defn 1 in that dictionary:
1. (Theology) the form of the belief in one God as the transcendent creator and ruler of the universe that does not necessarily entail further belief in divine revelation. Compare deism [–> a subset]
As you full well know but chose to cherry pick out, defn 1 is the normal meaning of theism, for reasons and with history outlined in 122. It's over, you have shown your true colours. KF PS, an in the wild case https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5219kairosfocus
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
F/N: Re OP:
. . . 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.
Wrong approach. Observe the system architecture of the cell, and the complex code and algorithms in it. What is the normal source of such, involving language and goal directed process? Now, what is the plausibility that such could come about by blind, spontaneous forces? Essentially nil on gamut of our cosmos. Next, what about terrestrial habitable zone, roughly earth like planets? There may be a good number based on exoplanet work. However, the likelihood of life based on similar architecture is the question of intent of capable designers, which we can but speculate on at present. KFkairosfocus
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
KF: AS78, that and other cases, overnight I gave a corrective above and am also giving SG a little time to acknowledge how he cherry picked dictionary statements to give a highly misleading claim about what theism normally means.
Shortly after I stated that objective moral truths are owned by theism, I was asked by CD how I defined theism, which I responded to.
“ Belief in a supreme being or beings. And if you want a little more granularity, I would limit it to supreme being(s) that have or had a special interest in humans.”)
Which is consistent with definitions found in various dictionaries. Now, if you want to address by claim on those grounds, I welcome the discussion. But if you are just going to argue about the correct definition of theism, I am not interested.Sir Giles
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus CD, really. Your ignorance of both theology and philosophy shows. Go to a site that discusses such and get yourself sorted out. Maybe, the scutum fidei will help. KF
KF people with multicolored hair, greasepaint grins, comically large shoes, old bowler hat and red ball nose know everything about theology and philosophy.whistler
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
AS78, that and other cases, overnight I gave a corrective above and am also giving SG a little time to acknowledge how he cherry picked dictionary statements to give a highly misleading claim about what theism normally means. I have to wonder if atheist sites and books have been running riot by conflating monotheism with polytheism, animism, etc etc. That will then feed endless confusion, KF PS, went trolling in Wiki's waters and came up with this pretzel-strawman:
Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of a supreme being or deities.[1][2] In common parlance, or when contrasted with deism, the term often describes the classical conception of God that is found in monotheism (also referred to as classical theism) – or gods found in polytheistic religions—a belief in God or in gods without the rejection of revelation as is characteristic of deism.[3][4] Atheism is commonly understood as non-acceptance or rejection of theism in the broadest sense of theism, i.e. non-acceptance or rejection of belief in God or gods.[5][6] The claim that the existence of any deity is unknown or unknowable is agnosticism.[7][8]
Notice, a rhetorically loaded definition of atheism was pushed in [it actually is denial of existence of God], and an utterly ill-founded conflation of theism with paganism. This is a case of toxically laced conceptual confusion, relevant to onward projections to the despised other, loaded into what such use as a dirty word, religion. Which is how they get to propping up amorality or the like by pretending hopeless "bias" -- i.e. delusion. And of course the deluded have nothing to say worth ten seconds of pause on science. The invitation to prejudice is clear.kairosfocus
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
AS1978 at 144, Poor reasoning about China. WHO CARES what kind of government China has? THEY are losing money every time they shut down. Billionaires like Elon Musk and Tesla are losing money every time they shut down. And that means the Chinese aren't getting AMERICAN dollars every time they shut down. If you want to be rich in the U.S. you have to be CHEAP. Cheap labor and cheap material costs for HIGHER profits. Obviously, they don't care what kind of government China has. So some people decided to risk their lives, and risk side effects, so they wouldn't lose their jobs? What was the alternative? Do nothing? No vaccine? Don't even try to make a vaccine? People get flu sots every year. Every year. No noise about flu shots and the various shots you have to get to travel to a foreign country.relatd
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
@KF Are you referring to his comment at 135? The one where he purposefully misinterprets the trinity and tries to link it to polytheism? This is what was talking about before. It’s willful ignorance. There’s no attempt to find out why it’s thought of as one God. It helps maintain the bias and hate that they have for Christians if they maintain their misunderstanding of what we believe.AaronS1978
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
Jerry et al, over time I have concluded on long experience that the issues are not with evidence or cases. We are literally dealing with people who will not examine the history of discovery of the genetic code, or the system architecture that shows why it is a code, nor the direct emphatic statements by leading authorities. They know what complex coded algorithms -- thus language and goal directed process -- point to and are determined never to go there. If that case is not clear enough for such, no case will be, we are dealing with ideologically driven hyperskepticism. The knowledge commons is broken, what is claimed as knowledge has been taken captive to ideological agendas and so we are left to start afresh with a reformation. For instance, it is fruitful to recognise science as reverse engineering nature. From that perspective, we readily recognise the codes and algorithms in action in the cell. This points to intelligently directed configuration. As to fine tuning, that is comparably obvious but as long as hyperskepticism driven by ideology has power, such will never be acknowledged by those driven by ideological, crooked yardsticks. And, fine tuning points to intelligently directed configuration of the cosmos. But the obvious case is D/RNA and protein synthesis. KFkairosfocus
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
CD, really. Your ignorance of both theology and philosophy shows. Go to a site that discusses such and get yourself sorted out. Maybe, the scutum fidei will help. KFkairosfocus
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
“No one was forced“ tell that to the millions of government and medical employees that forced by a mandate. Figurative gun point their career and livelihood.. Why is China locking down due to the virus? WHY? China is a totalitarian communist shit hole that blatantly lied on the number of infected in their country, why would we consider their behaviors honest and an example of what we should do in the first place?AaronS1978
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
Jerry at 137, This site MUST be monitored by atheists and others with an agenda. I was reading so-called reviews of an ID book. Guess what? What most reviewers cared about was ID getting into schools. About kids being told that an INTELLIGENCE, not blind, atheist forces, made them. People like you, Jerry, have to be watched. Because once ID gets popular among the unwashed masses, ATHEISM goes out the window. So, the pro-evolution troops have been stationed here because certain people don't want kids to be taught ID. I hope that was clear.relatd
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
Vivid at 125, Your reasoning is poor. “Tru-facts the vaccine wasn’t as cracked up as it was made out to be and had quite a few adverse reactions. As Fauci stated before he retired, “the vaccine didn’t preform as advertised” So this tells me that you were willing to risk other peoples lives as long as you feel safe.” No one was forced - at gunpoint - to take the vaccine. No one. Those who took it were taking a risk AS INDIVIDUALS. And those who were forced, who was forcing them? Certainly not anyone here. Why is China locking down due to the virus? WHY? Fauci and company have no control over what happens there.relatd
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
Not really bothered about your alternate reality, Jerry, not that you do more than hint at it.
It's truth! It is based on science and logic. I see no anti ID person using either.
ID has no basis in science until it begins to develop its own hypotheses.
More nonsense. Why do you have to distort? ID is based solely on science and logic. That why I call it science+ jerry
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT
Yet, you cannot defend yours [alternate reality] and I can defend mine.
Not really bothered about your alternate reality, Jerry, not that you do more than hint at it. Mostly now, I point out errors and misrepresentations regarding biology and biochemistry (though I'm sure professional scientists could do a much better job) and point out that ID has no basis in science until it begins to develop its own hypotheses. I'll be back out and about in a day or two, I hope, so there will be much less input from me then.Alan Fox
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
@ Jerry ID critics criticize ID. Why wouldn't they, given the opportunity? This is an ID -friendly website (about the only one left that allows comments) and, quite reasonably, the management get to choose the content of opening posts. I used to come here when Denyse posted on scientific news because it was a handy source of what is new in science. The threads rarely generated discussion of science. Did you follow my link to an older UD thread? We are in a twilight zone compared to that, here at UD, these days.Alan Fox
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
We must inhabit alternate realities, JerryAlan Fox
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
I don’t think the evidence in these threads wholly supports that claim
I do. I find almost no discussion of science by anti ID. How could there since there is no science that disputes ID. A lot of ID commenters are interested in religion and like to discuss that. But anti ID posters push that topic a lot. Anti ID commenters believe that is a negative for ID. They avoid science like the plaque since they know it supports ID. Aside: ID’s basis is the creation of the universe. Such a mind with this much power could have easily figured out how to create life through initial conditions. And complex life too. There just is zero evidence for it. Aside2: why are there such disputes over the obvious? That’s the real question.
We must inhabit alternate realities
Yet, you cannot defend yours and I can defend mine. I use science to defend my position and skeptics use Ad hominems and distortion. As I said, that is the interesting question. What drives such attitudes?jerry
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
@ Jerry I recall there used to be threads on ID theory where informed critics commented and authors defended their views. Here is one thread authored by Winston Exert. I don't see those discussions happening now.Alan Fox
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT
KF/123 "Trinitarian monotheism" a/k/a polytheism.......chuckdarwin
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
That’s why ID is more science interested than anti ID.
Doesn't make sense grammatically. Are you suggesting pro ID people who post here are more interested in science than ID skeptic commenters? I don't think the evidence in these threads wholly supports that claim. ;)Alan Fox
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
sidetracking
That’s all there really is here. Few here are really interested in ID. Other than making ad hominem, irrelevant or inane comments. The anti ID are constantly answered and the response back is to ignore unless they believe there is a gotcha on something irrelevant. But to be fair, a lot of the sidetracking comes in the form of religion introduced by pro ID commenters but immediately exploited by anti ID commenters. Few if none of the anti ID commenters want to resort to science. That’s why ID is more science interested than anti ID.jerry
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT
PS. Let us not allow side tracking.
says Kairosfocus, sidetracking.Alan Fox
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
Spewizer Representant admitted :Was about control and money. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKIg2RmQJ8s&t=179swhistler
October 17, 2022
October
10
Oct
17
17
2022
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 8

Leave a Reply