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
Jerry: Not aware of that. Can you justify that opinion?
You are correct. I misspoke. It would be more accurate to say theism rather that religion.Sir Giles
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
KF: Actually, the likes of a Plato and Cicero were not theists.
I am afraid that you are incorrect. They were not Christian, but they were, nonetheless, theists.
Your objections pivoting on errors of fact and obvious anti-theistic bias
Not being a theist does not make me anti-theist. Just as not being female does not make me anti-female.Sir Giles
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
However, that there are objective unchanging moral truths is owned by religion
Not aware of that. Can you justify that opinion?jerry
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
SG: >>Objective Truth: A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of a sentient being.>> 1- That is, it is adequately warranted, as I already pointed out. >>the concept of objective moral truth is theistic in origin, and strongly held by those who follow their religious faith, I don’t see how it can be argued that objective moral truths exist>> 2- Actually, the likes of a Plato and Cicero were not theists. let me cite Cicero in De Legibus, on roots of law of our nature, I guess for record:
—Marcus [in de Legibus, introductory remarks,. C1 BC, being Cicero himself]: . . . we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent [36]with the true nature of man [--> we are seeing the root vision of natural law, coeval with our humanity] . . . . With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for . “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary” . . . . They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law [--> a key remark] , whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones . . . . According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans [--> esp. Cicero, speaking as a leading statesman], an equitable discrimination between good and evil. The true definition of law should, however, include both these characteristics. And this being granted as an almost self–evident proposition, the origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
[--> this points to the wellsprings of reality, the only place where is and ought can be bridged; bridged, through the inherently good utterly wise, maximally great necessary being, the creator God, which adequately answers the Euthyphro dilemma and Hume's guillotine argument surprise on seeing reasoning is-is then suddenly a leap to ought-ought. IS and OUGHT are fused from the root]
This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
3: The matter was already shown, PS to 85, once we can recognise morality and duty etc. Your objections pivoting on errors of fact and obvious anti-theistic bias (could not be source of objective truth), does not overturn what is established as undeniably true. KFkairosfocus
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
Jerry: Aside: morality is not the sole property of religion. It comes from human nature which has been discussed ad nauseam. But people want to insist it is all about religion – both sides.
I haven’t seen anyone here claim that morality is the sole property of religion. However, that there are objective unchanging moral truths is owned by religion.Sir Giles
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
As we’ve been saying, we don’t know how life arose from inanimate matter. But “don’t know” does not mean the same as supernatural. So it seems contributor has a need to come on here and explain himself but forgot to explain who is the "we" referenced, who "don't know". But I get it, 'they' are ignorant. Interesting because I've been wondering why these folks are so intent on coming on here, because you would think they would get by now they aren't going to educate the rest of us to admire the ignorance. Well it seems astrophysicist Robert Jastrow quoted above at 55, isn't impressed by this category of ignorance, excerpt: : "And [astronomers, astrophysicists] have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact. That's right, no hope for reductionist science to ever understand the so-called "unknown". A modicum of understanding requires a different set of knowledge and experience, as plainly obvious to most on here, and most from every civilization and tribal culture in history. But these materialists on here are intent on following their hopeless religion to its hopeless dead end.groovamos
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
Objective Truth: A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of a sentient being.
Given that the concept of objective moral truth is theistic in origin, and strongly held by those who follow their religious faith, I don’t see how it can be argued that objective moral truths exist when it would be impossible to demonstrate that the proposition was not influenced by bias. Their belief in objective moral truths precede any argument they make for the existence of objective moral truth.Sir Giles
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
Objective Truth: A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by the mind of a sentient being.
Given that the concept of objective moral truth is theistic in origin, and strongly held by those who follow their religious faith, I don’t see how it can be argued that objective moral truths exist when it would be impossible to demonstrate that the proposition was not influenced by bias. Their belief in objective moral truths precede any argument they make for the existence of objective moral truth.Sir Giles
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
BA77/40
For instance, a man would be morally justified in killing another man’s children if that other man had first ripped apart, limb from limb, the first man’s children. In fact, the first man would be morally justified in killing that other man as slowly, and painfully, as he so desired once he had killed the other man’s children in front of his eyes.
So now we move from "objective" morality to moral "justification" to satisfy our untempered lust for revenge--the morality of rage--eerily akin to what we are treated to in the Bible. So much for the moral high ground........chuckdarwin
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
I am looking for Vivid's answer, not yours, Jerry. And if it is so tiresome to repeat the obvious, why did you bother? Here's a verse from Dylan, from "Floater":
Romeo, he said to Juliet, “You got a poor complexion It doesn’t give your appearance a very youthful touch!” Juliet said back to Romeo, “Why don’t you just shove off If it bothers you so much”
Viola Lee
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
You didn’t answer that question.
Been answered in other places. All this is a repeat and the answers are obvious. Round and round we go. That is the objective, not understanding. So we get nonsense repeated over and over. Aside: morality is not the sole property of religion. It comes from human nature which has been discussed ad nauseam. But people want to insist it is all about religion - both sides. Aside2: no one discusses the morality of toads or wooly mammoths or fruit flies especially toads, mammoths and fruit flies. Aside3: truth and how to justify it has been discussed to where it is tiresome to have to repeat the obvious. Aside4: its a beautiful sunny morning in New Hampshire.jerry
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
Vivid writes, "Yes of course after all you have spent years on this site denying the existence of objective truth." That’s not true. "A tree in my yard" is objectively true. It corresponds with reality and there are clear ways it can be confirmed as such. I’ve never denied that type of objective truth. That is why I asked you above to clarify your definition by discussing what reality and what means of confirmation to are describing. What I have denied is objective moral truths. Above I asked you, “How do you confirm that a moral belief corresponds with reality, and is thus objective? And exactly what is the nature of the reality to which moral belief refers?” You didn’t answer that question.Viola Lee
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT
to Vivid. Your sentence is: "“Can we agree that if I think there is such a thing as objective truths (A) and somebody else says there is no objective truths ( non A)that one of us is objectively wrong? Suppose I write instead, "“Can we agree that if I think that warbles are pink (A) and somebody else says warbles are not pink ( non A), that one of us is objectively wrong?” Is the second sentence true? Why not?Viola Lee
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
The probability of dna = 0. Scientists are supposed to understand math. Why does no-one mention this? (I suppose they wouldn't get any funding and it disturbs the presuppositions of the atheists) Nevertheless, according to Drake's equation and elementary mathematics the number of life bearing planets N is Rxfpxnexf1xfixfcxL where fl=0, therefore N=0.Peter
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT
Vivid, I suggest that truth as Ari said in paraphrase, says of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not. Absolute truth is complete, undiluted, untainted. Objective is what is warranted and credibly true so know-ABLE and of course relable, which is why many in a looser sense hold it tantamount to truth simplicitas. Though of course, some refuse to acknowledge what they should know. Subjective is what I perceive as true which can indeed be so. KFkairosfocus
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT
VL, re:
objective truth means that which corresponds with reality.
Far better, objectivity provides adequate warrant for a truth claim. Where truths are accurate descriptions of entities and states of affairs. Thus, we may have objective truths regarding right conduct, duty and the good, with evil being understood as the privation of what is good out of alignment with its due end. Thence, truth claims or suggested truths regarding morality can be evaluated for warrant. In particular, there are no objective moral truths is self referentially incoherent -- claiming or implying its own objective character -- and falsifies itself. Indeed, it can be shown that any distinct domain of contemplation will have at least some minimal objective truths. KF PS, some algebra with meaning as was already shown:
Objective, so know-able moral truth is widely denied in our day, for many it isn't even a remotely plausible possibility. And yet, as we will shortly see, it is undeniably true; as is so for other reasonably identifiable fields of discussion. This marginalisation of moral knowledge, in extreme form, is a key thesis of the nihilism that haunts our civilisation, which we must detect, expose to the light of day, correct and dispel, in defence of civilisation and human dignity. Let a proposition be represented by x M = x is a proposition asserting that some state of affairs regarding right conduct, duty/ought, virtue/honour, good/evil etc (i.e. the subject is morality) is the case [--> truth claim] O = x is objective and generally knowable, being adequately warranted as credibly true [--> notice, generally knowable per adequate warrant, as opposed to widely acknowledged] It is claimed, cultural relativism thesis: S= ~[O*M] = 1
[ NB: Plato, The Laws, Bk X, c 360 BC, in the voice of Athenian Stranger: "[Thus, the Sophists and other opinion leaders etc -- c 430 BC on, hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made." This IMPLIES the Cultural Relativism Thesis, by highlighting disputes (among an error-prone and quarrelsome race!), changing/varied opinions, suggesting that dominance of a view in a place/time is a matter of balance of factions/rulings, and denying that there is an intelligible, warranted natural law. Of course, subjectivism then reduces the scale of "community" to one individual. He continues, "These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might . . . " [--> door opened to nihilistic factionalism]]
However, the subject of S is M, it therefore claims to be objectively true, O, and is about M where it forbids O-status to any claim of type-M so, ~[O*M] cannot be true per self referential incoherence [--> reductio ad absurdum] ++++++++++ ~[O*M] = 0 [as self referential and incoherent cf above] ~[~[O*M]] = 1 [the negation is therefore true] __________ O*M = 1 [condensing not of not] where, M [moral truth claim] So too, O [if an AND is true, each sub proposition is separately true] That is, there UNDENIABLY are objective moral truths; and a first, self-evident one is that ~[O*M] is false. The set is non empty, it is not vacuous and we cannot play empty set square of opposition games with it. That’s important.
kairosfocus
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT
“However, also note that I changed this to logically true rather than objectively true” Yes of course after all you have spent years on this site denying the existence of objective truth and then realized you unwittingly gave away the store by agreeing that that which corresponds with reality is objectively true. Can’t have that can we? Vividvividbleau
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
01:12 AM
1
01
12
AM
PDT
Isn't qualifying truth similar to qualifying death or pregnancy?Alan Fox
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
12:41 AM
12
12
41
AM
PDT
How to say garbage in French?
Only if you are putting waste into a waste bin. "You're talking rubbish/garbage" is: Tu dis des bêtises. ETA Also: C'est n'importe quoi ! Alan Fox
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
12:39 AM
12
12
39
AM
PDT
VL “OK, objective truth means that which corresponds to reality” “I said OK to that definition,” Oh but wait you don’t agree anymore “However, also note that I changed this to logically true rather than objectively true” Ok so you don’t agree with me that what is objectively true is that which corresponds with reality whatever that reality might be. So I am saying that which corresponds with reality is objectively true ( A) and you are saying that which corresponds with reality is not objectively true (non A). We both can be wrong but we both can’t be right. The reason you put forth is because “because the question as to how logical truths correspond to reality (logical reality?) is also an issue” I read this to mean that the LNC may not have a correspondence with reality correct? Vividvividbleau
October 16, 2022
October
10
Oct
16
16
2022
12:05 AM
12
12
05
AM
PDT
I wonder what the over under is for “ but, but , the quantum world” Vividvividbleau
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT
“But without further specificity we don’t know whether A or non A correspond to reality.” Irrelevant to my point which is If someone believes in A and another persons exact opposite belief is non A both beliefs cannot correspond to reality unless A can be A and non A at the same time and in the same relationship. “Surely you understand that your sentence is full of complex, undecided issues that you can’t just cram into an A or not-A framework.” LOL so A cannot be A and non A at the same time and in the same relationship is to complex for you. Vividvividbleau
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT
But without further specificity we don't know whether A or non A correspond to reality. Person B doesn't exist. No one says there are absolutely no statements that correspond to reality. You have a strawman statement. It is true, logically, that either there exists statements that correspond to reality or there does not exist any statements that correspond to reality (although even this leaves unclear what reality, and how we confirm correspondence.) However, also note that I changed this to logically true rather than objectively true, because the question as to how logical truths correspond to reality (logical reality?) is also an issue. Surely you understand that your sentence is full of complex, undecided issues that you can't just cram into an A or not-A framework.Viola Lee
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT
"Do good to others and expect bad from them. "Sandy
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT
“The proposition only makes sense, among other things, if you assume A’s framework is true and things can be objectively right or wrong.” I am not assuming A’s framework is true I am saying that if I believe A is true and you claim that you believe my claim, the exact opposite of my claim ( non A) ,is not true, one of us is objectively wrong. One of us believe something that does not correspond to reality. We both cannot be objectively right. Vividvividbleau
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT
Vivid, your sentence includes too many assumptions and ambiguities to stand as a clear yes/no proposition. It's way too broad. The proposition only makes sense, among other things, if you assume A's framework is true and things can be objectively right or wrong. A thinks that “objective truths” exist in that there are statements that correspond with reality. In our discussions here that has almost always referred to moral principles or other metaphysical ideas, which is usually what the non-A people are referring to. We are not talking about whether the statement “a tree is in my front yard” is objectively true. So what reality is your statement referring to? An underlying problem here is the difference between a logical truth and applying a logical truth, which always involves substituting in various concepts that are not necessarily well-defined, or even wrong. You sentence is not a straightforward, unambiguous application of “either A or not A is true”.Viola Lee
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT
“That’s why I ask how do you confirm that a moral belief corresponds with reality, and is thus objective? “ Your the one that brought up moral beliefs in 56 , which by the way I agree with most of what you said. The questions I am asking have nothing to do whatever with how someone confirms their moral belief actually corresponds to reality. Here was my questions that you disagreed with. “Can we agree that if I think there is such a thing as objective truths (A) and somebody else says there is no objective truths ( non A)that one of us is objectively wrong?” You answered no so I take it that a truth that corresponds with reality is not objectively true? That A can be A and non A at the same time and the same relationship Vividvividbleau
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
I said OK to that definition, although the phrase "corresponds with reality" assumes a reality with entities that a truth is meant to correspond with, and such a reality or entities might not exist. That's why I ask how do you confirm that a moral belief corresponds with reality, and is thus objective? And exactly what is the nature of the reality to which moral belief is supposed to correspond with?Viola Lee
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT
VL “How do you confirm that a moral belief corresponds with reality, and is thus objective?” Not so fast let’s settle one thing at a time. Do you agree that an objective truth is that which corresponds to reality and can A be A and non A at the same time and the same relationship ? Vividvividbleau
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT
OK, objective truth means that which corresponds with reality. How do you confirm that a moral belief corresponds with reality, and is thus objective? And exactly what is the nature of the reality to which moral belief refers?Viola Lee
October 15, 2022
October
10
Oct
15
15
2022
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7 8

Leave a Reply