News: Is there anybody out there?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Robert Karl Stonjek - 17 Apr 2008 06:14 GMT Is there anybody out there?
Is there anybody out there? Probably not, according to a scientist from the University of East Anglia.
A mathematical model produced by Prof Andrew Watson suggests that the odds of finding new life on other Earth-like planets are low, given the time it has taken for beings such as humans to evolve and the remaining life span of the Earth.
Structurally complex and intelligent life evolved late on Earth and it has already been suggested that this process might be governed by a small number of very difficult evolutionary steps.
Prof Watson, from the School of Environmental Sciences, takes this idea further by looking at the probability of each of these critical steps occurring in relation to the life span of the Earth, giving an improved mathematical model for the evolution of intelligent life.
According to Prof Watson a limit to evolution is the habitability of Earth, and any other Earth-like planets, which will end as the sun brightens. Solar models predict that the brightness of the sun is increasing, while temperature models suggest that because of this the future life span of Earth will be 'only' about another billion years, a short time compared to the four billion years since life first appeared on the planet.
"The Earth's biosphere is now in its old age and this has implications for our understanding of the likelihood of complex life and intelligence arising on any given planet," said Prof Watson.
"At present, Earth is the only example we have of a planet with life. If we learned the planet would be habitable for a set period and that we had evolved early in this period, then even with a sample of one, we'd suspect that evolution from simple to complex and intelligent life was quite likely to occur. By contrast, we now believe that we evolved late in the habitable period, and this suggests that our evolution is rather unlikely. In fact, the timing of events is consistent with it being very rare indeed."
Prof Watson suggests the number of evolutionary steps needed to create intelligent life, in the case of humans, is four. These probably include the emergence of single-celled bacteria, complex cells, specialized cells allowing complex life forms, and intelligent life with an established language.
"Complex life is separated from the simplest life forms by several very unlikely steps and therefore will be much less common. Intelligence is one step further, so it is much less common still," said Prof Watson.
His model, published in the journal Astrobiology, suggests an upper limit for the probability of each step occurring is 10 per cent or less, so the chances of intelligent life emerging is low - less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years.
Each step is independent of the other and can only take place after the previous steps in the sequence have occurred. They tend to be evenly spaced through Earth's history and this is consistent with some of the major transitions identified in the evolution of life on Earth.
Source: University of East Anglia http://www.physorg.com/news127574989.html
Posted by Robert Karl Stonjek
Alan Meyer - 18 Apr 2008 18:24 GMT On Apr 17, 1:18 am, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <rston...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> ... > His model, published in the journal Astrobiology, suggests an > upper limit for the probability of each step occurring is 10 > per cent or less, so the chances of intelligent life emerging > is low - less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years. > ... I find it hard to believe that we have enough information to know:
- What steps are truly required to produce intelligent life.
- What caused each step to occur on earth.
- What the probability of any step occurring is - either on earth or in a different environment.
- What is a habitable planet for other possible biochemistries.
- How many habitable planets there are.
However, I'm all in favor of these kinds of speculations. They induce people to try to think quantitatively about subjects that most of us assume, without trying, can't be quantified. They can't give us accurate answers, but they can focus our thinking on understanding what the issues are.
Alan
JohnGW - 20 Apr 2008 07:08 GMT > On Apr 17, 1:18 am, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <rston...@bigpond.net.au> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Alan Or if there are other viable biochemistries, a la the Hal Clement fiction. Rather doubt there is, but, as you say, stretches the mind. Regards John GW
JohnGW - 18 Apr 2008 18:24 GMT On Apr 16, 10:18 pm, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <rston...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Is there anybody out there? > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > Posted by > Robert Karl Stonjek While this isn't biological evolution, perhaps we have to add in the probability of finding habitable planets, which I think is very low. The earth is at the low end of size, for one thing, and a moon is perhaps necessary to stabilize the obliquity, for another. Moreover, a magnetic field is necessary in order to deflect the solar wind - Venus has an atmosphere that demonstrates the effect of the solar wind impacting the atmosphere. Moreover, though the idea is speculative, it may be that a moon is necessary to create a magnetic field in most planets. This is based on a simple electric engineering principle, and supported by the example of Venus, again, and by the fact 98% of the angular momentum of the solar system is in the planets, with Venus being, of course, low. Mercury is a counter example here, but its field might be due to proximity to the sun. In any case, IMHO, habitable planets will be found to be rare. Regards John GW
dkomo - 21 Apr 2008 18:50 GMT > Is there anybody out there? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > time it has taken for beings such as humans to evolve and the remaining > life span of the Earth. An argument could be made that Earth throughout its history has not been a very life friendly place. From bombardment by asteroids to sporadic spasms of hyper-volcanic activity spewing huge amounts of methane and other greeenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Solar luminosity increasing by 30%. Snowball earth. The Permian, KT and many other mass extinctions. Periodic ice ages. Drifting continents.
Throughout deep time it's been one thing or another -- Mother Earth giving its living inhabitants a very rough time. No wonder it's taken billions of years to evolve intelligent life, and a rather unremarkable example of such in humans.
This sad story does not necessarily have to be repeated in other solar systems. On halcyon planets it's possible that life goes from abiogenesis to beings much more intelligent than us in a few hundred million years.
--dkomo@cris.com
Tom Hendricks - 22 Apr 2008 19:07 GMT > > Is there anybody out there? > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > --dk...@cris.com But I would contend that an unfriendly place would stimulate more selection pressure which would speed up evolution. Here is my model:
The greater the selection pressure (directional or diversifying selection) the greater the speed of evolution in the area of the selection pressure AND The lower the selection pressure (stabilizing selection) the lower the speed of evolution in the area of the selection pressure.
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/U/UV_origin_of_life.html
Comment?
dkomo - 24 Apr 2008 19:00 GMT >>>Is there anybody out there? >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > the lower the speed of evolution in the area of the selection > pressure. Except that if the environmental change is too great, most species go extinct and there's little left for selection pressure to act on.
Besides, there are other drivers of evolution like competition among species and speciation. A stable planet wide environment doesn't imply a homogeneous environment. Due to the tilt of the earth's axis there would still be great climatic variation going from the equator to the poles. Migration by planets and animals to different locations could lead to speciation which results in a great variety of adaptations and different forms of life.
--dkomo@cris.com
JohnGW - 24 Apr 2008 19:00 GMT > > Is there anybody out there? > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > --dk...@cris.com In the news somewhere else today - Wednesday. I'd forgotten, but have heard the planetary orbits are unstable in the long run. The news item (Science Daily?) gave 40 million years as the remaining life of the solar system, before the orbits become destabilized. However, believe that over such long times, the math is chaotic (see Devaney, Introduction to Chaotic dynamics) and perhaps it isn't exactly known. Very difficult field - over my head. Regards John GW
Anthony Campbell - 22 Apr 2008 19:07 GMT > Robert Karl Stonjek wrote: >> Is there anybody out there? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > abiogenesis to beings much more intelligent than us in a few hundred > million years. I've often thought that this whole debate is based on the hidden assumption that it's somehow the "purpose" of the universe to produce intelligent life. Is this perhaps the last refuge of anthropocentrism, the ultimate hubristic delusion? As J.B.S. Haldane remarked, if we look at the reality of the situation it suggests that the main aim of evolution is to produce beetles. It hardly seems that the goal is the production of intelligence. The dinosaurs had 150 million years to do so but didn't take the opportunity.
Do insects, bats and birds think that the purpose of evolution is to produce creatures capable of flight?
Anthony
 Signature Anthony Campbell - ac@acampbell.org.uk Microsoft-free zone - Using Debian GNU/Linux http://www.acampbell.org.uk (blog, book reviews, on-line books and sceptical articles)
dkomo - 24 Apr 2008 19:00 GMT >>Robert Karl Stonjek wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > production of intelligence. The dinosaurs had 150 million years to do > so but didn't take the opportunity. I think the debate is based on the obvious fact that life on earth went through a series of many progressions across enormous time spans before it arrived at creatures with high intelligence. If it had happened that intelligence had developed right after the appearance of multicelluar life, and that then, much later, jellyfish and snails came along, your anthropocentric complaint might have a better basis.
> Do insects, bats and birds think that the purpose of evolution is to > produce creatures capable of flight? We're focused on intelligence because it is an obvious marker in the search for life in other parts of the universe. It is much harder to search for biochemical markers on planets in solar systems light years from our own.
--dkomo@cris.com
Anthony Campbell - 25 Apr 2008 18:48 GMT > Anthony Campbell wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > life, and that then, much later, jellyfish and snails came along, your > anthropocentric complaint might have a better basis. It's precisely the "obvious fact of progression" that I wanted to query. Your argument is circular. In talking about "arriving at creatures with high intelligence" you implicitly define "progress" as the production of intelligent beings and then use the fact that we exist as evidence for progression. Not everyone agrees that there has been progress in evolution. I tend to agree with the late Stephen J. Gould that if the tape of evolution were rerun it might lead to a different endpoint. If the KT impact had not occurred, would the world still be populated by dinosaurs?
>> Do insects, bats and birds think that the purpose of evolution is to >> produce creatures capable of flight? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > search for biochemical markers on planets in solar systems light years > from our own. This is true, at least at present, but it's irrelevant. Just because intelligence is easier to detect does not tell us anything about the direction, if any, of evolution.
Anthony
 Signature Anthony Campbell - ac@acampbell.org.uk Microsoft-free zone - Using Debian GNU/Linux http://www.acampbell.org.uk (blog, book reviews, on-line books and sceptical articles)
feedbackdroid - 28 Apr 2008 18:19 GMT > > Anthony Campbell wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > endpoint. If the KT impact had not occurred, would the world still be > populated by dinosaurs? I'm glad you brought this up. Tim Tyler, who inhabited this forum a couple of years ago, is now over on comp.ai.philosophy pushing, amongst other things, the "inevitiability of human life" and intelligence, and using Simon Conway Morris as his "authority" ... to wit: "Anyhow, Conway-Morris is the cannonical antidote to those who think chance rules in evolution: ", etc...
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.ai.philosophy/browse_frm/thread/c70c6f2a9df28bbf [starting about msg #32]
He's also pushing the idea that evolution is deterministic, based upon ... ============ New Findings Confirm Darwin's Theory: Evolution Not Random
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080118134531.htm
Evolution Is Deterministic, Not Random, Biologists Conclude From Multi-species Study
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071119123929.htm =============
What's the opinion of this stuff, including Conway Morris, in the science/evolution community? Sounds pretty much left field.
Guy A Hoelzer - 29 Apr 2008 17:28 GMT [SNIP]
> Tim Tyler, who inhabited this forum a > couple of years ago, is now over on comp.ai.philosophy pushing, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > What's the opinion of this stuff, including Conway Morris, in the > science/evolution community? Sounds pretty much left field. I find Tim to be a smart and level-headed fellow. I wouldn't easily dismiss him as being in "left field". Some if Morris' work strikes me as on the bleeding edge of scientific thinking, which is where you often find a mix of bad and brilliant ideas. It will take some time for the scientific community to sort them out. Regarding the recent article in science daily, I personally think the authors (and Tim) made a mistake by describing their findings as "deterministic". I think there is a very important observation in their work that we can appreciate better without the baggage of implications the word "deterministic" brings with it. This study does illustrate, in my opinion, important physical constraints on developmental and evolutionary outcomes that have been discussed for many years by complexity theorists. Brian Goodwin, for example, has been emphasizing this point for many years.
Guy
dkomo - 28 Apr 2008 18:19 GMT >>Anthony Campbell wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > the production of intelligent beings and then use the fact that we exist > as evidence for progression. Where do you get this stuff? I was talking about progressions in *time* and factual observations about the evolution of life. For example: the 1st fishes appeared in the Ordovician, the 1st land plants in the Silurian, the 1st insects in the early Devonian, the 1st reptiles in the Carboniferous, the 1st apes during the Oligocene, the 1st hominids during the Miocene, the 1st modern humans in the early Pleistocene, and so on and so on and so on. These are the "many progressions" I referred to. These are *facts*. I wrote absolutely nothing and implied absolutely nothing about "progress".
Now, it is also a fact that human level intelligence appeared at the end of this progression. Noting this is not an instance of anthropocentrism nor does it necessarily imply anything about evolutionary progress.
I frankly think you brought a red herring into the discussion by raising the issue of progress. Andrew Watson in his mathematical modeling makes use of the historical fact that human intelligence developed late in the life span of the earth, and that the earth has already used up most of its allotted life span. In my original reply, I suggested that on other planets evolution could proceed much faster, and that you can't conclude that because it took 4 billion years before intelligent creatures appeared on earth, it would also take 4 billion years somewhere else.
> Not everyone agrees that there has been > progress in evolution. This is still a matter of some considerable controversy in evolutionary biology.
> I tend to agree with the late Stephen J. Gould > that if the tape of evolution were rerun it might lead to a different > endpoint. If the KT impact had not occurred, would the world still be > populated by dinosaurs? Again, this is a different issue from evolution taking 4 billion years to evolve intelligent creatures. Even Gould equated consciousness and intelligence with complexity. His idea of the evolution of complexity was a random walk away from a barrier of minimum complexity below which life couldn't exist at all. But this random walk hypothesis is nonetheless consistent with the fact that intelligence finally appeared at the end of a long string of progressions -- many random steps if you will. Pour a little cream into the middle of a hot cup of coffee, and it will take some time for that cream to diffuse to the sides and bottom of the cup. The cream molecules are random walking their way away from the center out toward the periphery.
--dkomo@cris.com
feedbackdroid - 30 Apr 2008 18:47 GMT On Apr 29, 10:35 am, Guy A Hoelzer <hoel...@unr.edu> wrote:
> in article fv51cm$u9...@darwin.ediacara.org, feedbackdroid at > feedbackdr...@yahoo.com wrote on 4/28/08 10:26 AM: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > I find Tim to be a smart and level-headed fellow. I wouldn't easily dismiss > him as being in "left field". Actually, I was referring to Conway Morris and the papers cited here. We'll dismiss TT's comment about "cannonical antidote to those who think chance rules in evolution". Canonical-ized, already - wow.
> Some if Morris' work strikes me as on the > bleeding edge of scientific thinking, which is where you often find a mix of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > complexity theorists. Brian Goodwin, for example, has been emphasizing this > point for many years. Several of the AI forums I monitor have recurring arguments about many shaded meanings of determinism. I think TT's usage was fairly obvious.
> Guy- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Anthony Campbell - 29 Apr 2008 17:28 GMT > Where do you get this stuff? I was talking about progressions in *time* > and factual observations about the evolution of life. For example: the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > that because it took 4 billion years before intelligent creatures > appeared on earth, it would also take 4 billion years somewhere else. And it could also never happen at all. If by "progression" you merely mean "one damn thing after another" (as someone, I forget who, defined history), then I have no quarrel, but then the idea seems to become trivial. Of course intelligent life did appear, but so what? As we have only one example of it we are unable to say anything abut its probability. But perhaps we are at cross-purposes here.
[snip]
Anthony
 Signature Anthony Campbell - ac@acampbell.org.uk Microsoft-free zone - Using Debian GNU/Linux http://www.acampbell.org.uk (blog, book reviews, on-line books and sceptical articles)
J.A.Legris - 30 Apr 2008 18:47 GMT > > Where do you get this stuff? I was talking about progressions in *time* > > and factual observations about the evolution of life. For example: the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > only one example of it we are unable to say anything abut its > probability. But perhaps we are at cross-purposes here. Shifting the goal posts, I'm willing to attribute intelligence to organisms much older than just humans. Arthropods come to mind - they have been so successful in so many environments for so long that they represent multiple examples of (more or less) independent evolution of intelligence, right here an planet earth.
-- Joe
dkomo - 01 May 2008 17:24 GMT >>>Where do you get this stuff? I was talking about progressions in *time* >>>and factual observations about the evolution of life. For example: the [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > represent multiple examples of (more or less) independent evolution > of intelligence, right here an planet earth. This is a good point. I like to take a general view of intelligence across the entire animal kingdom. In this view even bacteria have some small quantum of intelligence. In fact, a few months ago we had a thread on talk.origins discussing the intelligence of microbial colonies.
So it is no longer a question of whether intelligence evolved once in the human species and could it evolve again under different conditions. On earth, intelligence evolved in *millions* of separate species. It's almost as ubiquitous as life itself. Replay the tape of life again and again, and intelligence, in one form or another, will evolve every single damn time! Now the question becomes how *far* can intelligence evolve. Given sufficient time, even under the random walk hypothesis it can evolve to a significant degree, as for example in the human species.
--dkomo@cris.com
feedbackdroid - 02 May 2008 17:42 GMT On May 1, 10:30 am, dkomo <dkomo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> J.A.Legris wrote: > > On Apr 29, 12:35 pm, Anthony Campbell <a...@acampbell.org.uk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > evolve. Given sufficient time, even under the random walk hypothesis it > can evolve to a significant degree, as for example in the human species. To me, the issues of both intelligence and consciousness require that one looks at them in terms of a graded spectrum, rather than simply a yes/no threshold. Arguing for the latter is hopeless, since no one knows where to draw the line. Arthropods, for example, have both intelligence and consciousness, but much less so than in mammals, etc. In all cases, the "amount" of these qualities is based upon size and complexity of the nervous system.
It's possible that replaying the tape will produce life and/or higher forms of intelligence again, given that certain random events did or did not occur [such as the asteroid wiping out the dinosaurs and allowing mammalian life a better chance for evolving, etc] but that's still a very different issue from whether replaying the tape will reproduce human life as we know it, and especially do so "inevitably".
Anthony Campbell - 29 Apr 2008 17:28 GMT > I'm glad you brought this up. Tim Tyler, who inhabited this forum a > couple of years ago, is now over on comp.ai.philosophy pushing, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > What's the opinion of this stuff, including Conway Morris, in the > science/evolution community? Sounds pretty much left field. I reviewed Conway Morris's book "Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe" a couple of years ago (review is on my site). He is of course a highly respected biologist and a committed Darwinian, but he nevertheless seems to wish to apply a theological gloss to evolution. It would be wrong to call this a hidden agenda, because he is quite open about it. His final chapter is called "Towards a theology of evolution?" and contains a frank recommendation to acknowledge the validity of the Book of Genesis. "The assumption that the world has some meaning which is linked to our own calling as the only morally responsible beings in the world, is an important example of the supernatural aspect of experience which Christian interpretations of the universe explore and develop."
 Signature Anthony Campbell - ac@acampbell.org.uk Microsoft-free zone - Using Debian GNU/Linux http://www.acampbell.org.uk (blog, book reviews, on-line books and sceptical articles)
feedbackdroid - 30 Apr 2008 18:47 GMT > > I'm glad you brought this up. Tim Tyler, who inhabited this forum a > > couple of years ago, is now over on comp.ai.philosophy pushing, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > course a highly respected biologist and a committed Darwinian, but he > nevertheless seems to wish to apply a theological gloss to evolution. So, what's a layman to make of a statement like this? Committed Darwinist AND "theologian" ????
Also, is there any general consensus at all in the Darwinist and NON- theologian community about the inevitability of human life? Is this a set of people with more than just Conway Morris in it?
> It > would be wrong to call this a hidden agenda, because he is quite open [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Douglas Clark - 30 Apr 2008 18:47 GMT >> I'm glad you brought this up. Tim Tyler, who inhabited this forum a >> couple of years ago, is now over on comp.ai.philosophy pushing, [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > experience which Christian interpretations of the universe explore and > develop." I lost interest in Conway Morris when I realised that basically he was a Christian fundamentalist.
feedbackdroid - 02 May 2008 17:42 GMT On May 1, 10:30 am, Tim Tyler <t...@tt1.org> wrote:
> I, Tim Tyler wrote: > > IMO, in the absence of visible aliens, a scientific analysis of > > this thesis mostly depends on anthropic arguments about the > > probability of stages of the great filter: > > >http://hanson.gmu.edu/greatfilter.html "... a scientific analysis of this thesis mostly depends on anthropic arguments".
Anthropic arguments are a form of science, now? I think you might have meant "any" rather than "a scientific".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle =========== The anthropic principle has led to more than a little confusion and controversy, partly because several distinct ideas carry this label. All versions of the principle have been accused of providing simplistic explanations which undermine the search for a deeper physical understanding of the universe. The invocation of either multiple universes or an intelligent designer are highly controversial, and both ideas have received criticism for being untestable and therefore outside the purview of contemporary science. .......... Many 'anthropic principles' are simply confused. Some, especially those drawing inspiration from Brandon Carter's seminal papers, are sound, but... they are too weak to do any real scientific work. ============
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Anthropic_principle ============ The final anthropic principle (FAP): This form states that intelligences must evolve within a universe and that once evolved will not die out.
The FAP has also been dubbed "the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle (CRAP)" by author and skeptic Martin Gardner.
The AP is an unproven speculation that reveals mankind's egocentrism. ============
> Incidentally, Bostrom's popular version of this > idea has just been republished in technologyreview [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Why Life On Mars May Foretell Our Doomhttp://science.slashdot.org/science/08/04/30/2031242.shtml In any case, this is a splinter off the content of the original thread. Or were you implying the answer to my question is that the set including Conway Morris also includes Nick Bostrom ?????
arne97 - 03 May 2008 18:35 GMT Intelligence in humans is an anomaly.
In other creatures, intelligence rises until it meets the needs of the organism. There is no reason to exceed that point.
Otherwise we would see cockroaches teaching quantum physics.
Humans had an unusual evolution. We accumulated brain mass as mammals, because the mammalian brain is clumsy and inefficient.
In Eve, this mass of grey matter was configured into an elegant efficient brain, with grossly excessive intellect.
It only happened once; with us.
Tim Tyler - 20 Jun 2008 23:53 GMT feedbackdroid wrote:
> On May 1, 10:30 am, Tim Tyler <t...@tt1.org> wrote: >> I, Tim Tyler wrote:
>>> IMO, in the absence of visible aliens, a scientific analysis of >>> this thesis mostly depends on anthropic arguments about the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Anthropic arguments are a form of science, now? [...] Of course. -- __________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
|
|
|