h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Do people really believe life can spontaneously create itself? Nobel prize-winner Sir Francis Crick (who, with his partner Watson, discovered the double helix in DNA) stated that it is inconceivable that life could have simply appeared on earth without someone introducing it.

The idea that life can just appear from non-living matter is called abiogenesis, and seems like hokum to me. For this reason we cannot be alone in the universe as there must be an intelligence behind the creation of life, hence there must be a creator.

The problem then arises. Where did the Creator come from?

I remember reading somewhere this argument against other intelligent life...

There are five basic kingdoms of life, one of which is the animal kingdom.

There are approximately forty phyla in the animal kingdom (phyla are the most basic divisions within a kingdom), one of which is chordata, basically vertebrates.

Among vertebrates there are seven (?) classes, only one of which contains intelligent life, the mammals. Among the three main orders of mammals, only one has developed intelligence, the eutheria or placental mammals.

There are dozens of orders of mammals within the eutheria, and only one has developed intelligence to the degree we have.

The point of all this rambling is to say that, in evolutionary terms, intelligence is a niche. There's an enormous gap between life forming abiogenically (which it did, creator or otherwise), and intelligent life forming.

Life seems to have come into existence very soon after the earth formed, relatively speaking. There's indirect evidence in the oldest rocks known, which were laid down a few hundred million years after it formed. This could be because life is probably going to spring into existence whenever possible, or not. Who knows?

One thing that must be remembered is that, if there's a trillion to one chance of life appearing in a test tube in a lab one day, the odds are much higher that it will appear over a period of 100,000,000 years somewhere over an area of 150,000,000 square miles.

WelshGenghis:

"Nobel prize-winner Sir Francis Crick [...] stated that it is inconceivable that life could have simply appeared on earth without someone introducing it."

Fallacious argument from authority. Just because the guy who said it was clever once doesn't mean he's right. In fact, this is an ideal demonstration of Clarke's first law.

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

In any case, you have, as most religious people do, stated the question in fallaciously superstitious terms.

No, people do not believe that life can spontaneously create itself, because that word, "create", implies volition. It is self evident that where there is no life, there is no volition.

The CORRECT question, which you do not ask because the answer is self evident and invalidates your chosen superstition, is this:

Do people really believe that life can arise from the operation of well understood chemistry obeying physical laws? And obviously the answer is "yes", because we, and all life on earth, are self-replicating collections of perfectly ordinary chemical elements. There is no "magic spark" in us, we're just mobile chemical factories.

"The idea that life can just appear from non-living matter is called abiogenesis, and seems like hokum to me"

That's all very well, but the principle of operation of a gas plasma television may well also seem like hokum to you. It is, quite simply, stupid to decide that the scientific establishment's consensus is wrong simply because you don't understand it.

"we cannot be alone in the universe as there must be an intelligence behind the creation of life, hence there must be a creator."

This is answering a question with a worse question. Any "creator" you posit is AT LEAST as complex as we are, and has to have had an origin. All you've done there is move the question back a notch - you've not answered it. You may THINK you have. You, personally, may be perfectly satisfied with your non-answer and the primitive superstition that flows from it. Intelligent people, by contrast, require answers that go some way to answer the question, rather than begging another, more complex one.

SoRB

I agree, btw, that our particular sort of intelligence does seem to be something of a fluke, arising out of some pretty specific details of our environment.

It's salutary to think that dinosaurs "ruled the earth" for hundreds of millions of years but never evolved intelligence.

Or did they? Serious question: assume for the moment that theropod dinosaurs developed human-style intelligence about seventy million years ago. Assume further that they developed a technological civilisation similar to our own. How would we know? If humanity were to go extinct in the next ten thousand years, what artefacts of ours would still be detectable EVEN IN PRINCIPLE in seventy million years' time? What evidence would there be that we were ever here? (Answer in next paragraph)

Personally, I'd be amazed but not entirely surprised if, in a decade or twenty when we start exploring the moon *properly* we find a lunar landing craft with a little flag and all that kind of thing and a plaque saying "Harry the Hadrosaur was 'ere" in dinoglyphics - because the environment of the moon would tend to preserve artefacts better than the earth, I think. Of course, they might have cleaned up all the evidence before they got in their transwarp spaceship and headed for the Delta Quadrant... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distant_Origin

SoRB

Serious question: assume for the moment that theropod dinosaurs developed human-style intelligence about seventy million years ago. Assume further that they developed a technological civilisation similar to our own. How would we know?



I think that we'd find (or rather, we'll leave) anomalous deposits everywhere. Say, where New York or London is we'll find an abnormal concentration of concrete and metals, which would probably be seen to have not formed 'naturally'.

With a sufficiently detailed fossil record, I think a couple more things would stand out.

First, there would be a rise in the relative frequency of people relative to other animals. This would reflect our population, which would be wildly implausible for most other animals. I *think* it's likely that burying our dead would lead to a higher chance of fossilisation as well, but I really don't know. There would also be the appearance of one of fossils all over the world in a relatively short space of time.

Second, other fossil evidence would include a whole lot of species going extinct at the same time, particularly in the New World and Australia, around the time when we arrived there. There would be changes in the type of plants growing when agriculture started, which would indicate to our future palaeontologist that either the climate had changed very rapidly so that forests had given way to prairies, or that something had cut down lots of forests and replaced them with plants with *suspiciously* big seeds, which are similar to but larger than its relatives, which are only found (eg) in Northern Iraq, not all over the world. I think the 'globalisation' of a small number of plants would indicate support for some kind of intelligence, but I don't really know if we'd find that kind of evidence.

Cool question though.

Posting 19 reminded me of that wonderful television series "Cosmos" - now some 27 years old .

There are a number of clips to be found on YouTube featuring the late Carl Sagan; here he is on the 'Drake Equasion':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ztl8CG3Sys&mode=related&search=

Are our feathered friends the birds not descended from dinosaurs? And is everything not descended in the end from some kind of green algae (for lack of a better word) such as one finds for example at the hot springs of Kamchatka - as I was informed by some scientists and vulcanists I saw one time on a TV docu? In other words they claimed that life comes from the beneath the Earth's crust - from the source of the heat - and not from outer space. If that's true then there's a really good chance that life is quite prolific in the universe. There could even be some kind of niche´d life forms, worms and creepy things or mossy plants and sponges in our own solar system - I wouldn't be surprised.

I've heard some theories that life came to Earth in a comet that crashed to Earth. If this comet split before making planetfall couldn't it have gone on the seed other planets.
I've heard the lightning had a hand in jump starting life and of course the amino acid chains combined to form the DNA molecule so I don't call that life springing out of nothing.
On the subject of the creator, where did he come from. The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy says the most Gods were around a week before the Big Bang so let not look at that question - "So Long and Thanks for All the Fish" btw.
As for dinosaurs. The 'raptors were as inteligent as chimpanzes. In fact in 3001 the were cloned and used as gardeners! Small dinosaour couldn't keep their heat so they addapted by developing feathers. A by product of feathers was flight and they dinosaur instead of dying out eveloved in mamals and avians.

The Drake Equation.
===================
Frank Drake devised the "Drake equation" - a formula to calculate how many civilisations might be broadcasting radio signals. This is the Drake equation.

N = R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L
= x x x x x fi x fc x L

R* is the rate starbirth.
The number of new stars formed in the Galaxy. This is widely accepted by astronomers to be 10 per year.

fp is stars with planets.
The percentage of those new stars that form planets.

ne is habitable planets.
The number of those planets that are the right distance from their
star, and of the right size to be suitable for life.

fl is planets with life.
The percentage of those planets on which life has actually evolved.

fi is intelligent life.
Percentage of planets where life forms have evolved sufficiently for "intelligent" creature to exist.

fc is communicable life.
The percentage of those planets on which intelligent lifeforms have developed technologically so they can communicate with other civilisations.

L is life span of civilisation.
The length of time that a technologically advanced civilisation exists and in which it can send a potentially receive signals.

I have found a theoretical scenario where extraterrestrial life is discovered in the year 2020. Maybe this will help your original question.

FIRST CONTACT.
==============

The day we detect a signal form extraterrestrial intelligence will be a turning point in the history of the world. We will know, at last, that we are not alone. The shock waves of the discovery will be felt
far beyond the community of SETI scientists. The signal will have an impact on everybody, from heads of government and the world's religious communities through to ordinary individuals - and every group will react in a different way. In the end, there will be two decisions to be made. Should we respond? And, if so, what should we say?

Detection!
==========
Events begin to unfold in 2020 with the detection if an obviously alien signal by Project Phoenix researchers at Greenbank, West Virginia. The signal - called a "carrier wave" - reveals the frequency of the alien broadcast, but it if far too weak for any information to be decoded.

Protocol.
=========
The SETI researchers follow the "Declaration of Principles for Activities Following the Detection of Extraterrestrial Intelligence" - guidelines accepted internationally in 1990.

Verification.
=============
One of the protocols in the Declaration of Principles is that the signal must be verified by other teams before it is announced. Several groups of radio astronomers around the world successfully detect the carrier wave. But still no message emerges from the weak signal.

Telling the world.
==================
The discovers, having told the relevant professional bodies and the Secetary-General of the United Nations, go public at a press conference. There can be no cover-up: SETI researchers believe in openness.

Religious response.
===================
Religions may be thrown into turmoil when alien intelligence is detected. Most Christians, for example, would worry whether Jesus had also lived and died on these other planets. The Mormon doctrine, though includes a strong belief in other inhabited worlds.

Political response.
===================
At the White House, the US President confirms her commitment to SETI. In order to decode the signal, a huge, very sensitive array of telescopes must be built. She promises to fund it - just as President Clinton committed more money to Mars research after a possible Martin microfossil was found in 1996.

Public response.
================
The public reacts in a bewildering variety of ways to the news. Some people are euphoric; others feel threatened. The press, at first serious, soon starts to feature alien cartoons, while television cannot show enough old sci-fi movies. Stock markets oscillate wildly as nervous people speculate. A few of the more extreme religious sects commit mass suicide. The military grows cautious. But everyone has been changed knowing that we have company out there in space.


What does the message contain.
==============================
Three years later, the powerful SETI Array of radio telescopes is complete. It easily captures the carrier wave, and is powerful enough to reveal within this signal a wealth of complex detail. This is the longed-for message. Experts work on it for months, but only partly succeed in decoding it. The message tells of the language and science of the inhabitants of a planet around the star Fomalhaut, 22 light years away. But there is much that is indecipherable, to await researchers of the future.

Should we reply?
================
Now the United Nations is charged with a huge responsibility: should it reply on behalf of the people of Earth? Some experts speak passionately against arguing that if "they" are hostile, they are close enough on the cosmic scale to travel to Earth and destroy us. But the SETI community convinces the UN that the benefits of contact will outweigh the risks – and are asked to draft a response.

Earth's calling card to the cosmos.
===================================
Following the UN's decision to send a reply to the newly discovered alien civilization, the SETI researchers devise a reply that will open the interstellar dialogue - even though each message will 22 years to cross space. The following string of "zeros" and "ones" is the first page of our message to the planet circling the star Fomalhaut. Try deciphering it yourself!

1000001000000000000100
0000000101010100101010
1010101010101100000000
0101000000100000000000
0000000100000100000000
0000000000100000000100
0000000100000010000000
1110111111110011100111
1111100000000000111011
1111110011000000010000
0010000000000010000000
00001

Suppose that there was another life form and it came to earth, what would happen?

The Russians would deny all knowledge of it.

The Germans would complain that it was not on time.

The French would just shrug their shoulders and ignore it.

The Americans would shoot it down without asking.

And we British we would be left to invite it in for tea!

I guess the dutch would start a trade

Good question that! We haven't got a good track record here.

I guess we'd all split to groups and analyse what it said, what it's message was, and then we'd kill it.

After that, we'd make lots wars against ourselves - loosely connected to the event.

I read somewhere that, if we all died out today, all direct evidence of human civilisation would have been erased in only 10 million years. The only indicator would be a huge gap in the fossil record corresponding to the mass extinctions we've caused.

If we died out due to a catastrophic event, be it volcanism, meteorites or nuclear war, layers of deposits would be left in rocks, such as the iridium layer that appears around 65 million years ago. Hence the widely accepted theory that the dinosaurs were intelligent enough to build the iridium bomb.

We might only need to wait for that incoming asteroid that's got a 1:45,000 chance of destroying us. It's due on April 13th, a Friday, in about 25 years or so. I tried to get a ten pound bet that it would collide with Earth with the bookmakers Ladbrokes but their spokesperson said "But if you win there'll be nobody here to pay you out."

Would you not be better with an "each way" bet?

SoRB:

I would suggest that your argument might have more weight if you refrained from declaring all who hold a different view from yours as stupid. Apart from making your entry read like a rant, it's basic manners.

Sir Francis Crick is far from the only leading scientist to have reservations concerning the idea of abiogenesis. Are you aware of Ilya Prigogine, the recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry, who wrote: "The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero."

Yes, zero.

I myself am not a nobel prize-winner, but then neither are you. All I am trying to point out is that some of the most eminent scientists that have ever lived have serious question marks over the CREATION of life by chance. Incidently, I AM a linguist. I speak four languages fluently, in addition to English. And the word "create" does not particularly imply volition (eg. we may say that a stone falling into water creates ripples).

Sir Francis himself certainly wasn't religious, and his theories on panspermia, the introduction of life from another planet, are laid out in his book "Life itself". Later in his career he revised his ideas, when he was more elderly.

You employ the phrase "fallacious argument from authority", and I agree that we shouldn't automatically accept whatever we're told. So why, then, do you say: "It is, quite simply, stupid to decide that the scientific establishment's consensus is wrong simply because you don't understand it." It's not that I don't understand the idea of abiogenesis; I do understand it, but I reject it as implausible.

"Sir Francis Crick is far from the only leading scientist to have reservations concerning the idea of abiogenesis."

That is true - he is not unique. He is one of a tiny, tiny minority.

"Are you aware of Ilya Prigogine, the recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry, who wrote: "The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero."

Yes, zero."

I'm not sure why the pronouncements of a chemist should hold any weight whatsoever in a question which is fundamentally about biology. Are you one of those people who, when they get a toothache, make an appointment to see an accountant?

"I myself am not a nobel prize-winner, but then neither are you."

Well spotted. However, I would suggest that among Nobel Prize winners, and other professional scientists, there is an extremely strong consensus for abiogenesis, along with accepted mechanisms which, although you clearly don't understand them, are understood by those who make it their job to do so.

Non-professionals such as you and I are of course entitled to hold whatever opinions we like on this and any other subject. You may choose to believe there are fairies at the bottom of your garden. However, if our opinions contradict those of the enormous and much better educated and qualifed establishment, we are likely to look rather stupid.

"All I am trying to point out is that some of the most eminent scientists that have ever lived have serious question marks over the CREATION of life by chance."

How many? As a proportion of *qualified* individuals, what percentage, roughly?

Because if the percentage is even as high as 10%, you might have something, or rather, THEY might have something.

But the proportion is not that high, is it? The proportion is very much less than 1%, and these opinions only get any publicity because the people holding them have a public profile already. If a professor of chemistry at Nowhere University, Nebraska says there might be a black hole at the centre of the galaxy, a few physicists might pay attention. If thirty such people say the same thing, still nobody cares. If Stephen Hawking says exactly the same thing, there would be headlines in the newspapers. Is Hawking more right? More likely to be right? Or just more famous?

Crick is famous. But so is Watson. Is HE a creationist?

"Incidently, I AM a linguist. I speak four languages fluently, in addition to English. And the word "create" does not particularly imply volition (eg. we may say that a stone falling into water creates ripples)."

It does *in this context*.

"Sir Francis himself certainly wasn't religious, and his theories on panspermia, the introduction of life from another planet, are laid out in his book "Life itself". Later in his career he revised his ideas, when he was more elderly."

See Clarke's law. And panspermia doesn't answer the question, it just shifts it elsewhere (as indeed, does the idea of a creator).

"You employ the phrase "fallacious argument from authority", and I agree that we shouldn't automatically accept whatever we're told. So why, then, do you say: "It is, quite simply, stupid to decide that the scientific establishment's consensus is wrong simply because you don't understand it." It's not that I don't understand the idea of abiogenesis; I do understand it, but I reject it as implausible."

How are you qualified to reject it? What is your education in developmental biology? This is my point. You're entitled to an opinion. But if that opinion rubbishes the consensus of the scientific establishment, and you can't defend your position with evidence (and the only 'evidence' you've offered so far is two quotes from two other people) then don't expect to have your opinion taken any more seriously than the fairies at the bottom of your garden.

SoRB

I think there's a case of slightly crossed wires here. Any religious person who says the "The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero." as a case for a creator is telling a subtle lie, IMHO. (PS, I'm not saying that anyone here is telling a lie, just that the argument is more complicated than that.)

Nobody, but *nobody* thinks that life was created when a lightning bolt/underwater volcano/whatever transformed a bit of mucky seawater into some kind of bacterium. As has been said, it's enormously unlikely that this happened in one step. It's far less unlikely that it happened in several steps though. Lipids seems to be able to form something very similar to a cell wall naturally, the Miller-Urey experiments produced all kinds of complex organic compounds etc etc.

So, if anyone is going to question the odds of life appearing by chance, at least try to have an understanding of what our best minds think the processes might have been before dismissing it.