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

An analogy here:

Let's say you have a car that won't start. A mechanic - a person qualified to pronounce on what the problem is - say "it's your cylinder head gasket, mate."

You take it to another mechanic, who says the same thing. And another, and another, and another. Every mechanic you show it to tells you the same thing, with one exception. ONE mechanic you take it to says it could be the cam belt. Just one.

You show it to a heart surgeon who is a car enthusiast. He diagnoses a problem with the cam belt.

Now... what do YOU think the problem is?

More to the point, if you go to a mechanic and TELL him it's a cam belt problem, that you've decided that it is because your surgeon friend told you and he's VERY highly qualified, what reaction do you deserve?

At best, a contemptuous smirk, I think. In reality most mechanics if you said something like that would gladly replace your cam belt for you, charge you plenty for it and send you on your way.

The point here is, if you, a layman, are going to ignore the consensus opinion of the established experts in the field, and look for support to the pronouncements of individual non-specialists... you're going to look stupid. You may not like to hear that, but it's true.

SoRB

Further: "Are you aware of Ilya Prigogine, the recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry"

No. I'm aware of the Ilya Prigogine who won one Nobel Prize in 1977 for work on dissipative structures.

I've never heard of an Ilya Prigogine who won two Nobel Prizes.

I further note the lack, in any description I've found of the uniNobelled Prigogine, of any work whatsoever in the field of biology. Lots in chemistry and physics, but nothing on development of life. One of the basic requirements of a fallacious argument from authority is that the source you quote should at the very least have some demonstrable authority. Otherwise you might just as well quote Monty Python, which would at least have the benefit of being funny.

SoRB

Hello SoRB

You resort to ridicule, talking about the fairies at the bottom of my garden, as if it's the same as questioning abiogenesis, but it isn't. To my knowledge no nobel prizewinners have suggested there are fairies at the bottom of my or anyone's garden, but they have questioned the validity of abiogenesis.

So I think it should be taken more seriously than fairies, don't you? Try to be a little more open minded. Sometimes those who go against scientific consensus, such as Gallileo, Copernicus, Einstein and Darwin himself can bring about great strides in scientific thinking.

"You resort to ridicule, talking about the fairies at the bottom of my garden, as if it's the same as questioning abiogenesis, but it isn't."

Yes, it is, and here's why. Suggesting there are fairies at the bottom of your garden is a non-scientific hypothesis, because it cannot be tested. I can go down to the bottom of your garden, and look, and find nothing, and you will simply say, "they're hiding", or "they're invisible", or whatever you need to maintain the delusion that for you, they're there.

You are not "questioning abiogenesis". You are specifically denying it and positing in its place a "creator". But this is precisely as useful as talking of fairies. It's not a testable hypothesis. It's just a story you are telling yourself because you
(a) don't understand the question
(b) don't like the answer people who DO understand the question have come up with.

"To my knowledge no nobel prizewinners have suggested there are fairies at the bottom of my or anyone's garden, but they have questioned the validity of abiogenesis."

Really? And what alternative theory do they offer in its place? And - here's the kicker - what EVIDENCE do they offer in support of this theory?

"So I think it should be taken more seriously than fairies, don't you?"

No, I don't. At least not until someone can answer my last question.

"Try to be a little more open minded."

I'm all for being open-minded, but no so open that your brain actually falls out onto the floor.

"Sometimes those who go against scientific consensus, such as Gallileo, Copernicus, Einstein and Darwin himself can bring about great strides in scientific thinking. "

Ah, the old creationist saw "Galileo/Copernicus/Darwin went against the consensus". Yes, they did. And do you know how? By coming up with a testable theory. By amassing EVIDENCE. By testing the theory, and by having it agree with reality.

MILLIONS of people "go against the scientific consensus". The vast majority are kooks and fantasists, or are religious (which makes them kooks and fantasists as far as I'm concerned).

I have no problem with a specialist in chemistry, say, challenging the validity of a theory in biology. But in order for him to have ANY credibility whatsoever in his challenge, he has to propose something else, something that explains reality *better*, AND crucially something that can be tested by looking at the evidence.

And when that happens, we'll ALL know about it, because it will be headline news. Meanwhile, there are the kooks.

SoRB

<<"The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.">>

That's a very bold assertion, regardless of who it came from. To say with any authority that there is *absolutely zero* chance of anything at all happening, you would need to cite a positive mechanism that actually makes it impossible. I'm not an expert, but I don't believe there is anything in the laws of physics that actually *prevents* the reactions needed for life to start from taking place. If you can't cite such a mechanism, then you must accept that the chance is non-zero, even if very very small.

Given the numbers involved - 1,000,000,000,000 suitable molecules per star system (complete guess, but probably conservative), 100,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy, 125,000,000,000 galaxies, 13,700,000,000 years - that's 54 zeros - even a reaction that has a probability of happening by accident of one in a trillion per year, should have happened roughly 10^45 times already. In fact it should have happened 4,500,000,000 times in our solar system alone.

This is precisely why I so often have to point out that people don't understand the question. They seem to think that because something is staggeringly unlikely, they are empowered to pronounce it impossible. But, as humans are wont to do, their imaginations and intuition - the resources they use to sustain their religious superstitions - fail when presented with the mathematics involved.

It is difficult for anyone to understand, REALLY understand, how many molecules there are in a glass of water. How much more difficult to grasp how many molecules in all the oceans of all the world. How much more difficult to grasp all the interactions between those molecules - perfectly normal, natural interactions following well-understood laws at all times, without requiring any intervention from a big beardy man in the sky.

And how much more difficult to understand how FAST these interactions happen, and the truly staggering amount of time available for life to develop.

"To say with any authority that there is *absolutely zero* chance of anything at all happening, you would need to cite a positive mechanism that actually makes it impossible."

Excellent point. You'd also need to prove that said mechanism was absolutely 100% foolproof and work in all cases under all conditions. That's a big task. Has our quoted authority done this work? Or has he simply stated something outside of his specialty and left it at that?

The mechanisms by which life developed - i.e. collections of chemicals started to self-replicate with random mutation and selection - are reasonably well understood. There is simply no need to posit a 'creator' to make it happen, UNLESS you believe there is some fundamental "spark" that makes living matter in some way distinct from non-living. Two hundred years of science show this not to be the case. But if you must believe in a soul - or whatever you want to call it - don't, please, pester scientists and other rational people with your fairy stories.

SoRB

To me, looking at the huge figures quoted above, and seeing as we are here I would hazardous a guess at saying that it would be unlikely that there ISN'T a good chance that a) we did come to exist through a quirk in the chemical make-up of the planet many years ago(more than 6000) and b) it's very likely that this has occurred elsewhere to some degree be it bacteria or sentient blobs.

Though I suppose knowing *something* about chance and probability gives me some 'intuition' to make this statement even though I can not prove it.

Has anyone heard of Carl Sagan's propsal of creature that populate Jupiter's clouds. They are said to consist of large slow moving grazers and big as Iceland and smaller faster hunters.
Aurthr C. Clarke (spelling?) mentioned them in his novel 2010.
Also other suggestion have been made. There is the Gaia hypothesis that the whole planet is a living entity.
Bob Forward has suggested "cheelas" that are flat beings made on a nuclei of atoms that live on the surfaces of neutron stars. Thier life depends on nuclear reactions rather tham chemistry.
There are suggestions of Dark Matter life forms that would be invisible to us and could pass through our bodies without being aware of them.
On the largest scale it has been suggested that the Universe is alive. The Universe forms black holes that bud off other universes. Those the form black holes are sucessful, those that don't a sterile. It quirk of physics means that out Universe can form black holes but also produces the right chemical for life like us.

"Has anyone heard of Carl Sagan's propsal of creature that populate Jupiter's clouds."

Yes, he mentions them in 'Cosmos' (1980). A couple of extracts:

"On a giant gas planet like Jupiter, with an atmosphere rich in hydrogen, helium, methane, water and ammonia, there is no accessible solid surface, but rather a dense, cloudy atmosphere in which organic molecules may be falling from the skies [....]. However, there is a characteristic impediment to life on such a planet: the atmosphere is turbulent, and deep down it is very hot. An organism must be careful that it is not carried down and fried."

"One way to make a living under these conditions is to reproduce before you are fried and hope that convection will carry some of your offspring to the higher band cooler layers of the atmosphere. Such organisms could be very little. We call them sinkers. But you could also be a floater, some vast hydrogen balloon pumping helium and heavier gases out of its interior and leaving only the lightest gas, hydrogen; or a hot-air balloon, staying buoyant by keeping your interior warm."

I daren't quote much more, but he does go on to say that he and his Cornell colleague E.E. Salpeter imagined floaters kilometers across, "enormously larger than the greatest whale that ever was, beings the size of cities".

Let's agree that a certain number of the greatest minds around buy into the abiogenesis idea, and a certain number don't. You can argue about the numbers, but this statement is true.

All of us on this forum to a greater or lesser degree are reliant on the work of such people to enlighten us. SoRB has mentioned "fallacy of authority", but does he not himself rely on the authority of others, or has he carried out his own experimentation in his own laboratory?

I don't dispute that, as I have conceded, many eminent scientists do believe that life was formed by chance. My point is simply that by no means all of them do.

Maybe I need to be more open-minded myself, and make more of an effort to learn more about the theory of abiogenesis, and time permitting I shall do so. At this stage, I'm not convinced, which I can see seems to have outraged a couple of people. But if I'm not convinced I'm not going to pretend I am, when I'm not.

Another thing I just thought of, regarding SoRB's car mechanic analogy in post 41. Some time back I was diagnosed with bronchitis. I had a chronic cough that I just couldn't shift. I saw several different doctors, who all concurred that it was bronchitis. None was able to cure it. Then I saw a new GP who said, "It's a mild form of asthma. Try a daily dose of inhaler for a couple of weeks". I could have said, "Nah mate, it's bronchitis. All the other doctors agree." But I tried what the new GP suggested, and it worked and the cough's gone.

The ONE doctor who had a different solution was the only one who had the right answer.

Been looking at Wikipedia:

"Abiogenesis remains a hypothesis, meaning it is the working assumption for scientists researching how life began."

Let's bear that in mind. It's not even admissable as a theory, it's an assumption.

"...If it were proven false, then another line of thought would be used to modify or replace abiogenesis as a hypothesis. If test results provide sufficient support for acceptance, then that is the point at which it would become a theory."

Got that? There is NO scientific consensus regarding the "theory" of abiogenesis. It's a hypothesis.

Further interesting information from Wikipedia on abiogenesis:

"The modern concept of abiogenesis has been criticized by scientists throughout the years. Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle did so based on the probability of abiogenesis actually occurring. Hubert Yockey did so by saying that it is closer to theology than science.

Other scientists have proposed counterpoints to abiogenesis, such as, Harold Urey, Stanley Miller, Francis Crick (a molecular biologist), and Leslie Orgel's Directed Panspermia theory."

"Let's agree that a certain number of the greatest minds around buy into the abiogenesis idea, and a certain number don't. You can argue about the numbers, but this statement is true."

Let's agree that a certain number of the greatest minds around buy into the idea that the earth is more or less spherical, and a certain number don't. You can argue about numbers, but this statement is also true.

"All of us on this forum to a greater or lesser degree are reliant on the work of such people to enlighten us. SoRB has mentioned "fallacy of authority", but does he not himself rely on the authority of others, or has he carried out his own experimentation in his own laboratory?"

The fallacy of authority is the fallacy of placing inordinate import on the say-so of a single authority, e.g. "it must be true because Crick says so and he's an authority".

It is NOT fallacy of authority to place importance on the general consensus of the vast majority of the scientific establishment. If it were, there would be no point HAVING a scientific establishment, and we'd all have to invent fire from first principles before we could make a cup of tea in the morning.

"many eminent scientists do believe that life was formed by chance."

Again with the fundamental misunderstanding of what abiogenesis is. It is NOT that "life was formed by chance". It is that life is the end result of a great deal of complex but understood chemistry. The only sense in which chance is a factor is in describing how likely it is to have occurred in any given collection of molecules in any given length of time. Lacking, as you clearly do, this basic piece of understanding, you cannot hope to meaningfully discuss this subject.

"My point is simply that by no means all of them do."

Indeed. Many so-called scientists have their objectivity blurred by the pernicious nonsense that is religious faith. It is no surprise that people who are brought up brainwashed to believe in the Bible have trouble reconciling their fairy stories with the real world. However, their difficulties have no bearing on anything outside their own heads.

"Maybe I need to be more open-minded myself, and make more of an effort to learn more about the theory of abiogenesis, and time permitting I shall do so."

Don't try to learn about it from wikipedia...

"At this stage, I'm not convinced, which I can see seems to have outraged a couple of people."

You aren't "not convinced". You're wilfully misrepresenting what it is, from a position of clear ignorance, and dishonestly pretending that a significant number of people who should know agree with you.

"But if I'm not convinced I'm not going to pretend I am, when I'm not."

Don't pretend you're convinced. Admit you don't know. It's not hard.



Regarding the doctor - fair enough, you got some duff doctors. But here's the thing - that asthma remedy was tested scientifically. It doesn't work because one or two eminent doctors say so.



>>"Abiogenesis remains a hypothesis, meaning it is the working assumption for scientists researching how life began."

>Let's bear that in mind. It's not even admissable as a theory, it's an assumption.

No. Be accurate. It's not AN assumption. It is THE working assumption. That's quite a difference, don't you think?

"...If it were proven false, then another line of thought would be used to modify or replace abiogenesis as a hypothesis. If test results provide sufficient support for acceptance, then that is the point at which it would become a theory."

Got that?"

I had "got that" before, WG, because I know the difference between a theory and hypothesis. You, however, clearly do not, because you go on to say...

"There is NO scientific consensus regarding the "theory" of abiogenesis. It's a hypothesis."

So... you've quoted yourself that it's THE working assumption for scientists, and yet you STILL maintain there is no scientific consensus. Think about that, about the blatant contradiction there, and you can see why you come across as not very smart.



"The modern concept of abiogenesis has been criticized by scientists throughout the years."

This is a good thing. Hypotheses require criticism, that's how science works. It's notable, however, that despite that criticism, YOU have pointed out that it remains THE working assumption for scientists working in this area.

"Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle did so based on the probability of abiogenesis actually occurring."

Unfortunately, Fred Hoyle isn't what I'd call a useful authority in this matter. For a start, your first word right there is a difficulty: ASTRONOMER Fred Hoyle criticises a hypothesis outside his own sphere of expertise. We're back to asking your doctor what's wrong with your car.

Second, Fred Hoyle is most famous as the most vocal proponent of the "steady state" theory. That, for those who do not remember, is the theory that the universe is static, and not expanding. Bear in mind that this WAS in his area of expertise. And he was wrong. Wronger than Wrong Ron McWrong, winner of last year's Mr. Wrong competition. Still want to use him as an authority?

"Hubert Yockey did so by saying that it is closer to theology than science."

Hubert Yockey has at least done actual work in the field of biology, and indeed has a point that the origin of life is unsolvable as a scientific problem (lacking a time machine). I disagree, on this point, however. I think it's unsolvable as a *mathematical* problem, because it will not admit to absolute proof. However, most problems in science are like that. The best you can do with most problems is give the best answer you can, and say "This answer is the best. It's probably right. It's closer to right than any other answer we can think of, and here's the evidence why." That really is the best you can do with almost everything in the world. And it's good enough, for most scientists.

It's notable that the people for whom it is NOT good enough, the people who demand certainty and rigid, absolute proof, are the people who get their taste for rigid certainties from Holy Scripture. The sad news is, the REAL world has no such certainties - which is presumably why they need the crutch of their religion to cope with it.

Some of us have no need of any such crutch. Good thing too.

You've an odd collection of people apparently opposed to abiogenesis:

"Harold Urey, Stanley Miller"

It was these guys' experiments that showed abiogenesis to be possible and credible. Not sure why they might oppose it...

"Francis Crick (a molecular biologist)"

Mentioned him already.

"and Leslie Orgel's Directed Panspermia theory."

Again with the panspermia thing. Panspermia, like the idea of a divine creator, does NOT do ANYTHING to answer the fundamental question of how life started.

All it does is move the question's location from the surface of the earth to out there in space.

If I ask "How did life on earth begin?", and you answer "It came from space." I'd have to be a particularly dull toddler not to immediately ask "How did life in space begin?". Which puts you back at square one. Doesn't it?

SoRB

Yeah, what he said, but less vitriolic .

WelshGenghis - it is of course commendable that you keep an open mind, and perhaps there is too little evidence to form a coherent theory on the origin of life, but ... there is such a thing as Occam's Razor.

If there is only one hypothesis that actually explains reality - without merely shifting the problem somewhere else - then there's a good chance that it's correct.

SoRB, you write:

"Let's agree that a certain number of the greatest minds around buy into the idea that the earth is more or less spherical, and a certain number don't. You can argue about numbers, but this statement is also true."

You're saying that some of the greatest minds around believe the earth is flat? Look, you're sounding silly now. Scientists don't question the earth is more or less spherical, but they do question the idea of abiogenesis.

A question for you SoRB: Is abiogenesis a theory, a hypothesis or a proven fact? Now I'm given to understand that it's merely a hypothesis and not even a theory, but you, who think you're so smart are behaving as if it were a proven fact.

"Is abiogenesis a theory, a hypothesis or a proven fact? Now I'm given to understand that it's merely a hypothesis and not even a theory, but you, who think you're so smart are behaving as if it were a proven fact."

You betray your ignorance by even talking about "proven facts".

Let me help you with the terminology here. I understand that it's difficult because there are three groups of people using the same words to mean different things.

For instance, the layman uses the word "theory" to describe his idea of how something might have happened. He'll say "it's just a theory", meaning "I haven't checked the facts yet, so I don't know if it's right". For instance: "my car won't start. Probably the head gasket, but that's just a theory".

The scientist uses exactly the same word, theory, to describe something quite different. When a scientist says "this is the theory", what he means is "this is the simplest, most elegant model which fits the evidence and makes accurate, testable predictions". For example: "the diversity of species we observe is due to evolution by natural selection. That is the theory which best explains the evidence." Evolution is a theory in precisely the same way that, for instance, quantum theory is a theory and relativity is a theory - which is to say that there is a veritable mountain of experimental evidence in its favour, every time it's tested it's right, and nobody has ever found a counter example.

The religious person uses the word theory to deride something they find threatening to their world view. They do so dishonestly, hoping that the listener will not understand the difference between the common meaning of the word "theory" and the specific, much stronger scientific jargon meaning of the same word. "Evolution is just a theory", they crow, as though that somehow places it on something like the same level as their fairy stories. In my experience, they do so KNOWING the technical usage of the word when applied to evolution, and are therefore guilty of deliberate lying, rather than simply being mistaken. (Of course, some religious people are not so well educated, and may possibly be permitted some sympathy for their ignorance, on the condition of course that they do not reject its correction).



A hypothesis, on the other hand, is something you come up with the to explain something that you don't have sufficient experimental evidence for.

Hypotheses are the necessary precursors of theory. Evolution by natural selection began life as a hypothesis, as did relativity. Only after exhaustive testing can something ascend to the status of theory.

The initial lack of evidence may be due to the phenomenon being something new, a new idea, perhaps. It may be due to the necessity to make finer measurements than are currently possible. (E.g. the Higgs Boson is at the stage of being a hypothesis right now, because we don't possess a particle accelerator with a high enough energy to test the idea. We will soon, though, and if the results are right the Higgs Boson will pass from hypothesis to theory). Lack of evidence may also occur because one is trying to explain a unique event. The best one can do in such circumstances is give the very best approximation possible. This is, in essence, no different than measuring something in the present - the best approximation possible. The only difference is a philosophical one. One can state with certainty, for instance, the life DID have an origin. One cannot, however, EVEN IN PRINCIPLE, "prove" what that origin was, without a time machine. But this should not be a concern - because one cannot, even in principle, "prove" that gravitation behaves according to the theory of relativity. One can only SHOW that, to the best of our ability to measure it, the theory agrees with reality. No "proof" is possible, even in principle, which is why scientists, who are more concerned with accuracy of jargon than the layman or the dishonest religious person, use the word "theory" so assiduously.

You have yourself already stated that abiogenesis has the status of hypothesis, and that at that status it is THE working assumption of all scientists working in this area.

If you are of even moderate intelligence, you should be able to see that this is the highest status that it can ever attain, even in principle. That's as good as it gets in science, and deriding it for being "only a hypothesis" merely exposes your ignorance.



Here's another analogy. I've a hypothesis that a man named Jesus existed, some time about 2000 years ago in the middle east. I have a little bit of evidence - a few translations of translations of translations of old, old books that talk about him. It's pretty poor evidence, unfortunately. Still, my hypothesis stands. It's questionable whether it's possible, even in principle, to gather enough evidence of his existence to make it stand up as even a theory. Could it EVER be a "proven fact" (your term)? How could you PROVE the existence of someone who's dead? Even in principle?

Serious question.

SoRB

SoRB

Fair point about "proven fact". As you say, theories which are pretty much accepted universally (such as Einstein's relativaty theories) remain theories.

But you seem not to be as assiduous as the scientists in distinguishing between abiogenesis as a theory or a hypothesis. You say that's as good as it gets in science, but surely one day experiments may be able to demonstrate that it is valid as a theory. Do we really need a time machine to do this? After all, if life can spontaneously form, then it should be possible to recreate the process.

However, for the time being it remains a hypothesis. Let's be honest about that, while accepting that it's not insignificant that it is "the working hypothesis" of scientists. I did say "merely a hypothesis" to underline the fact that it's not a theory, and therefore you should not behave as if it were not open to question. You seem to get very agitated that someone questions abiogenesis, but why can't they when scientists themselves (not "so-called scientists", but scientists) do. You seem to want to jump the gun, treating abiogenesis as if it were already a theory.

About Jesus, we can only look at the historical evidence, or invent a time machine to go back and check.

" if life can spontaneously form, then it should be possible to recreate the process. "

Not necessarily.

Bear in mind that although the individual steps may themselves have taken fractions of a second, the progress from "nearly alive" to "barely alive" to "recognisably alive" may have taken not merely hundreds or thousands but hundreds of thousands of years.

We've only even realised that life is basically complicated chemistry for a couple of hundred years, and only really taken the first proper stabs at understanding that chemistry within the last fifty.

Also, and this is an equally important point, even if we do, eventually, manage to create for ourselves, from entirely non-living ingredients, a living thing in a lab, that will do nothing to prove abiogenesis. As I said - it is impossible to prove it, even in principle. It is possible to demonstrate a mechanism which MAY have been the one, and it's possible in principle to be pretty certain it's the one. But "proof" is forever beyond our reach, because we're talking about a specific event - the start of life on THIS planet - rather than a class of events - the start of life in general.

I AM assiduous in my depiction of abiogenesis as an hypothesis. But it's true that that is as good as it gets for past specific events. You cannot gather sufficient evidence about that event to advance it to the stage of theory, I think.

SoRB

A hypothosis is what scientists do since they can't come up with conclusions. They make a hyptohosis and then work to prove or disprove it.
Saying how can you prove someone who's dead. We can prove the existance of Einstein and Jesus made much more of an impact than Einstein. Also don't talk about translations of translations of translation to make it seam that thing we're changes in the process. We still have orginal Greek available so we know how accurate the translations are.

What you seam to have been doing recently is argueeing a point that have gone to the point of what a word means. BUY A DICTIONARY and work from there. I'm sure there is a word page somewhere on H2G2. Why not take your argument there and leave this space for what it was designed for.
We here to talk about life on other planets. You're argueeing about words when there much more interesting points to discuess.

Maybe there is something to be said for the babel after all.