Our Universe: unfit for life? (Earth just might be the exception to the rule)

Hotair ^ | 09/21/2011 | Jazz Shaw

[SeekAndFind]

Dartmouth College theoretical physicist Marcelo Gleiser has an interesting essay this week which deals with the possibility of life around the universe and, more to the point, what such life might be like. It was spurred by the recent discovery of one of the most promising possible Earth-like worlds yet, orbiting in the “Goldilocks zone” of its parent star, where water could exist in liquid form. As more and more of these planets are identified, scientists will be focusing their search for possible forms of intelligent life in those regions of the galaxy.

But if life exists, Gleiser wonders, would it necessarily have advanced to a state of technological intelligence the same way it happened here on Earth? Dr. Gleiser thinks we might not want to get our hopes up too far. Many of his colleagues assume that the Universe is “just right for life” because it happened here, but we may be the exception to the rule.

The assumption here is that if physics and chemistry are the same then biology will develop. When we think alien life we are thinking in terms of Darwinian evolution via natural selection, which is a very good bet. Of course, we will only know for sure once we discover a sample of alien life, study its genetics, etc. But it’s hard to think that the very general principles set forth by Darwin won’t apply to other forms of life. If there are multiple life forms and limited resources, the rest will follow.

Of course, that says nothing of the particulars of possible alien life. A very clear distinction must be made between simple, unicellular life and more complex life forms. It’s hard to doubt that Earth is the only planet where life took hold. After all, we have seen how resilient it is here, with extremophiles defying our previously held assumptions of where life can thrive. However, there is a huge difference between simple life and complex life. Contrary to what many believe, evolution doesn’t lead to complex life forms: evolution leads to well-adapted life forms.

I’ve heard this argument made before and, as depressing as it may be, it carries a lot of weight. Some very well respected biologists have claimed that life on Earth only made the jump from what essentially amounted to little more than pond scum to more complex, multicellular forms through a rather remarkable and stressful series of events.

The theory, in short form, is that simple, unicellular life which thrives in a given climate has absolutely no reason to make the jump to something more complex and unlikely if the prevailing conditions are allowing it to succeed just fine as it is. A drastic change in environmental factors is required to challenge the organism and create the opportunity for something new and improved to adapt. But the catch is, if the environmental change is too drastic and harsh, the life form simply dies off and the process has to begin all over again. (Or have life disappear entirely.)

Should we develop the technology to get a really good look at any of these Goldilocks worlds, will we find ET hard at work building a rocket? Or even something as advanced as a cow? Or is it far more likely, as Dr. Gleiser seems to suspect, that we’ll find worlds covered in green slime which have dominated their environment and never found a need to advance further?

[DManA]

Odds say there is sentient life somewhere else in the universe.

We can’t rationally asses the odds because despite some imaginative guesses we don’t know how life begins. And we currently can’t imagine any kind of life except our own DNA based life though we don’t know that it’s the only basis of life.

[GonzoGOP]

While there are probably an incredible number of planets in the Universe, the probability for conditions and the sequence of events needed for intelligent life is incredibly small.

One way to look at it is basic life vs intelligent life. We have had a good loo at 8 planets and their moons. Of those we have one direct hit (Earth) one near miss (Mars) and one probable (Europa). 2.5 out of 8 for doesn't seem like bad odds. But two could never develop advanced life. Life on Europa (if it exists) can't get out of the oceans. Life on Mars (if it ever existed) was snuffed out when the planet lost its atmosphere due to a lack of plate tectonics and strong magnetic field.

Besides in evolutionary terms being smart isn't much of an advantage. Ants are a much more successful animal group than hominids. All the tool using hominid species except one have gone extinct. And we came within a few individuals of going away after the Toba eruption There are thousands of species of ants. And none are even threatened despite our best efforts to wipe some of them out.

From an evolutionary standpoint hominids are a dead end. Always just one catastrophe from the big dark. Sponges, crabs, ants, termites and cockroaches. Now those are some serious success stories right there. Asteroids, ice ages, super volcanoes, nothing stops the bugs. Brains, in evolution it turns out they aren't all that necessary for success. In fact their requirement for high metabolism and lots of protein make them a definite liability.

[count-your-change]

Much speculation has been bandied about over the conditions necessary for life to arise. If no one knows what those conditions are then no one can say whether conditions somewhere else are suitable for life to begin.

It’s one thing to study an engine that is already running and quite another to figure how to build and start it up.

[AnglePark]

I actually think the professor is wrong.

We see patterns repeated throughout the natural world, and now that we can glimpse further and further out there — into the natural universe — we continue to see patterns repeated.

Life is a part of the natural universe; we wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t. There is absolutely nothing to suggest it shouldn’t fall under the same natural repetition seen in planetary systems, stars, and galaxies.

While sentient life may be rare, I think the universe is teeming with life, and that some of that life is sentient. If we’re ever fortunate enough to discover advanced life, I think we ‘ll be more amazed that it seems so familiar.

[Happy Rain]

The odds of intelligent life developing anywhere is about the same as 100 monkeys at 100 typewriters banging out the complete works of Shakespeare before three billion years are up.

[Moonman62]

Always just one catastrophe from the big dark. Sponges, crabs, ants, termites and cockroaches. Now those are some serious success stories right there. Asteroids, ice ages, super volcanoes, nothing stops the bugs.

Or Keith Richards.

I enjoyed your post.

Just for fun, look up Enceladus. Some scientists think life is more likely there than Europa.

[chesley]

Well, first we have to find life elsewhere. Otherwise, this is just an interesting discussion.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: The odds of intelligent life developing anywhere is about the same as 100 monkeys at 100 typewriters banging out the complete works of Shakespeare before three billion years are up.

__________________________________________________________________________

What about the odds of intelligent life having developed here on earth?

[chesley]

Yeah?

But who wants to be a sponge, a crab, an ant, a termite, or God help us, a cockroach? Where’s the fun in that?

[chesley]

What about the odds of intelligent life having developed here on earth?

Call me when that happens. The definitive test will be when socialist ideas die out completely and are not just repackaged.

I won't hold my breath.

[dangerdoc]

Those were our ancestors. Every bit as smart and industrious as any people alive today, why in the world could they not figure out how to stack stone without outside help?

[GonzoGOP]

But who wants to be a sponge, a crab, an ant, a termite, or God help us, a cockroach? Where’s the fun in that?

OK I get not wanting to be a sponge, because living next to that starfish would drive me nuts. But cockroach world domination could be quite entertaining. Kind of like San Francisco, except with lower taxes a viable economy. Seriously would you rather live next to a roach or a hippie. With the hippie you have the bad music, pot smoke, demands for high taxes, and you end up with roaches anyway. With the roaches at least you don't end up with hippies, and the impact on your property values is a lot less. And the roaches don't smell nearly as bad a hippies.

Heck giving LA or Detroit to the roaches would be a definite improvement. Finally Cyber Roach has disco lights right on his head so you know he has to be fun at a party.

[Sherman Logan]

Venus is just on the inner edge of the solar system’s Goldilocks Zone, and Mars is just outside it.

No chance of life as we know it on Venus, despite its being almost the same size as Earth, and little chance on Mars.

[HenpeckedCon]

I agree with your premise that sentient life exists elsewhere. The Universe is a very big place, but I personally believe that interstellar space travel is impossible and always will be so.

[chesley]

Well, you’re right, of course. The cockroach is not only cleaner than the hippie, but more intelligent and less annoying. That last applies to any liberal, naturally, even if they are a little cleaner.

[Texas Songwriter]

save

[bvw]

Examine this statement:

Evolution doesn’t lead to complex life forms: evolution leads to well-adapted life forms.

First off, I am not sure it means anything. It is simply redefining "evolution" as "adaptation".

Living things adapt to the varying dynamics of external and internal drivers within an ecological system. Just as a designer evolves his designs as the system and it's purpose and needs are understood, as the practical realities impacting the designed thing are discovered, living things also evolve within their wide-abilities as built in by their Creator. And sometimes, rarely, our Creator, the Everpresent, reaches right in and modifies the designed artifact. At all times the design reflects the intent and creations of the Designer.

[Mr. K]

only by physics that we know right now- and we do not know a lot

FTL travel is mathematically possible

And besides- Bob Lazaar worked on FTL alien spacecraft at Groom Lake

[Mr. K]

See?

[Mr. K]

I am going to prove time travel is possible - I am going to go back in time and post BEFORE this...