Do ID theorists have any predictions about finding life on other planets?

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 2, 2008

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Reader Randy writes me to say,

Given the hooplah over ice being found on Mars, Titan and other places, I wonder if any of the ID guys have come out with predictions that we will not find ancient lifeforms trapped there? Expelled and other venues make much hay out of the odds for randomly chaining amino acids into enzymes and then proteins, and “The Privileged Planet” for the seemingly unique position Earth is in for having life. If those numbers are anything like accurate it would seem absolutely safe money to bet that the next planet over never managed hitting that jackpot. So is anyone using ID to make just that prediction?

One could easily postulate a designer who liked creating life on many planets and thus get around this if extinct life is found on one or both or many planets or moons, but then what is the point in making such a fuss about the odds, if the designer routinely flaunts them?

I offered to start a discussion on it at Uncommon Descent, but replied on my own account:

Strictly speaking, I don’t know that ID predicts that life cannot be found elsewhere than on Earth. For all we know, life actually got started on Mars and came to Earth.

ID would predict that random chaining of molecules will not produce life for the same reason that scattering Scrabble pieces will not produce a novel. In both cases, design is required to arrive at a specific target.

That said, a designer might very well produce life on different planets for the same reasons as a novelist might very well write different novels.

But we usually find that works by a given novelist in a specific genre have key similarities. William Faulkner’s novels are easily distinguishable from those of Ernest Hemingway.

So an ID theorist would probably expect to see that life on other planets shares many characteristics with life on Earth – that is, there will be a similarity of themes and styles (assuming there is only one intelligence involved, but most theists will assume that of course).

Other recent Colliding Universes posts:

How important did people think Earth was before Copernicus and Carl Sagan came along and set us straight?

Chance – you mean, it isn’t really a “thing”?

Life does not defeat chaos, but outwits it by wisdom (or information)

Comments

Hi Joseph, Let's start with the easy ones. "Or perhaps you can tell us how to test the simple premise that chimps and humans share a common ancestor." Well, assume no written or oral records (perhaps you're a foundling). I claim that we have a recent ancestor in common and offer a DNA test as proof -- I'm going to claim that, if we are indeed related within n generations that the differences between our DNA will be bounded by some f(n). This can be extended to any other organism. This test is different from that of common design, as common design is not constrained by similar DNA (unless you want to start putting restrictions on what the designer is allowed to do, and I've not seen a good justification for that.) Next: "And what happens on a planet in which life started more than once and therefore has multiple common ancestors?" See Tilman's work on the R* rule: "Competition for a single resource in a stable environment results in exclusion of all forms other than the one having the lowest resource requirement for zero population growth." It's a really cool result. Start with _Plant Strategies and the Dynamics and Structure of Plant Communities_, Princeton UP, 1988. And finally: "Also you seem to be implying that if we found a perfect replicator that would falsify the MS." The MS is how biologists understand life, and so it predicts that other life could also be explained by the MS. Finding life that lies outside of this -- life having perfect replication, for example -- means than the MS is no longer universal, and thus would be reconsidered for terrestrial life as well. In fact, finding perfect replicators that used front-loading or some such would appear (to my inexpert eye) to be designed -- it's just not a stable evolutionary solution. Best, GaramondGaramond_{August 5, 2008
August
08
Aug
5
05
2008
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

Joseph:
IMHO ID will be “proven” once we figure out that DNA is a medium for carrying information- just like a computer disk is a medium for carrying information.
Ever since Watson and Crick discovered DNA it was recongnized that it is a medium for carrying information -- just like a computer disk is a medium for carrying information. Unfortunately the naturalists have recognized this, but not folded up their belongings and gone home. Joseph:
Or perhaps you can tell us how to test the simple premise that chimps and humans share a common ancestor. My bet is that the “test” you use will be very similar to the test for common design.
I'll take you on on that one. There are about 800 known disease causing point mutations that are common between chimp and human (citation needed). These point mutations exist in the exact same place on the matching genes in the two species. Why would a designer repeat these destructive mutations when he redesigned for humanity?bFast_{August 5, 2008
August
08
Aug
5
05
2008
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

Basically, the modern synthesis is not planet-specific. It’s refutable on Earth, Mars or Io. It is also untestable on Earth, Mars or Io. Or perhaps you can tell us how to test the simple premise that chimps and humans share a common ancestor. My bet is that the "test" you use will be very similar to the test for common design...Joseph_{August 5, 2008
August
08
Aug
5
05
2008
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

Tom MH says: The ‘meaning’ of DNA is held in tRNA, which determines which amino acid corresponds to which codon. Reference please. tRNA just "grabs" the corresponding amino acid. But how does a "dumb" molecule "know" how to do that? IMHO ID will be "proven" once we figure out that DNA is a medium for carrying information- just like a computer disk is a medium for carrying information. Also we shouldn't be asking too many questions about alleged alien life until we find it. To Avonwatches: From Unified physics theory explains animals' running, flying and swimming
The findings may have implications for understanding animal evolution, Marden said. One view of evolution holds that it is not a purely deterministic process; that history is full of chance and historical contingency. It is the idea purported by Steven Jay Gould and others that if you were to "rewind the tape" and run it again, evolution would proceed down a different path, Marden said. "Our finding that animal locomotion adheres to constructal theory tells us that -- even though you couldn't predict exactly what animals would look like if you started evolution over on earth, or it happened on another planet -- with a given gravity and density of their tissues, the same basic patterns of their design would evolve again," Marden said.
Joseph_{August 5, 2008
August
08
Aug
5
05
2008
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT}

Garamond, You said the following about the modern synthesis and a prediction: It predicts that life will be imperfect replicators in a resource-limited environment and that variations due to imperfect replication will ultimately lead to speciation (which predicts that all life we find on a given planet will have a common ancestor). That is total nonsense. Life, as we know it, is much more than imperfect replicators. Also you seem to be implying that if we found a perfect replicator that would falsify the MS. More nonsense. And what happens on a planet in which life started more than once and therefore has multiple common ancestors? In reality the MS doesn't predict anything beyond change or stasis. And that is just a fact of life. Also you do not seem to understand the debate. "Evolution" is NOT being debated. Blind-watchmaker evolution is.Joseph_{August 5, 2008
August
08
Aug
5
05
2008
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

bfast at 23: I'm not sure I understand you. The 'meaning' of DNA is held in tRNA, which determines which amino acid corresponds to which codon. If alien DNA codes for the creation of the same proteins in both alien and Earthly life, then we would know that its pathway to expression, via mRNA, ribosomes, and tRNA, was similar if not the same. If it did NOT code for the same protein, then we would have a host of questions to ask. What is the pathway to expression? Are mRNA and ribosomes involved? Or any of the countless other enzymes that mediate and catalyze the process of expression? What does alien tRNA or its analog look like? Are more or less than three bases used in each codon? Does alien life use amino acids other than the 20 now found in proteins? Does it use the same set of 20, but coded differently? If so, is the assignment of DNA (RNA) codons to amino acids random rather than chemically deterministic (and do we not know this answer now)? Are there chemically-deterministic reasons for the codons always being triplets? And so forth. Answering these questions would probably shed a lot of light on our understanding of abiogenesis (both here and on that alien world). I'm not smart enough to know which answers spell out evidence for or against Evolution.Tom MH_{August 5, 2008
August
08
Aug
5
05
2008
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

Hi DaveScot. You asked: "What does the modern synthesis predict about life on other planets? Anything at all?" Sure. It predicts that life will be imperfect replicators in a resource-limited environment and that variations due to imperfect replication will ultimately lead to speciation (which predicts that all life we find on a given planet will have a common ancestor). Or, put another way, discovering life with any of the following would be a significant blow to evolution: 1) Perfect replication. While this might be occasionally seen, it's an evolutionary dead-end and any critters in the environment that don't have this defect would be expected to eventually outcompete it.. 2) No mutations have any effect on fitness. 3) Little or no common ancestry. I recall being directed to a paper with a mathematical result that showed, given sufficient time, one lineage will eventually win out. I'll be happy to track down the reference if you're interested. Finding old lineages where this doesn't apply would appear to invalidate that result. I'm sure there are several more predictions from population biology that are independent of the body chemistry of the critters involved. (Invasibility of one sessile species by another comes to mind.) However, these are a bit more math-intensive. Basically, the modern synthesis is not planet-specific. It's refutable on Earth, Mars or Io. Best, GaramondGaramond_{August 5, 2008
August
08
Aug
5
05
2008
12:19 AM
12
12
19
AM
PDT}

There still remains a HUGE difference between "the SAME type of code" and "the SAME code". If dna sequences are interchangeable between us and an alien life, if an alien DNA sequence placed in an earth-lifeform produces the same protein that it produced in the alien life, this would be an EXTREMELY STRONG challenge to neo-Darwinism. The neo-Darwinists, on the other hand, would likely not be that fazed by a DNA-RNA-Protein pattern found in alien life. If there is only one possible way for complex life to work, and if chance is the architect of life on earth, then this is what we would expect from life on another planet.bFast_{August 4, 2008
August
08
Aug
4
04
2008
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT}

I agree with EndoplasmicMessenger, as any genetic code found would be evidence for ID. Surely the appearance of the SAME type of code for life in isolated ecological (earth and wherever) systems is putting too much pressure on chance? Though on a foreseeable objection/justification, would genetic code be able to survive a meteor impact on earth (and especially the fire-ry atmosphere entry)? Also, "If the tape of evolution was rewound, then we would have seen completely different results than the world around us." But if the genetic code 'evolved' exactly the same, then...? Indeed, if extraterrestrial microorganisms are not dissimilar to those on earth, then...? Wouldn't there be wild variations, given the different environmental pressures, etc etc? So the finding of the same genetic code system is viable evidence for ID, and definately evidence against materialistic ool/macroevolution, etc etc etc (chance approaching 1/infinty).Avonwatches_{August 4, 2008
August
08
Aug
4
04
2008
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

Denyse, In response to your post about chance, you really should check out, Not a Chance. The author also did a very good interview of Ben Stein. Ben was impressed.EndoplasmicMessenger_{August 4, 2008
August
08
Aug
4
04
2008
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT}

RitaFairclough: Are you saying that the fact that “every living organism examined to date uses essentially the same genetic code” implys that life elsewhere in the universe will also use the essentially the same code?
Let me throw a few back at you, RitaFairclough: Does Darwinism predict that all life in the universe will follow a genetic code? And if it does, does it predict that it will follow the same genetic code as on Earth? Does it predict that "independently" evolved life will have the same or different genetic codes? What does this most powerful of theories predict? Enquiring minds want to know!EndoplasmicMessenger_{August 4, 2008
August
08
Aug
4
04
2008
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

DaveScot: Perhaps the largest question that discovery of life on another planet entails is whether or not it uses the same genetic code.
RitaFairclough: If it does not, does that provide evidence for or against ID?
If alien life used any genetic code, that would be evidence for ID. Machinery that processes an encoded language has never been shown to be the result of natural processes. Any type of abstract code and the machinery to process it has only ever been seen to result from intelligent activity. So, yes, any genetic code would support ID.EndoplasmicMessenger_{August 4, 2008
August
08
Aug
4
04
2008
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

Another prediction borne from "The Privileged Planet" is that if we do find intelligent life indigenous to another planet, that planet (and its system) will have most, if not all, of the factors listed in the book. And it is those factors which SETI should take into account if they want to find what they say they are listening/ looking for.Joseph_{August 4, 2008
August
08
Aug
4
04
2008
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT}

Garamond The predictions for life on other planets will be that its biological information will be “semantic, meaningful or functional”? That’s it? That's it. Now since I was so kind as to answer your question you can answer one of mine. What does the modern synthesis predict about life on other planets? Anything at all?DaveScot_{August 4, 2008
August
08
Aug
4
04
2008
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

From "The Privileged Planet" page 329 14) You haven’t shown that ETs don’t exist. “This is true, but we did not intend to. In fact, ironically, design might even improve the possibility of ETs.” Well, yeah...Joseph_{August 4, 2008
August
08
Aug
4
04
2008
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

Rita, as for common characteristics, I turn that one over to molecular biologists, because it is apt to be a highly technical affair, and my training is in a different area altogether. One thing I would suggest looking for is patterns that suggest a sense of future use. One possible example was raised by biochemist Michael Denton: the backwards eye wiring of the vertebrate serves no apparent purpose until you get to mammals and birds, at which point it is critical - it steers blood away from the visual cells. I would look for more of those, for example, and perhaps attempt to make predictions.O'Leary_{August 4, 2008
August
08
Aug
4
04
2008
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

The predictions for life on other planets will be that its biological information will be "semantic, meaningful or functional"? That's it?Garamond_{August 3, 2008
August
08
Aug
3
03
2008
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT}

Rita If it does not, does that provide evidence for or against ID? If we find beryllium based life form somewhere, sometime, is that a negative or a positive thing as far as ID goes? Rita, please read this ID Defined If you understand what ID is then you can answer these questions easily enough for yourself. I'm placing you in moderation for a while due to the rapidity of your comments. All your comments will require the approval of an admin before being posted. As long as they're thoughtful and civil there won't be any that aren't posted. If they remain thoughtful and civil for a period of time I'll lift the requirement for moderation.DaveScot_{August 3, 2008
August
08
Aug
3
03
2008
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

I predict that the out of place, designed thing, that will be discovered will look like this And, following StuartHarris' lead, I also predict that Darwinist will start explaining this strange discovery by speculating this way, "Imagine a transformer-sensitive spot on Mars".Borne_{August 3, 2008
August
08
Aug
3
03
2008
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

RitaFairclough:
Seems to me we are not special at all
This is at the heart of the Copernican principle, and of ID. If we are just reproducing molecules, kinda like the reproducing molecules that smatter the universe, well, we are not special. If we are the product of an intelligent agent that, through careful husbandry, brought us into being, then we are special. If earth has the only life in the universe, in all universes (in case there is any validity to that hypothesis) then we are special indeed!
I detect a distinct lack of symmetry in your options on this matter! On what basis?

The discovery of a totally different life system would be a slight negitive for ID.
This does not cause a fundimental challenge to the metaphysical position of ID. It is not unreasonable for an intelligent agent, one who has had the fine tuning of the big bang attributed to him,her,it,them, to pull of life elsewhere, even to pull off a life with a different foundation.
However, if we found DNA/Protein based life that has the same pattern of nucleotide triplicates matching the same proteins, this would be a HUGE challenge to the naturalists.
The mapping of the nucleotide triplicates to protein is seen as contingent. This mapping is, because that's how the dice rolled. If we find the same mapping elsewhere one of the following must be the case: 1 - this mapping is inherently "best", and is determinable as "best" by natural selection. 2 - our and another planet's life must come from the same source -- common ancestry. 3 - the dice just, by luck, rolled the same way twice. 4 - this is the product of intention -- a designer. Such a discovery would be a serious challenge to the naturalist's metaphysical position. As the first statement would not challenge the ID metaphysical position, but the latter would challenge the naturalist's metaphisical position, the lack of symmetry is appropriate.bFast_{August 3, 2008
August
08
Aug
3
03
2008
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT}

bFast,
that we are less special
Seems to me we are not special at all, if anything could be said to be special it would either be stars or dust clouds. If we go by sheer numbers anyway. There are alot more stars then there are people! You say:
The discovery of a totally different life system would be a slight negitive for ID.
and
However, if we found DNA/Protein based life that has the same pattern of nucleotide triplicates matching the same proteins, this would be a HUGE challenge to the naturalists.
Why would one be a HUGE challenge and not the other? I detect a distinct lack of symmetry in your options on this matter! On what basis?RitaFairclough_{August 3, 2008
August
08
Aug
3
03
2008
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

RitaFairclough:
If we find beryllium based life form somewhere, sometime, is that a negative or a positive thing as far as ID goes?
The discovery of a totally different life system would be a slight negitive for ID. It would support the Copernican principle, that we are less special than all that. If we found another DNA/protein based life-form, this would support ID in that it would suggest that there may only be one molecular configuration that could produce life. However, it would support the Copernican principle in that it would imply that there are other heavenly bodies which also can produce life, and would imply that if a heavenly body has reasonably correct conditions, life may automatically happen. The latter, proof that life happens spontaneously within certain reasonably flexible parameters, would challenge the OOL objection of the ID community. However, if we found DNA/Protein based life that has the same pattern of nucleotide triplicates matching the same proteins, this would be a HUGE challenge to the naturalists. They would then be obligated to demonstrate that: this pattern of triplicate to protein is somehow an inherent necessity, or that the other found life has the same source as human life (consider the "dust of earth transported to mars" hypothesis stated above.) Alas, based upon the incredible variety of life we see on earth, I highly doubt if the designer that creates this much variety would so precisely repeat him/her/them self on another planet. The bottom line, however, is that there is a belief within the biological community that finding life elsewhere would be a death-blow to ID. I fail to see their reasoning. If we are the only life in the universe, I personally will be surprised. It seems to me that the world is evidence that there is a life-maker. I don't know why the life-maker would have only made life in one place. This conjurs up a Larry Norman song: "and if there's life on other planets, and I'm sure that he must know, then he's been there once already and has died to save their souls."bFast_{August 3, 2008
August
08
Aug
3
03
2008
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

I forgot to add, DaveScot I asked O'Leary to name characteristics she would expect to see common to all life in the universe. Are you saying that the fact that "every living organism examined to date uses essentially the same genetic code" implys that life elsewhere in the universe will also use the essentially the same code?RitaFairclough_{August 3, 2008
August
08
Aug
3
03
2008
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

Perhaps the largest question that discovery of life on another planet entails is whether or not it uses the same genetic code.
If it does not, does that provide evidence for or against ID? If we find beryllium based life form somewhere, sometime, is that a negative or a positive thing as far as ID goes?RitaFairclough_{August 3, 2008
August
08
Aug
3
03
2008
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

Rita Would not the very process of finding or noticing the out of place object in the first place be an example of the use of the explanatory filter? Not really. If you notice a rock lying atop a glacier it's obviously out-of-place. At that point you'd apply the explanatory filter to determine how it might have arrived there. I think one of the themes regarding life on earth is that there is no theme! There are themes at the molecular level. For instance every living organism examined to date uses essentially the same genetic code. This implies a fundamental connection of some sort between them all. Perhaps the largest question that discovery of life on another planet entails is whether or not it uses the same genetic code. Another common molecular theme is they're all based on carbon chemistry and require a raft of other heavy elements. Thus when looking at other solar systems as possible hosts for life we focus on those with later generation stars rich in heavy elements. Yet another molecular theme of life on the earth is it all relies on water thus we look for signs of liquid water in the past or present as a prerequisite condition for life. There are some hypothetical scenarios for living things based on non-carbon/water chemistries but they're not seen as being nearly as likely for a number of reasons. DaveScot_{August 3, 2008
August
08
Aug
3
03
2008
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

O'Leary
So an ID theorist would probably expect to see that life on other planets shares many characteristics with life on Earth - that is, there will be a similarity of themes and styles
Soley judging from external apperances there are creatures already present on earth that if you did not know you could easily believe were from a different planet. Some living things are so very very odd that they are really aliens living among us. No doubt in the deep sea there are many other similar things yet to astound us with their alieness. I think one of the themes regarding life on earth is that there is no theme! As such, considering the amazing diversity of life on earth what would be the characteristics you would expect to see common to all life in the universe?RitaFairclough_{August 3, 2008
August
08
Aug
3
03
2008
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

DaveScot, Would not the very process of finding or noticing the out of place object in the first place be an example of the use of the explanatory filter? I mean, if you have already determined the object is "out of place" then by definition you've seperated it out from it's enviroment as "too different to be natural/normal" and hence worth further examination?RitaFairclough_{August 3, 2008
August
08
Aug
3
03
2008
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

I don't see how the art or science of design detection can make any predictions about whether or not designed objects will be found in any specific location. Here's something I can easily predict. If any out-of-place objects on Mars are discovered that cannot be easily explained by law & chance the explanatory filter will be employed to determine whether it is natural or artificial. A further prediction is that whoever employs the explanatory filter won't call it by that name.DaveScot_{August 3, 2008
August
08
Aug
3
03
2008
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

Assuming life is found on Mars, either current or past, all that does is extend the shadow of creation. In fact, I would submit that the finding would be more in line with ID thought, as life would have been created under different circumstances. Or, everything was at one time the same - your choice.pvoce_{August 2, 2008
August
08
Aug
2
02
2008
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT}

Hugh Ross predicted many moons ago that the solar wind might carry light weight life forms, such as pollen or such, from Earth's upper atmosphere where such things have apparently been found, to Mars.GoyoM_{August 2, 2008
August
08
Aug
2
02
2008
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply