The Fermi Paradox
by BradfordTechnology Review features an article titled Evolution, Design and the Fermi Paradox. It raises some interesting questions:
- Does inflationary cosmology predict that complex life is likely to exist somewhere in the universe?
- Is it true that at present we are unable to make quantitative estimates for the rate of evolution from first principles?
- Are some evolutionary steps, such as the appearance of the first self-replicating complex molecules, extremely improbable?
- Was Godel correct "that the formation within geological times of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other law of a similar nature) starting from a random distribution of the elementary particles and the field, is about as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components?"
Apparently professor Stephen Hsu has been reading about Intelligent Design and feels as I do that "biologists need not be so defensive about improbable steps in evolution."
November 5th, 2009 at 8:10 am
It is still a great leap to go from self-replicating molecules to a living organism.
Living organisms not only reproduce but they also have to manufacture proteins, which require ribosomes and other transcription and translation machinery.
Comment by ID guy — November 5, 2009 @ 8:10 am
November 5th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Cosmic theory predicts that conditions comparable to Earth's history are not unique, but occur in billions of galaxies.
We can directly measure rates of evolution and compare it to historical rates. We do not have enough information concerning primoridal life to know about rates of evolution, but it does appear to include extensive horizontal mechanisms. There are important mathematical theorems in this area about the maximum possible mutation rate for a given sequence length to create a sustainable process.
Lines of evidence suggest that it might be inevitable under certain conditions, but without a valid theory of abiogenesis, there is no way to make such a calculation.
No, not as stated.
—
I mentioned before that there is reason to believe that given eukaryotes, metazoa is likely (intercellular communication is pervasive in eukaryotes); given metazoa, bilateria is likely (as a solution to mobility in the acquisition of food); given bilateria, increasingly complex intelligence is likely (due to the concentration of senses in the anterior and the need for organismic coodination). The gaps in our understanding would be the origin of life; the origin of eukaryotes, which is as much a leap above prokaryotes as vertebrates are above eukaryotes; and perhaps the origin of cultural learning (though there is some indication this is not unique to humans).
Comment by Zachriel — November 5, 2009 @ 10:41 am
November 5th, 2009 at 11:06 am
That does not answer the question and there isn't anything except for intentional design that can predict such a thing.
Metazoans are eukaryotes.
And there isn't any reason to believe that undirected and non-goal oriented processes can account for such a scenario.
Vertebrates are eukaryotes. And we also have a huge gap in our understanding of how the transitions take place. OR whether or not they can take place.
Comment by ID guy — November 5, 2009 @ 11:06 am
November 5th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Maybe ‘suggests’ or ‘implies’ is a better word than predict.
Consider the following:
Biological life, as we presently understand it, cannot exist unless the universe is highly constrained. The fact that it is so highly constrained suggests that life is at least possible somewhere else in the universe. However, these constraints while they are a necessary condition are not a sufficient condition. Furthermore, neither is leaving the origin of life to chance or some mindless natural process a sufficient condition. Clearly no one at present has a clue how life got started.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 5, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
November 5th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
With respect to complexity: "possible implies improbable"
A computer with 1 Gigs RAM makes possible a 1 Gig piece of software, but it also means a particular 1 Gig piece of software is 1 Gig improbable ( 1 Gig = 1 out of 2^1,000,000,000 chance for a particular complex form). Computers make complex software possible, but they also guarantee complex software is improbable!
The number (1 Gig) is probably not that remote if we consider several possible software architectures, but the point remains that as far as complex systems go, making complexity possible actually requires making complexity improbable at the same time! If this were not the case, complexity would just be an illusion.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 5, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
November 5th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Tipler and Barrow (The Anthropic Cosmological Principle) argue that the universe is slightly against the formation of life.
Their thesis agrees with my previous comment. The notion of complexity is rendered meaningless if complexity is probable!!!!!
The possibility of complexity is meaningful only when it is improbable, not inevitable!!!!
There is fine tuning in the universe, just like there is fine tuning in a computer. But fine tuning of the universe does not imply the creation of the software of life any more than the fine tuning of a computer implies the creation of the software of a computer.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 5, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
November 5th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Zachriel,
That is too nebulous. It depends on what details are included in earth's history. At the extreme end we can safely conclude that no two planets are exactly alike. So what do you mean? Take a rather important-for-life and dramatic and likely (at least as viewed at the moment) event in earth's history: the formation of a large, orbit-stabilizing moon by catastrophic impact. (I mention the impact because the impact itself, not just the moon that formed from it, may have played an important role in earth's habitability, such as (possibly) being responsible for our life-preserving magnetic field.)
Does cosmic theory predict that earth-like planets with large moons (let alone large moons formed by impact) are commonplace? I would be surprised if it does.
So again, it depends on what you mean by "comparable to earth's history." If you simply mean terrestrial planets in the habitable zone of a medium sized star which itself is a safe distance from other stars, then I think you are on solid ground. But as you add more details, of course, you end up with your jaiket on a shoogly nail.
Comment by David Heddle — November 5, 2009 @ 1:09 pm
November 5th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Yes. Godel was correct. Complexity is meaningless if it is simultaneously probable. The only solution (which physicist davies proposes) is that the complexity of life is a post-dictive illusion, that life really is simple but only looks comples. But even he doesn't by his own arguement. He discusses this in his book Fifth Miracle which ironically inspired Dembski.
The architecture of a computer does not imply software will be inevitable. The laws of a computer are "incomplete" with respect to the architecture of the software which it hosts. Godel was spot on (which is no surprise, being an unwitting pioneer of complexity theory as Chaitin noted). The same issue is with the laws of physics (like the laws of a computer) and the software of life. Life is a conceptually meaningful entity (like software) because it is improbable and not reducible to the laws of physics, just like software is meaningful because it is not reducible to the architectural laws of the computers on which it resides.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 5, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
November 5th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
It was intended to be sweeping.
In terms of the conditions believed likely to result in life, e.g. liquid water, long spans of time.
You're forgetting Hodgkin's Law of Parallel Planetary Development.
It's not that unlikely given the numbers of stellar systems in billions of galaxies, nor is it necessarily essential.
Your overall point is valid, though.
Comment by Zachriel — November 5, 2009 @ 1:24 pm
November 5th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Compared to "intentional design"?
Comment by don provan — November 5, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
November 5th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Don Provan,
No it was a statement unto itself. It made no value judgment, no comparison favorable or otherwise to ID. It had nothing to do with cosmological fine tuning. It was not a backdoor endorsement of "The Privileged Planet." It was completely unrelated to Calvinism, Bill Buckner, Gonzalez's tenure, the Wedge Document, Judge Jones, and NASCAR. It was a comment that meant only what it said: that the statement "Cosmic theory predicts that conditions comparable to Earth's history are not unique, but occur in billions of galaxies" is nebulous without specifying exactly how detailed a look at earth's history is assumed.
Does that clarify, or do you need smaller words?
Comment by David Heddle — November 5, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
November 5th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
There is an expected evolution of systems in statistical mechanics in physics.
ID proponents have (with some success) borrowed the notions of statistical mechanics in the evolution of the software of life. I don't think they are there yet, but they are on their way. This is an area that would be a fruitful area of research. Is the evolution of complex systems like life general toward non-complexity (like toward death). Under what conditions is this evolution impeded.
I think the general evolution is toward non-complexity. Like the mixing of pure gases into a mixture (the natural evolution of nitrogen and oxygen when in contact with each other), so complexity (like life) will tend to de-evolve complexity, not evolve complexity. Godel may have stated the problem in a way which ID proponents might consider:
Natural law says atmospheric gases will not resolve into their components. This is akin to the spontaneous evolution of orderliness in a conceptual sense. Life is orderly in a configurational sense. The spontaneous arisal of this sort of orderliness (such as life) is against natural law. That thesis is worth developing more in theoretical terms, although it has be empirically obvious since Pasteur's swan neck experiments refuting spontaneous generation.
Jonathan Wells stated the problem qualitatively:
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 5, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
November 5th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
No. The average rate of upward evolution is zero. It has been empirically observed to be zero or negative on average. The Johnathan Wells experiment is a case in point!
The spectacular failure of the OOL community is another case in point.
Thaxton, Bradley, Olson made good arguments from statistical mechanics and thermodynamics and chemistry. They had to merge concepts of thermal entropy and "configurational" entropy to make their case. That caused me a little indigestion, but on the whole they made a good case.
The emprically measured rate from observation and first principles is ZERO or negative.
The only reason they claim quantitative estimates have not been made is that OOL researchers aren't getting the numbers they want to see. One has to question how long wishful thinking can qualify as empirical science.
Whether ID is needed is a separate question, but the rate of evolution from biotic soups is zero to negative on average based on theory and experiment.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 5, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
November 5th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Is that the only criteria required for life? Colour me skeptical.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — November 5, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
November 5th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Here is an interesting little scene from the movie Contact:
Young Ellie: Dad, do you think there's people on other planets?
Ted Arroway: I don't know, Sparks. But I guess I'd say if it is just us… seems like an awful waste of space.
This is philosophical not a scientific argument but still there is something compelling about it. If our Galaxy contains hundreds of billions of stars and the known contains billions of galaxies and if it is at least possible for life to exist somewhere else in our universe isn’t it reasonable to expect that life, perhaps intelligent life, exists somewhere else?
Of course philosophical arguments are prompted by questions of why, not how. In other words, Ellie’s dad was actually trying to answer the question of why there are so many stars out there? Unfortunately, this doesn’t answer the question how life got started. Once again, the purpose of empirical science is to answer how. Everything else is belief.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 5, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
November 5th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
That alleged giant impact most likely also provided the much needed rotation.
Don't need a large stabilizing moon without that.
Comment by ID guy — November 5, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
November 5th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
JJS P Eng,
Yes water and large amounts of time- I saw the recipe in SciAm, I believe.
Comment by ID guy — November 5, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
November 5th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
A distinction beween necessary conditions and sufficient causality is another way of viewing the shortcomings for origin of life theories.
Comment by Bradford — November 5, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
November 5th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Me too. “Liquid water, long spans of time” are not sufficient conditions to explain the origin of life. Apparently, Zachriel doesn’t understand the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 5, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
November 5th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
E.g. is the abbreviation for exempli gratia meaning for example. If the list were exhaustive, then we wouldn't use the term.
Apparently, not.
Comment by Zachriel — November 5, 2009 @ 3:51 pm
November 5th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
After reading the article, does anyone find it amusing that the guy is basically saying "biologists need not be so defensive about improbable steps in evolution" – but it being "okay" for biologists to admit this seems predicated upon being able to resist a design inference? (Note: Not even defeat or disprove a design inference, but simply say "Well, there's another way to look at it" in essence.)
If someone pointed out a problem with his alternative view such that he had to admit design or divine intervention was the more reasonable case, would he then go back and say "Well, I guess admitting to these improbable steps isn't okay anymore"?
As always: Science, indeed.
Comment by nullasalus — November 5, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
November 5th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Thanks for the english lesson. Being an engineer, english ain't my bestest subject.
So let's have some fun with this: in your view, what other conditions are required other than water and long period of time? It doesn't have to be a complete list (unless you feel ambitious).
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — November 5, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
November 5th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
?
Comment by don provan — November 5, 2009 @ 7:40 pm
November 5th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
S'right. It wasn't meant as a secret code.
Life requires the presence of metals, so that means at least a second generation star. It probably has to be a quiet area of the galaxy so the nebula can form stable planetary configurations which remain relatively undisturbed for long stretches of time. Without a theory of abiogenesis, or other data-points, it's not easy to know if more specialized conditions are necessary.
Comment by Zachriel — November 5, 2009 @ 7:58 pm
November 5th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
LOL!!! (cleans coffee off monitor)
LOL!!! Crap! (cleans coffee off monitor AGAIN!)
Comment by Daniel Smith — November 5, 2009 @ 8:23 pm
November 5th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
I think maybe I understand the reasoning. It goes something like this: The idea of an eternally existing transcendent intelligence is, if not irrational, superstitious and unscientific. Science can explain just about anything. Therefore, the explanation no matter how improbable must be some kind of self sufficient natural process.
Notice how Hsu and those commenting on the article throw around the terms probability/ probabilities without bothering to quantify those probabilities or telling us where they get their data from. (For example: 2. Improved understanding of evolution will uncover highly improbable steps — that is, improbable even over billions (or perhaps 10^100 !) of years.)
However, they apparently have convinced themselves that they are discussing, even perhaps “doing science,” here because they couch everything in scientific terms.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 5, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
November 5th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
JJS P.Eng,
Zachriel doesn't have to be ambitious.
He just has to read "Rare Earth" and/ or "The Privileged Planet".
They give a scientific PoV on what it takes to sustain living organisms.
Comment by ID guy — November 5, 2009 @ 9:28 pm
November 5th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Here is a quote by Charles Darwin that I thought might be relevant to the present discussion.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 5, 2009 @ 11:14 pm
November 6th, 2009 at 3:04 am
Anyone who's interested in hearing what one of the greatest computer scientists of all time has to say about faith, Evolution and Intelligent Design go here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPpk-1btGZk
Comment by computerist — November 6, 2009 @ 3:04 am
November 6th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Did he say "analogous"?
Comment by Daniel Smith — November 6, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
November 6th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Let’s look at Hsu’s “argument” logically:
We know logically that p or ~p (not p) cannot both be true.
Let p = the proposition: “an eternally existing transcendent intelligence (or EETI) is the best explanation for the existence of life, mind and the universe.”
Conversely, ~p= “an EETI is not the best explanation for the existence of life, mind and the universe.” (By inference then it must be some kind of mindless process.)
Is there anything irrational about p? Not according to the rules of logic there isn’t.
However, it appears that in his article, Hsu is rejecting p, at least implicitly, as a viable and rational alternative.
Can we prove p or ~p empirically? I would argue that we can’t; but on the other hand, I think we can rationally argue for one or the other by examining the evidence, empirical or otherwise. We can use this by employing what I call the Ben Franklin method: listing the arguments pro and con for p vs. ~p.
My evaluation leads me to the conclusion that, based on what we presently know, p is the better explanation.
Of course, as nullalus pointed out Hsu doesn’t really give an argument, but instead tries to short circuit one.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 6, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
November 6th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
That sounds very similar to Gonzalez's Galactic Habitable Zone hypothesis.
You're so full surprises, Zach! I never pegged you as a closet creationist!
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — November 6, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
November 6th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Good find. Whoa!
Darwin should now be removed from PZ Christmas card list.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 6, 2009 @ 2:34 pm