Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At SciTech Daily: New Theory Suggests That the Origin of Life on Earth-Like Planets Is Likely

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

According to a recent paper by a math professor at the University of Arkansas, the existence of life on Earth provides proof that abiogenesis is relatively easy on planets similar to Earth, refuting the “Carter argument” conclusion.

Alien Exoplanet With Rings
The new paper argues that the widely accepted theory from astrophysicist Brandon Carter used faulty logic.

Does the presence of life on Earth provide any insight into the likelihood that abiogenesis—the process by which life first emerges from inorganic substances—occurs elsewhere? That is a question that has baffled scientists for a while, as well as everyone else inclined to think about it.

Astrophysicist Brandon Carter makes the widely accepted claim that the selection effect of our own existence limits our ability to observe. Nothing can be concluded about the likelihood of life existing elsewhere based on the fact that we had to end up on a planet where abiogenesis took place.

He claimed that understanding life on this earth had, at best, neutral value. Another way to look at it is to say that because Earth wasn’t chosen at random from the group of all Earth-like planets, it can’t be seen as a typical Earth-like planet.

However, a recent paper by retired astrophysicist and University of Arkansas mathematics instructor Daniel Whitmire argues that Carter’s logic was flawed. Whitmire contends that Carter’s theory suffers from “The Old Evidence Problem” in Bayesian Confirmation Theory, which is used to update a theory or hypothesis in light of new evidence, despite the fact that it has gained widespread acceptance.

After giving a few examples of how this formula is employed to calculate probabilities and what role old evidence plays, Whitmire turns to what he calls the conception analogy.

As he explains, “One could argue, like Carter, that I exist regardless of whether my conception was hard or easy, and so nothing can be inferred about whether my conception was hard or easy from my existence alone.”

In this analogy, “hard” means contraception was used. “Easy” means no contraception was used. In each case, Whitmire assigns values to these propositions.

Whitmire continues, “However, my existence is old evidence and must be treated as such. When this is done the conclusion is that it is much more probable that my conception was easy. In the abiogenesis case of interest, it’s the same thing. The existence of life on Earth is old evidence and just like in the conception analogy the probability that abiogenesis is easy is much more probable.”

In other words, the evidence of life on Earth is not of neutral value in making the case for life on similar planets. As such, our life suggests that life is more likely to emerge on other Earth-like planets — maybe even on the recent “super-Earth” type planet, LP 890-9b, discovered 100 light years away.

SciTech Daily

Bayesian theory aside, the confirmed evidence from science affirms that natural processes destroy information-rich complex functional molecules with time. No evidence supports the ability of natural, unguided processes to bring life out of non-life. Whitmire’s conclusion, that life is “likely to emerge on other Earth-like planets,” only makes sense if it is true that life on Earth arose naturally, without any intelligent design or agency.

Comments
@21
it’s adequate to establish that natural causes cannot have accomplished an existing outcome, such as the existence of life. Every observation confirms that life comes from life. Our best understanding of the laws of physics confirm that natural processes degrade the information content of a closed system (even including the entire universe) with the passage of time. The information content of a single-celled organism cannot be explained by natural causes. These are scientific findings that are often pointed out by the ID community. The science of ID infers intelligent design under conditions such as these.
I think that your understanding of the situation relies on the following error: "Our best understanding of the laws of physics confirm that natural processes degrade the information content of a closed system (even including the entire universe) with the passage of time." Here's why this is a mistake: the universe as a whole is the only closed system. All systems within the universe are technically open -- though I doubt that there are any energy exchanges between galactic superclusters, or even between galaxies within the same cluster. What you would need to show is that thermodynamics prohibits the emergence of organizational closed systems in systems that are thermodynamically open, as the Earth is. A system is organizationally closed if (a) it persists at far from thermodynamic equilibrium with its environment and (b) the maintenance of some of constraints that allow it to persist far from equilibrium is incorporated into the activity of the system. That is, the work performed by the system feeds back into maintaining the constraints that constitute the system. This is not to say that Prigogine, Kaufman, Deacon etc are obviously right about how they understand the transition from complex self-organizing systems to genuinely autonomous, self-determining systems. But it is to say that if their ideas are plausible even if only theoretically, then one should not say that "natural causes cannot have accomplished an existing outcome, such as the existence of life".
The inference of the scientific conclusion of intelligent design has implications, as do many other scientific conclusions. An implication of ID that is relevant and important to every human is that we were made with intention by a supernatural being consistent with the God of the Bible, that our lives are not the result of random accidents of nature, that morality has a transcendent basis, that our rational thoughts have grounding in the mind of God, that an immaterial, spiritual dimension exists, that the possibility of the life of the soul beyond physical death exists.
These are perhaps interesting at a philosophical level, but none of them are empirically testable. What you need are empirically testable implications of ID: if intelligent design were true, what predictions would be entailed that can be empirically confirmed, and that would not be entailed if ID were false? Notice that this cannot be a matter of looking at some surprising new discovery and saying "ID predicted that!" -- because if ID had predicted that, then it would have, and it didn't. ID needs to generate novel predictions of its own, about what would be the case if it were true, and then do the science necessary to establish the occurrence of the observations that would be entailed by ID if it were true. And it needs to do that in order to be even so much as a serious rival to complexity theory, let alone a better explanation than complexity theory.PyrrhoManiac1
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT
Caspian/21
The inference of the scientific conclusion of intelligent design has implications, as do many other scientific conclusions. An implication of ID that is relevant and important to every human is that we were made with intention by a supernatural being consistent with the God of the Bible, that our lives are not the result of random accidents of nature, that morality has a transcendent basis, that our rational thoughts have grounding in the mind of God, that an immaterial, spiritual dimension exists, that the possibility of the life of the soul beyond physical death exists. Many other conclusions could be drawn as well.
I strongly disagree that "[t]he inference of the scientific conclusion of intelligent design has implications, as do many other scientific conclusions. " A scientific "conclusion" (i.e., theory) must yield testable empirical hypotheses to be useful. None of the "inferences" you draw are empirically testable. For example, you infer a "soul" that survives death but offer no way to actually confirm its existence. Additionally, even if, arguendo, evolution was completely disproven tomorrow, that would not justify accepting ID in its stead. This is the false dichotomy fallacy. Ultimately, all your inferences are articles of faith, not science. In fact, they read more like a creed than a collection of scientific inferences. While you are perfectly free to accept these articles of faith as a matter of expressing your religious belief system, that does not make them scientific inferences.......chuckdarwin
December 19, 2022
December
12
Dec
19
19
2022
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
Well, I guess the assumption here is that abiogenesis is possible. Now for me, that's an absolutely HUGE assumption. I'm surprised these "scientists" are really able to BELIEVE in this, in spite of the lack of evidence, but I guess there is no other option in their worldview. It's funny what things they are skeptical about and what amazing things they so willingly believe in spite of no evidence. No bias there, right?tjguy
December 18, 2022
December
12
Dec
18
18
2022
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT
To CD @20 and PM1@14: To infer God's intervention in this universe, it's adequate to establish that natural causes cannot have accomplished an existing outcome, such as the existence of life. Every observation confirms that life comes from life. Our best understanding of the laws of physics confirm that natural processes degrade the information content of a closed system (even including the entire universe) with the passage of time. The information content of a single-celled organism cannot be explained by natural causes. These are scientific findings that are often pointed out by the ID community. The science of ID infers intelligent design under conditions such as these. The inference of the scientific conclusion of intelligent design has implications, as do many other scientific conclusions. An implication of ID that is relevant and important to every human is that we were made with intention by a supernatural being consistent with the God of the Bible, that our lives are not the result of random accidents of nature, that morality has a transcendent basis, that our rational thoughts have grounding in the mind of God, that an immaterial, spiritual dimension exists, that the possibility of the life of the soul beyond physical death exists. Many other conclusions could be drawn as well.Caspian
December 17, 2022
December
12
Dec
17
17
2022
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
PM1/14 You are absolutely correct, however, it likely will fall on deaf ears.....chuckdarwin
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT
It's possible to buy the book ChuckDarwin recommends for $12. It is the 2017 edition but has the same outline as the recent version so I assume it is essentially the same. It is a pdf version but the same book and I have just downloaded it. I don't plan on reading it through any time soon but it is essentially a book on genetics masquerading as a book on Evolution. What are the odds ChuckDarwin has read any of it? What is the chance ChuckDarwin has read anything on this topic? Certainly not by any of his comments.
these guys making fun of creationists
ChuckDarwin is a creationist. He is one who said the creator just created something and then let it be. He cannot back up the basis for his belief but depending on the definition of a creationist, ChuckDarwin is definitely one.jerry
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
TLH, people like Chuckdarwin love to make fun of creationists, but what exactly do these guys have? A crazy absurd theory about how fully autonomous self-navigating flying systems self-designed (no engineer was needed) ... or another theory about abiogenesis, how life was spontaneously generated in some lake :)))))) and these guys making fun of creationists :))))))))martin_r
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
CD @12
You need to read beyond headlines
I do ... don't worry... But you didn't get my message ... These articles prove, that Darwinists are always wrong ... they are always surprised, ... the findings are unexpected and so on ... there is a rewrite after a rewrite after a rewrite ... How do i know, that this time (in that article) they got it right ? :))))))))) To better illustrate what i am talking about, a few days ago I have posted the following: Older ScienceDaily article ... Evolution rewritten, again and again Palaeontologists are forever claiming that their latest fossil discovery will "rewrite evolutionary history." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100831190028.htmmartin_r
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
The book that ChuckDarwin recommends is a book on genetics not Evolution. Like all books of this kind, it features one chapter on speculation of Evolution at the end. Nothing new in this book. Just saved everyone including Santa a couple of hundred dollars.jerry
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
CD @12
Second, all good research ultimately “challenges orthodoxy.”
Funny... Jerry Coyne would surely agree with you ... :)))))martin_r
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
@13 I don't see how there could be evidence that God wasn't involved: the absence of a cause entails absence of an effect. What you are asking for -- evidence that God was not involved -- is logically impossible.PyrrhoManiac1
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
Dear CD@8 As an “open minded Creationist,” let me call your bluff. I asked if you, or anyone, has got ANY evidence that indicates the first life here was NOT made through Divine intervention. Your response? A smoke screen. You told me to "start out with a good college level text on evolution." (Futuyma and Kirkpatrick, 2022). You say "the notes will provide you with reams of sources for evidence of evolution" But my question was about the Origin Of Life which has nothing to do with the Evolution of Life. Evolution requires that living things aleady exist before any evolution can take place. So let's see your cards. Please tell us what evidence, ANY evidence, that Futuyma and Kirkpatrick, or any of those "reams of soiurces", or anyone else has got, hat indicates the first life was NOT made through Divine intervention. The balls in your court. Back in the Creationist court, we'll be laughin and laughin, while youre showin us how to fold em, walk away, or run.TAMMIE LEE HAYNES
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
Martin_r/10 First, the article that you link is not a textbook, that should be obvious. Second, all good research ultimately "challenges orthodoxy." If it didn't, science would get nowhere. To paraphrase cosmologist Lawrence Krauss, "I love it when people prove me wrong, that's when I learn something." The gist of the article you link to does not challenge evolution, it simply suggests that eukaryotic cells share more commonalities with prokaryotes than previously thought. More importantly the findings are completely consonant with classic evolutionary theory:
The new study explores the advent of the first eukaryotes and notes that instead of a hard boundary line separating them from their prokaryotic ancestors, the true picture is messier. Rather than an unbridgeable gulf between prokaryotes and eukaryotes in terms of cell volume internal complexity and number of genes, the two cell forms enjoyed considerable overlap... The new picture of early eukaryote evolution provides a plausible alternative to the mitochondria-first paradigm. Rather than evolution ushering in the age of eukaryotes with one grand gesture -- the chance acquisition of a mitochondrial prototype, a series of tentative, gradual, step-wise changes over vast timespans ultimately produced complex cells packed with sophisticated internal structures and capable of explosive diversification. (emphasis added)
You need to read beyond headlines--they are jazzed up to hook readers. But almost always, the research reported is more mundane than the hook.chuckdarwin
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
The appropriate response to Chuck is “shut up Chuck” followed by not entertaining his childish jabs at anyone’s beliefs. As per the OP it is very difficult to believe the accuracy of any set of equations claiming life is likely anywhere, given the incredible difficulty we have trying to recreate the very thing we are surrounded by. For life to arise by any form of chemical processes there must be very specific key factors that must occurs first before there’s any chance of it happening. Which would logically suggest that these key factors are far less likely than formation of habitable planets.AaronS1978
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
CD, is the following included in the “HOT OFF THE PRESS”-textbook ? AUGUST 2022 New research on the emergence of the first complex cells challenges orthodoxy
A new study challenges a popular scenario put forward to explain the arrival of the first eukaryotic organisms. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/08/220805154356.htm
martin_r
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
CD, is the following included in the "HOT OFF THE PRESS"-textbook ? "Scientists at The University of Queensland have upended biologists' century-old understanding of the evolutionary history of animals."
The findings disprove a long-standing idea: that multi-celled animals evolved from a single-celled ancestor resembling a modern sponge cell known as a choanocyte.
one of the researchers said:
"We're taking a core theory of evolutionary biology and turning it on its head,"
The study has been published in Nature. https://phys.org/news/2019-06-evolutionary-discovery-rewrite-textbooks.html PS: Darwinists are not to be trusted. It is a rewrite after a rewrite after a rewrite ...martin_r
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
TLH/7 As an "open minded Creationist," why don't you start out with a good college level text on evolution. I would recommend "Evolution 5th Edition" by Futuyma and Kirkpatrick (Oxford University Press, December 2022). It is literally hot off the press and the notes will provide you with reams of sources for evidence of evolution. (https://global.oup.com/ushe/product/evolution-9780197619612?cc=us&lang=en&). Who knows, maybe Santa will leave you a copy if you promise to be nice......chuckdarwin
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
CD@6 Yes, God could have created life on other planets. After all, all the evidence shows that's what he did here. By the way, as an open midnded Creationist, I keep asking and asking and asking if anyone has got ANY contrary evidence. Evidence that indicates the first life here was NOT made through Divine intervention. But I dont never get no response. Cause there is no such evidence, I figure. You wouldnt know of any, would you? If you do please tell us. about it Our poor Atheist friends must be desparate for even a sliver.. .TAMMIE LEE HAYNES
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
Whitmire’s conclusion, that life is “likely to emerge on other Earth-like planets,” only makes sense if it is true that life on Earth arose naturally, without any intelligent design or agency.
There's another option. I would submit that God has (and may continue to) created life using the "Adam and Eve technique" on innumerable other planets. In fact, it is completely possible that many of these Adam and Eves didn't screw it all up and are still living blissfully in their respective Edens. If that is the case, they would have absolutely no reason to go off looking for life elsewhere, nor would they want to be discovered, and likely corrupted, by their "fallen" counterparts.....chuckdarwin
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT
Off topic ... BORNAGAIN, have you ever heard of Michael Levin ? (I think this guy was already mentioned on UD) He is a biologist ... a Darwinist who sounds like an ID proponent. from Wikipedia: "Michael Levin is an American developmental and synthetic biologist at Tufts University, where he is the Vannevar Bush Distinguished Professor." Yesterday I have watched his very interesting presentation on "Where is Anatomy Encoded in Living Systems?" The whole presentation was extremely interesting/shocking, especially the experiment with frogs (starting at 10:35) ... If you haven't watched it yet, I highly recommend to do so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC2_S-wcJes PS: Levin's final comments were pretty funny:
Biologists don't love to think about goal directed processes, the idea is they're supposed to be emergence and kind of emergent complexity, but this idea that things are working towards a goal the way that any navigational system fundamentally does, is really not something that is very comfortable certainly for molecular biology ...
He obviously couldn't resist to say that, because this is what his experiments showed -Biology is working towards a goal. Levin sounds like another heretic.martin_r
December 15, 2022
December
12
Dec
15
15
2022
12:30 AM
12
12
30
AM
PDT
It’s over 150 years since life in the lab was attempted by Haeckel. Neither he, nor anyone following, has reported success. Brandon Carter should set out the steps how life was achieved in Planet X, then it can be replicated here. So far, there is not even agreement on the theoretical first step. Nobelist Harold Urey (of Miller/Urey fame) said no one could see how it was even possible, but he had to take it as a matter of faith - his words - that it happened here.Belfast
December 14, 2022
December
12
Dec
14
14
2022
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT
it is alright. If a MIT physics Jeremy England thinks that
You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant
then it is alright when a math professor thinks that "the existence of life on Earth provides proof that abiogenesis is relatively easy" ... :))))))))))))))))martin_r
December 14, 2022
December
12
Dec
14
14
2022
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT
I see Whitmire is making use of the "old evidence" distinction. Luke Barnes, here (p. 1223 or p. 4 of 38), states that is false distinction; philosophers use it but physicists don't. Does anyone have opinions on whether the distinction is needed/useful/fallacious?EDTA
December 14, 2022
December
12
Dec
14
14
2022
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
"... the probability that abiogenesis is easy is much more probable.” If it's so easy, make life in a lab. By the way, without a faster than light drive, no one will ever see a planet outside of this solar system and be able to land there.relatd
December 14, 2022
December
12
Dec
14
14
2022
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply