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
Following up, we have a dichotomy: 1) The first life was due to supernatural causes. 2) The first life was NOT due to supernatural cuases. Us Crationists we say that no 1 is true. Our Atheists friends say that no 2 is true. In a dichotomy, any evidence in favor of one proposition is evidence against the other proposition. Now if life did originate from natural causes, it came from a sequence of unguided chemical reactions. So it should be reproducable in a lab. Indeed, the world's top Scientists have been trying to do just that for 100 years. Boatloads of money spent. Scads of experiments. Libraries of empirical evidence. We all know their results. Nothing nada zilch. And that's powerful evidence (not proof, of course) that life's origin was supernatural, which is Creationism. And as our Atheist friends graciously point out, they got no Scientific evidence aganst supernatural origin. So the only empirical evidence, it supports Creationism. So now consider the Creationist Law of Biogenesis "Absent Divine Intervention, life comes only from life" Scientific laws, can never be proven being as they are inductive. But they become "settled" if they meet two criteria 1) The proposed law is supported by all relevant empirical evidence. 2) It is falsifiable (Falsifiable means there there is a way to demonstrate it's false if indeeed it is false. In this case, you just make some life in a lab) The Creationist Law meets those two criteria. Does everyone agree that the Creationist Law of Biogenesis is the settled science? And if you dont agree, why?TAMMIE LEE HAYNES
October 14, 2022
October
10
Oct
14
14
2022
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT
It is ok to reverse the burden of proof as burden of proof is often used simply to back the opponent into a corner. To claim there is no god is the same as to say there is. Both require a burden of proof, both are direct claims about the nature of existence. The only correct answer is to say “no one knows” and to look for proof. Now the definition of supernatural is something not subject to our laws of physics. I do not understand how there could not be SN things as anything out side of our universe would be, by definition SN, as our physics are very likely specific to our universe. We could know of their existence and that would not make them any less SN Of course I will shut it now and wait for Tammy to respond, I appreciated 8AaronS1978
October 13, 2022
October
10
Oct
13
13
2022
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT
TAMMIE LEE HAYNES/1
As a Creationist, let me ask an obvious question of our Atheist friends Here it is: What emprirical evidence do Scientists have that the first life did NOT come from supernatural causes?
None, but your question is a reversal of the burden of proof. If you claim that first life did come from supernatural causes then, if you want to persuade others that your claim has merits, it is for you to provide the arguments and evidence, not for others to prove it is untrue. From my perspective, there is no such thing as the supernatural only the unknown.Seversky
October 13, 2022
October
10
Oct
13
13
2022
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT
“What emprirical evidence do Scientists have that the first life did NOT come from supernatural causes?“ This is a question, I cannot make a strawman out of it, there’s no insinuation and no parallel other than maybe it’s not just to dismiss out of hand a supernatural cause It is a cornering question, but it is not a strawman You use the strawman to answer her question so I have no intention of taking it up with her about her question. It’s a simple yes or no question which is no, there’s no empirical evidence of it. You could also say there is no empirical evidence of the former either. But that could actually lead to a discussion about what counts as empirical evidence versus you just drum up a bunch of fairytales, and tried to relate the two too discredit the other, which is a strawmanAaronS1978
October 13, 2022
October
10
Oct
13
13
2022
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT
Hmmm I think you need a better definition of a “strawman”
I was just using the same definition as TLH did. I didn’t think it was correct, but maybe you should take it up with TLH.Sir Giles
October 13, 2022
October
10
Oct
13
13
2022
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
Hmmm I think you need a better definition of a “strawman”AaronS1978
October 13, 2022
October
10
Oct
13
13
2022
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT
That’s a strawman
I have found that the best response to a strawman is another strawman.Sir Giles
October 13, 2022
October
10
Oct
13
13
2022
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT
“But there is also no empirical evidence that unicorns, leprechauns and Bigfoot doesn’t exist.” That’s a strawman Supernatural can be anything outside this universe. Trying to parallel obviously false fairytales to something supernatural like god on the basis that they both lack evidence is fallacious, especially given the historicity of JesusAaronS1978
October 13, 2022
October
10
Oct
13
13
2022
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
TLH: What emprirical evidence do Scientists have that the first life did NOT come from supernatural causes?
None. But there is also no empirical evidence that unicorns, leprechauns and Bigfoot doesn’t exist.Sir Giles
October 13, 2022
October
10
Oct
13
13
2022
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
As a Creationist, let me ask an obvious question of our Atheist friends Here it is: What emprirical evidence do Scientists have that the first life did NOT come from supernatural causes?TAMMIE LEE HAYNES
October 13, 2022
October
10
Oct
13
13
2022
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
1 6 7 8

Leave a Reply