Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Small Thought About Some Big Numbers
I’ve mentioned before that I don’t find the thought of life originating and evolving on Earth through purely naturalistic processes incredible. Five hundred million years — the approximate time we think it took life to get a figurative toehold on our cooling orb — is a long time: multiply that by the number of ponds and puddles and deep ocean vents and, well, there are a lot of places where naturally occurring lipids might self-organize, as lipids do, into little test tubes in which organic molecules can dance.
I find it entirely plausible that that’s what happened.
But I realized today that I’ve been looking at the numbers wrong. Yes, a half a billion years on Earth is a lot of time for chemicals to slosh around, but nonetheless that’s really a drop in the bucket — no, a drop in the ocean.
No, far less than a drop in the ocean.
There’s no reason to think only of the opportunities for life to appear on Earth. More sensible is to think of the opportunities for life to appear anywhere, because, wherever it appeared, that’s the place from which we’ll end up marveling at its improbability.
About a billion lightyears from Earth is a cluster of galaxies named Able 2029. One of the galaxies in that cluster goes by the poetic name IC 1101. It’s the biggest galaxy of which we’re aware, containing on the order of one hundred trillion stars.
That’s 100,000,000,000,000 stars.
In comparison, our own galaxy, the Milky Way, contains a mere quarter of a trillion stars.
There are well over two hundred billion galaxies. Ours is unexceptional — other than being the only one, as far as we know, that contains life.
We now think that most stars probably have planets. Recently, scientists decided that the so-called “Goldilocks zone,” the range of orbits about a star in which the temperature might be “just right” for water to exist as a liquid, is probably much broader than we originally thought. (This has to do with atmospheric dynamics of planets considerably larger than Earth.)
The universe is pretty young (at least it seems that way to me), less than 15 billion years old: life on Earth has been around for more than 20% of the age of the universe. But our sun isn’t a first-generation star: there have been at least two or three generations of stars before ours, perhaps more. So that’s a lot more stars than “merely” the 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars we can see on a clear night. (I kid, of course, but that’s a rough approximation of how many we think are out there.) So double that number to account for those stars that have come and gone before us.
That’s an awful lot of stars with an awful lot of planets. Multiply that by half a billion years, to give life a chance to start. Think of all those ponds and puddles and deep ocean vents.
Given all that, while I find it wonderful and beautiful and deeply moving that life exists at all, I don’t find it surprising.
Published in Science & Technology
I don’t want to derail your thread (honestly, I don’t), but this prompt a question to me. If there is no purpose, are moral constraints (in your understanding) merely external, socially-constructed, and pragmatic; internal and evolutionarily developed; something else?
I can’t imagine how such an inconsequential question could in any way derail a thread the topic of which is a minor rumination about the surprisingly large numbers of puddles in the universe. ;)
Okay, I’ll bite.
Just what do you mean, specifically, when you say “moral constraints?”
Is everyone constrained by moral constraints, in the sense that everyone is constrained by, say, gravity?
Societies seem to share certain moral scruples. CS Lewis called it the Tao, others may call it natural law, etc.
Although applications of the scruples vary, they largely fall into the categories of not wrongfully taking human life, not taking what is not yours, tell the truth to those entitled to the truth, etc. As you understand things, are those shared moral priorities a feature of in-born evolutionary development, an outgrowth of our development seen to be a practical benefit, or something else?
It’s a fascinating question, and one the naturalists and positivists have been kicking around forever, right?
My own suspicion is that much of what we intuitively consider morally correct is evolved, our moral sense being a mechanism that makes it easier for us to thrive in communities. Once the practice developed of codifying moral principles into law the gates were opened for a lot of other things to travel under the guise of “morality,” some of those things probably having more to do with feathering the nest of whoever was doing the law-writing, so it’s probably worthwhile to pick particular examples when talking about moral constraints.
Humans are unequalled in their social intelligence, but not infallible. We’re infinitely adaptable, yet we are not precient, and we are forced to share habitat with others. The larger our communities become, the more difficult it is to adapt and share, and the more we are threatened by other communities who decide it is better to raid than to produce. Our “moral constraints” are the conventions, rules and guideposts that keep those within a community from threatening others. To avoid chaos, we must keep the peace and enforce order.
Hence the cowboy hat. Am I right?
Plus, it looks good and the girls like it. What you don’t see is the Tanqueray on the rocks with lime in my left hand.
Henry, as I’ve commented on the other thread, our empirical evidence is consistent insofar as life comes from life and never from non-life. The challenge isn’t supposing that nature might somewhere other than Earth produce lipids. The hurdle is going from non-living lipids to a living organism. They can “dance” all they want, but our experience shows that they won’t somehow become alive anymore than water will flow uphill. Adding a billion or a zillion more planets and stars won’t help. Water flows downhill on all those planets and life, if it is present, would have come from life on them. At least, we have zero empirical evidence for supposing any other thing.
Yes, we have never observed life arising from non-life. I think it’s probably very rare.
No, our experience doesn’t show that, any more than our experience shows that man won’t somehow land on Mars. All our experience shows us is that we haven’t yet experienced it.
If it is actually impossible, then you are correct. If it is merely very, very improbable, then you’re likely mistaken.
Arguing that life can not arise through chance because we have not seen it happen isn’t compelling: there are lots of things we’ve never seen but will one day see.
Arguing that life can not arise through chance because life can not arise through chance is circular, and similarly not compelling.
Arguing that life can not arise through chance because the required chemical steps simply can not occur without direction invites the question: which steps, specifically, can not occur by chance, and why?
Arguing that life can not arise through chance because, while perhaps possible, it is simply too improbable invites the question: just how improbable is it, and how do we know? This is a mathematical argument, so let’s see the numbers.
Arguing that life can not occur through chance because there is a divine spark to life that only the Creator can imbue is to make a theological argument. I’m willing to accept that that argument, while unanswerable, is made in good faith, to agree to disagree, and to wish my interlocutor well.
Refute the refuting refuters before they refute you!
And unanswerable.
Also quite persuasive.
What makes you think it is possible at all? My argument is that all the evidence we have indicates that it is not possible, so we should accept that conclusion until proven otherwise. I’m open to having my mind changed, but the conclusion that it’s “probably very rare” is simply unsupported by any evidence.
We have experience traveling from one place to another, both on this planet and beyond it. Traveling to Mars is just another instance of doing what we have already done. It’s a simple change of place. And there is nothing special about Mars as a place that would make going to it problematic, other than that it is very far away.
But the transition from non-life to life is not a trivial change like a change of place, just another instance of something we have already done. It is far more significant than that, and it is a change we have not seen in nature nor been able to replicate in the lab.
J Climacus (View Comment):
Adding a billion or a zillion more planets and stars won’t help.
You seem to take it that the burden of proof is on me to prove that it is impossible. Otherwise, we have to grant your position that is merely very improbable. I think that is unscientific. All the evidence we have supports the impossibility of the transition, so the “default” case is that it is impossible until proven otherwise. Just as I think it impossible, not merely “very rare”, that water flows uphill. I don’t have to prove it is impossible that water might flow uphill somewhere on the other side of the universe. All the evidence we have indicates that it can’t.
Actually the case with respect to life is worse than my analogy with water flowing uphill. Scientists can pump water uphill, so we can at least do it artificially. But not only do we not see life coming from non-life in nature, but scientists can’t do it in the lab either. There is just no reason to think it is at all possible.
Yes, if you wish to claim that it is impossible, the burden of proof is on you.
I’m not claiming that it’s possible. I’m just saying that it seems the most likely explanation, to me. It hasn’t been proved to be possible; nor has it been proved to be impossible. So you’re welcome to say you suspect it’s impossible; I’ll continue to say the opposite.
As for progression (e.g., as in travel to Mars being a progression of other travel):
We do all kinds of chemical manipulations today. We can do wonders with inert, non-living chemicals.
We can also fiddle with the biology of living organisms. We can modify, snip, replace their DNA, cut cells in half, create chimeras.
Your objection seems to be to the transition from non-living to living. Given that we have a progression of skill in manipulating both non-living and living material, presumably your objection enters the picture when we try to make that critical step, at that instance when our engineered chemistry becomes an engineered life.
What is that point? Do you know what is distinct between those chemicals that are just to the inanimate side of the line, and those chemicals just to the living side of the line? What kind of change occurred at that moment? Was it a chemical change? An electrical change? A spiritual change?
Is there one particular step that you think we can’t achieve and, if so, what is it, and why not?
We haven’t found a unicorn yet, so I’m thinking that it’s existence is probably very rare. I think that is most likely correct and if you think that it is impossible for it to exist, you must prove it. It is not on me to demonstrate that the existence of unicorns is very rare. You must prove they do not exist.
That’s right. I’m a refutesnik.
I disagree with your claim that our experience so far entitles a presumption of impossibility.
I would put the onus on proving it is impossible. Until then, it is not too much to say that may be possible.
Given the rest of the history of science and a material view of the world, this makes it a worthy (if difficult) line of inquiry. Also, the pervasive overlap between physics and biology strongly justifies a presumption that in this too, the overlap will hold.
But you give no evidence for thinking that it is likely, or even, possible. Frankly, it is just a wish. All the evidence we have indicates that it is impossible. That’s the difference between us: I’m not just saying it is impossible: I am drawing a conclusion based on the available evidence.
Yes, that’s the step. All the evidence we have indicates that life only comes from life. The evidence is that life is a different kind of thing from non-living matter, and you don’t get life from non-life anymore than you get water running uphill.
This principle was, in fact, one of the significant findings of modern science. The ancients and medievals thought that maggots spontaneously arose in dead flesh or that diseases sprang forth from miasma. When modern science studied things more closely, and discovered the principle that life only comes from life, the health sciences and management of disease took a great leap forward.
I see no need to engage in speculation about what happened in the distance past. I have no idea how life came to be on this planet or anywhere else. What I do know is that the available evidence all supports the conclusion that life only comes from life.
It seems like your position is driven by the materialistic philosophical belief that life must be reducible to non-life. I can see why, based on that philosophy, you take it for granted that life must have arisen from non-life sometime in the distance past. But that’s a philosophical conclusion, not a scientific one.
These threads sure do go in crazy directions.
To be fair, the claim you are making is more like this:
“Because we have never seen a unicorn, it is impossible that a unicorn ever existed or ever could exist.”
That’s the strong claim that you are making. And it’s not a claim I think one can defend scientifically or logically. I mean, assuming that by unicorn we mean a horse with a horn.
So you believe it is possible for unicorns, the Loch Ness monster, big foot, and dragons to exist?
Sorry to harp, but you’re doing the exact opposite. Actually “All” the evidence that you are looking at shows that material explanations, physics, will suffice to operate every single piece of the biological world observed so far. When have we ever observed a supernatural phenomenon required to operate some biological process? Where is this evidence that anything —ever — is simply beyond explanation without resort to a special intervention from beyond? (Let us please exclude questions of purpose for now, as a separate topic).
I suspect that it is possible, given enough billions of years and enough planets, for any biologically possible form to arise somewhere. I don’t know that magic dragons are possible – I kind of think not. And Loch Ness is a specific place that doesn’t contain any monsters as far as we know, so time is running out for something to evolve to fill that niche.
But seriously, who can look out at 1 trillion trillion stars and say “nowhere out there in all of those worlds is it possible that there is something that we would call a unicorn, nor can there ever be?” Is the thought of a horse with a horn so outrageous that we can’t imagine such a thing evolving?
Now, we have evidence that life exists, so I am on firmer ground hypothesizing a natural mechanism that brought it into existence. We have proof of that outcome, and now we are merely quibbling about the possibility of various means of achieving it.
I’m not declaring abiogenesis possible. I’m merely saying that I see no reason to believe that it is impossible, and quite a lot of reason to think it probably happened.
God probably does exist, then.
Three of them are certainly possible, and for various values of “dragon,” it’s a clean sweep.
A horse could have a horn. We would probably not call it a horse anymore if it turned out to be a genetic trait. Some other name, perhaps…
Large apes exist, but I don’t think they are in the PNW. Plesiosaurs used to be a thing. I doubt there is one in Loch Mess. Various terrible reptiles have existed and some have flown, but if breathing fire is a requirement, then I’d say no.
Wow, so you’ve been converted? Hallelujah!
Not to where you are, that’s for sure. Just trying to wrap my head around what goes on in yours and HR’s that unicorns are possible but that God isn’t.
I have not invoked the supernatural, nor am I claiming life requires a supernatural explanation. I am drawing a straightforward conclusion from the available evidence: Life comes from life, and does not come from non-life.
It’s fascinating that Henry’s suspicion here is a subset of a more general, and ancient, philosophical view of the “eternal return.” If the world has always existed, and will always exist, then every possible event, no matter how improbable, will eventually happen. In fact, it will happen an infinite number of times in the “eternal return.” Similarly, if the universe consists of trillions of planets existing for billions of years (and we take the materialist assumption that life is just a particular molecular arrangement of matter, not different in kind than inanimate matter) then every possible lifeform will arise somewhere. Or, at least, a lot of them will, since the universe in this case is just really big and old, not actually infinite.
I may not be able to respond on this thread for some time, or before it goes stale, and I don’t want people to think I’m ignoring them. Henry, thanks for the thought provoking post!