I've just finished reading Simon Conway Morris's "Life's Solution" for the second time.
This book is often viewed as his attempt to "defend(s) his belief that evolutionary science is misguided without a somewhat religious notion of the significance of human intelligence and existence" (Amazon.com review), although I didn't find much religious statement, except for the last paragraph of the final chapter.
What the reader would find, instead, be a densely constructed argument that the laws of nature limit the course of evolution (convergence) so that if an intelligent sentient species was to evolve, they would've had a set of biological attributes very similar to ours. This argument formed the second part of this remarkable book. So it seems we or our descendants would never encounter either a bug-eyed, shapeshifting or gaseous alien species. Hmmm. Rather boring proposition for us sci-fi lovers, isn't it? 🙁
But even worse for us was the suggestion in the first part. Considering the physical and chemical faculties of the Earth and the Solar system, in comparison to the observations made with regard to physical conditions of other stars in our Galaxy and beyond, as well as the probable chemical conditions of those outer worlds deduced from the observed physical data, it seems our planet and star system are indeed unique. According to Conway Morris, the chances are that the Earth is the only one planet habitable by sentient intelligent organisms in the entire galaxy, or even the entire cosmos. That's even more depressing proposition to the sci-fi buffs. :awww:
The book was a good read, even for the second time. But when I return this book to the library tomorrow, I'll definitely borrow some sci-fi classic. I need something strong to shake off this interstellar depression. We are not alone, at least in our imagination, right!? :spock:
You wrote:
In the TV Series, Red Dwarf, beings from earth were the only sentient entities in the universe. Since that tended to go against type for a sci-fi show, I kind of enjoyed the novelty of it.But I guess at this point there have been a number of stories where there is life on other planets, but they are planets that have all been colonized by people from earth.So setting aside your sentimental attachment to aliens, what did you think of Morris' line of reasoning? Was it convincing?
But what about that sci-fi staple, terraforming? Surely that's plausible. Just take the genesis device in the Wrath of Kahn as an example.
I thought the part about Earth's genetic code (the three DNA/RNA consisting one code for an amino acid) being the optimal, and possibly the only one in the universe, to support the life was convincing. And his argument for his theory of convergence that biological limitations cause completely different organisms develop the same function using the same mechanism, such as eye, was quite good. However his conclusion that any higher intelligent being in another planet would resemble Homo sapiens did not quite convince me, especially after noting the dolphins as an example of separate evolution/convergence of large brain accompanying development of higher social intelligence. His argument about the physical conditions of our planet being so extremely unique that there wouldn't be anything else like it was, to me, rather lacking. To be fair to Conway Morris, we'd need much advanced technology and science to gather more data to prove or disprove him.Originally posted by debplatt:
According to him, such planets would hardly exist either. See how I found his theory rather depressing?
It's not about lack of environmental elements such as air or water. But the orbitally structure of the star system. You, see there's only a limited zone around a star in which the life can be supported. Too close and you'll get an inferno like our Mercury. Too far and you'll get a giant block of frozen gas like Jupiter. The planet must be the right size, too. To small then there's not enough geo-nuclear activity to heat up the planet or gravity to hold atmosphere. Too large and you'd be crushed under the gravity. Now the latest technology allows detection of large planets in other star system. According to Conway Morris, most of those planets detected are larger than Jupiter but orbit their star much closer than Jupiter and Saturn do, sometimes closer than Mercury is to our Sun. He admitted it was still possible that planets in Earth's size may be present, but not in a similar orbit, competing against the "hot giant" planets for the habitable zone. He holds the currently available data suggests the Solar system is very unique in having the smaller solid planets inside and the gas giants outside. He also noted our Jupiter has also acted as a protector to the inner planets, from the showers of comets and meteors coming from outer orbit. Without Jupiter, there would be a lot more frequent meteor collisions on the Earth and the life would not have time to evolve much. Originally posted by debplatt:
I remember that. Didn't Kirsty Alley debut in that movie?
Douglas Adams proposed that the universe is infinite and the number of inhabited planets is finite, infinity divided by finite is so close to zero it may as well be therefore nobody actually exists 😆
I thought I'd feel better after watching Doctor Who last night, but no, it was a sad story, not the pick-up I hoped for :cry:Originally posted by darkesthour:
Thanks. At least good to know Sci-fi was still ahead of real science. 🙂
😀
I've just got this book from the library, Joe Haldeman's "Camouflage", which starts like this:
Sounds like the good man Joe knew about the impossibility-of-habitable-planet issue and managed to cover his corners with just a few lines. 🙂 Good on him. That's how the Sci-fi author' solves a hard problem. :DAfter having read the first 20 pages or so I think I'm going to enjoy this book. :spock:
I cannot help but feel that with the huge number of stars and planets lying around everywher that we cannot be unique, we may be as rare as fleas in a five star hotel but there must be more than one. Probability allows for more than one fluke of similar nature
Originally posted by darkesthour:
The next time I find myself worrying about something, I'll tell myself this. Since I don't exist, I have nothing to worry about. :yes:
Originally posted by darkesthour:
This seems to be the Stephen Hawking viewpoint.
Despite the effort of Seti, the Ozma project gave nothing despite the use of radiotelescope such as the "Big Ear" from Ohio and the one we have in Nançay in the cebter of France. But according to Seti's researchers, if we don't search, the probability is close to 0. Originally posted by darkesthour:
Despite that a student Frank Drake)from the Seti around 1960 put that into an equation :N = R*fp*Ne*fl*fi*fc*L where :N number of civilizations present in the GalaxyR formation rate of stars in the galaxyfp fraction of stars that have planetsNe average number of habitable planets in a systemfl fraction of planets where the life can developfi fraction of planets where intelligence has appearedfc fraction of civilizations know to communicateL is the average duration of a civilization That's it !!Originally posted by mimi_s_mum:
If it happened once, it can happen a second time. The Fermi paradox : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox is more based on the problem of communication than chemical reactions. The transfer RNA is probably the leakest point concerning life, but Universe has a lot of time to try and re-try, and after all, it happened once :spock:
The issue the book presents, at least to me, is the new data seem indicating the "fl" in the equation above seems very very small. If the almost all of star systems within our observational range found with a planet, which is a hot gas giant orbiting near the central star (, which would prevent existence of Earth like planet), then chances are it would be like that in elsewhere, for now, at least.Originally posted by arduinna:
It may be true. Actually Conway Morris noted another scientist's observation that, given the current physical/chemical attributes of the stars in our Galaxy, there will be more habitable planets in a far future, when our Galaxy will indeed be teeming with lives. In a billion years time, the Earth might be full of paleontology excavation teams from various planets eager to find artifacts with an ambition to win the Ultimate Award for Paleontological Achievement form the Galaxy Institute of Science. :spock:
Originally posted by mimi_s_mum:
As a French reading you at midnight, I just take the most important words "which would prevent existence of Earth like planet" and picking the orther words "almost all of star systems", "hot gas giant orbiting" … and it was something with sense , don't worry.
Originally posted by mimi_s_mum:
Just realised this sentence does not make sense at all 😆 What I meant was:"Within our observational range there are several stars found with a planet. Almost all of the planets found were hot gas giants orbiting near the central star, which would prevent existence of Earth like planet. If these observations were accurate, then the chances are the same conditions would be present elsewhere."
There was a big step made recently with the discover of one or two exoplanets that are similar to the Earth. On the other side the Murchison meteorite ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_meteorite ) had more than 100 amino acids on it . Both events increase the possibility of extra-terrestrial life tremendously.
I found this :For the Universe, the galaxies are our small representative volumes, and there are something like 1011 to the power of 1012 stars in our galaxy, and there are perhaps something like 1011 or 1012 galaxies. With this simple calculation you get something like 1022 to the power of 1024 stars in the Universe.I am afraid that I will maintain that shear probability makes the possibility of us being unique quite silly 😆
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM75BS1VED_index_0.html
Originally posted by arduinna:
Thanks for that. I've had a quick look-around and this Wikipedia article seems to sum up quite nicely ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_planet ) I have to say I'm not quite convinced of those planets supporting life as they were found around either red dwarf or pulser. But it seems the new discovery is made every few months. I'd like to see if the future observation gives better prospect.Conway Morris examined the Murchison meteorite and his view was that a possibility of contamination occurring after its impact on Earth cannot be ruled out. Even if those amino acids were from outside the Earth, the chances were they came from another planet within the Solar System, probably Mars, on which the life had evolved when it was inside the Habitable Zone but later became extinct. This would not change CM's view that our solar system is distinctly unique.
Originally posted by darkesthour:
If it concerns "Ever" (entire course of history of the universe), I agree with you. But I still think at this moment of time in the cosmic history, it is possible that our Solar system is unique, at least within this Galaxy. Remember there were no multi-cellular species on the Earth in the first half of the history of life. Existence of such species would appear improbable then, had there been someone to study the life on Earth.I've found another source of information regarding this theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis The article notes one of the criticism to this theory being numerous detection of extrasolar planets made recently (400+), referring to an estimate of someone, who used an estimate that each sun-like star has on average one Earth-like and reached an conclusion there would be thousands of civilised planets in our galaxy. The only problem is, only five of the 400+ planets detected were terrestrial (made of mainly rock not gas), and all of those five were found around a dwarf or pulser. It must be inconvenient when the facts don't fit your theory. 😀
with 1022 to the power of 1024 stars ther must be more than one chance, currently and otherwise 😆 Thats 1022 with 1024 noughts after it, thats one big number. 😀
the bigger the better eh? :DHonestly I'm not actively supporting the Rare Earth theory myself, either. It's just all the counter-arguments I've seen so far seem to lack the real sting. That tiny piece of insignificant fact that disproves the nul-hypothesis and collapses the entire theory, you know?
Originally posted by arduinna:
But maybe the universe isn't that ambitious. 😀
Or it could be in the universe's karma that it has to try 😀
Originally posted by darkesthour:
And a special gift to manage all these new friends on my opera ! Need a Cray 1024 !!
Originally posted by mimi_s_mum:
Why focus on that, life didn't come necessarily from rock , see that experience that lead to amina acids ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment ) . They are talking about a prebiotic soup, not an earth with vuvuzelas, kiwis ….
Originally posted by debplatt:
No, but the energy you are using to comment and re-comment cannot be called ambitious but persistent, and maybe this energy is sufficient 😉 !
Originally posted by arduinna:
The key difference between lifeless and living matter is that lifeless matter experiences increasing entropy over time due to the second law of thermodynamics, while living matter creates localized areas of decreasing entropy, what Erwin Schrödinger called "negative entropy". When I am being ambitious or purposefully persistent, I am manifesting the negative entropy that I possess as a living being. But the lifeless universe lacks these qualities.The paradox is how a universe ever in decay via entropy managed to reverse this process in localized regions. The scientific study of this topic is called Abiogenesis. One of the subsidiary paradoxes is why, on a planet teaming with life like our own, new life is not emerging from inanimate matter?
Take another look at that fl term (fraction of planets where life can develop from lifeless matter). At this point even earth is not a planet where life develops from lifeless matter.
Originally posted by debplatt:
:eyes: Now you've boldly gone to the realm outside my comfort zone. (Biological theorising is my limit.) Good luck with your voyage into the unknown :spock: 😀
Originally posted by arduinna:
Actually my emphasis on terrestrial planets was not about rock in terms of landmass, but in contrast to gas being the main component of the planet. (A terrestrial planet could be entirely covered with water.) And the issue here is not about primitive organisms, but "the chances are that the Earth is the only one planet habitable by sentient intelligent organisms in the entire galaxy". Also there will be no "prebiotic soup" like that experiment on a non-terrestrial (gas) planet. Conditions such as gravity, temperature, chemical composition of the environment, tidal disturbances, etc, etc, will be entirely different. Actually the focus on terrestrial planets can be misleading, and I was probably responsible for leading you astray. The real problem is the observational data up to date (fact not theory) have shown that, NONE of the star systems found with extrasolar planet had the planetary orbital structure like our Solar system, smaller terrestrial planets in the habitable zone near the central star AND jupitor like gas giants outside (protecting from comets & meteors). OK, I accept that the sample size is very small to extrapolate into the condition of entire galaxy, and the current technology might have missed smaller more Earth like planets while detecting the bigger ones. But until such an observation is actually made, the fact remains that we have not been able to detect another Solar system like planetary system. And until we find one, there is always a smallest of the chance that there is nothing else like us out there. Originally posted by arduinna:
I don't think I follow you. You are not talking about French cookery course for a crayfish bisque, are you? 😀
Originally posted by darkesthour:
:yuck: (trying to imagine what a computer soup tastes like) That's why I stick with biology. It tastes better. 😉
A Cray is a supercomputer, used usually for science experiments dealing with very large numbers…"second law is a consequence of the assumed randomness of molecular chaos" I like the sound of that 😆
I made the most ferocious green curry last night :yes: :chef:
Yum.:) Chicken, fish or vegetarian?
Prawn with some veggies, a bit of rice and some poppadums and that was dinner 😀
Wow :salivating: I haven't made Thai curry for ages. It time I did, perhaps this weekend? :chef: The only problem with curries is you always over-eat. 😀
Originally posted by debplatt:
In my opinion, there is no paradox :1) You are not sure that the Universe is in decay since we are not sure of its frontier. The entropy law may increase or decrease for non isolated system.2) The definition of entropy is S = k*Ln(omega) where k is the Boltzmann constant and "omega" the number of micro-state likely to carry out the macro-state in which is the system. And for a value of S you can have several macro-state, involving different state for the micro-states that compose it, and some may have a "reverse" behaviour while others may have a "continous" behaviour.Originally posted by debplatt:
From this discovery FOSSILS discovered in west Africa have pushed back the dawn of multicellular life on Earth by at least 1.5 billion years, scientists believe I bet that it will be easier to find the spark that brought life. But I'm with you it's difficult that "life develops from lifeless matter" without a "spark".
Originally posted by darkesthour:
Originally posted by mimi_s_mum:
No doubt that there are some clues of life on Earth :alien:
Originally posted by arduinna:
I thought by definition the universe was a closed (isolated) system. If it is not closed, then whatever it is connected with is also part of our universe.Originally posted by arduinna:
We get very excited whenever we can show amino acids developing naturally. But there's a big jump from there to living matter. The question of what constitutes the "spark" is very interesting.
Can something infinite be described as closed? Perhaps the inanimate no longer becomes animate simply because there is no longer a requirement.. Or that the conditions are no longer right for this to happen…
Originally posted by darkesthour:
That was what I meant but simpler exposed.
Originally posted by darkesthour:
So, as life was born in water, this was a change in conditions, then let's say complex polymers was built; but it is so far away from a cell for instance that it seems impossible to happen, I mean such an evolution.
PS: "My Opera's news" does'nt work anymore (page unknown) for me, strangely I got this problem when commenting in a forum's post where darkvador69 and Catse exposed this problem "Bug when opening News link", I deleted my comment, but the problem persists. Probably a difficulty in news management or a bad polymer of code :awww: ; so I will come erracticly those next days …
Originally posted by debplatt:
So if you admit there is an edge, what is there after ? I mean is this really a limit, if you can prove it is, so the Universe is closed. I don't know . In fact there are 3 models of the Universe :
* closed (the dimension characteristic law follows a cycloid)
* Einstein – De Sitter (the dimension characteristic is an hyperbol http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espace_d%27Einstein-de_Sitter in French only ?? )
* open (the dimension characteristic increase as t**(2/3) then t, where "t" is the time)
Originally posted by darkesthour:
Physicists do regard the universe as closed.There is, so to speak, an "edge" to the universe. If there weren't, it wouldn't make any sense to say that the universe is expanding.Leaving physics behind, in mathematics there are two ways to be infinite. Something can be countably infinite (like 1, 2, 3, …) or uncountably infinite (like all the rational number).
Ah yes Alien 3562YTU from planet TRYTION, I was forgetting that strange language G'nite 😉 !
Originally posted by debplatt:
You are welcome. It's allow me to rummage in a small book bought about 30 years ago. Time to update all this with the recent discoveries.Postulates such as the "second law of thermodynamics" is as strange as life apparition for me … but easier to discuss or to check
:spock: Such discussion are rare, thanks.
G'nite!
Originally posted by arduinna:
When physicists say that the universe is "closed" they are basically saying that immediately after the Big Bang, the universe contained all the energy/matter that it would ever contain. There is no additional energy and/or matter pouring into the universe. The "closed" quality is not about the space in which that matter/energy is contained, nor about the shape of that space. I did make an allusion to the universe having an edge, so it's my fault that you started going down this path. That was misleading on my part. The second law of thermodynamics is all about the amount of energy/matter.With that said, you raise a number of interesting points about the "shape" of the universe.
:spock: May you live long and prosper.
Ooops good night … 😀 … :zzz: ( a greatzzzz postulatezzzz too ! )
As an attempt to steer the discussion back to biology, I quote from http://www.burgess-shale.bc.ca/discover-burgess-shale/burgess-shale-fossils-and-their-importance:
More information found at http://www.burgess-shale.bc.ca/discover-burgess-shaleAlso worth looking at is: http://www.burgess-shale.bc.ca/discover-burgess-shale/ancient-creaturesOf course, Simon Conway Morris was involved in the ground breaking study of Burgess Shale fossils by the research team led by Harry Whittington of Cambridge University.