My bet is we aren’t Martians either. My bet is DNA came from outside our solar system.
The problem, as I see it, is that life on Earth emerged within 800 million years or less of the Earth’s formation, when the planet was a pretty volatile place. Mars is only 100 million years older.
DNA as a self-reproducing molecule is fabulously complex. I have trouble imagining DNA “evolved” (scare quotes because this isn’t Darwinian evolution) from basic compounds in less than 800 million years or half that.
Of course, that’s my gut sense. Several hundred million years is a long time and maybe something like DNA can develop that quickly. However, DNA is not just some molecule, it’s a molecule with a reproductive mechanism and effectively a programming language.
It seems much more likely to me that DNA had several billion years to develop in an older solar system and it is durable enough to survive long interstellar voyages.
Martians? No.
Monsters? Yes.
It’s fairly well established that Mars was once warmer and wetter. Martian life in the past is certainly plausible. But seeding the earth?
Huxley has an interesting point. The organic components of DNA and RNA are easily made in nature. Getting them to assemble into a replicating molecule like DNA is another aspect. That seems to be the big question in molecular biology.
Day 4 with no power. Neversource is such a great company (sarc). And in CT we pay the highest electric rate in the country.
I have had discussions with my wife, who buys into the visitors from outer space theme. I maintain that it is logically impossible for a Christian to believe that. Simply put, it is inconsistent with the whole theme of the Old Testament of the Bible; not to mention the New. So, I should think it would hold true for Judaism as well. I won’t speak for other religions, because I am not well enough versed.
We have had similar discussions about whether pets have souls, and whether they will greet us in Heaven.
She doesn’t refute my logic; just says I am wrong. LOL.
We aren’t Martians.
We’re the Klingons. My theory is we’re the big, dangerous barbaric race (compared to those little gray aliens of UFO lore). We’ve been quarantined and embargoed, for lack of better terms, and that explains the Fermi Paradox.
All those other races shudder at the thought of savage, resourceful humans getting their hands on an interstellar drive. Until an existential threat from another galaxy appears. And the peaceful, advanced aliens who have forgotten war, might need to take some drastic measures.
“Give those evolved apes weapons and starships?!?! Are you out of your mind?!”
At least, that’s the premise of the Science Fiction trilogy I have almost finished writing! Kind of inspired by Pohl’s The High Crusade.
physicsguy: Thanks for “self-replicating.” Better than “self-reproducing.”
The theory of life beginning on Mars doesn’t answer any foundational questions about why life exists at all and who (in my opinion) created it. I hope they have fun arguing about it.
physicsguy, I had to look up Eversource. — My experience living in CT was that they don’t ever trim the trees and are then astounded when the trees come down in storms and take out power lines. Around here, where we’ve had lots of outages, Duke Power has been aggressively trimming along the major distribution lines.
Are we Martians? Sheb Wooley had a more appropriate question. Are we Purple People Eaters? ?
(Erick, Oklahoma was the home of both Roger Miller and Sheb Wooley. Lot of music for such a small town.)
The theory of life beginning on Mars doesn’t answer any foundational questions about why life exists at all and who (in my opinion) created it.
Kate: Agreed.
If DNA is found on Mars or Martian rocks, it doesn’t even answer the question of where DNA started (leaving aside my interstellar hypothesis). Given the different gravity wells on Earth and Mars, plus the Sun’s gravity, more likely DNA started on Mars, but not definitively.
The Earth could have experienced impact events of sufficient force to knock chunks off the Earth, which make their way to Mars. It’s not likely, but it could happen. Just as bits of Venus or Mercury could reach Earth (though none yet have been identified).
In any event the real issue is how the heck did DNA happen in the first place and that’s a hot potato evolutionists won’t touch beyond mumbling about the “RNA World.”
I’m not an Intelligent Design guy and I don’t argue that there must be a God because of the Gaps, but there are gaps and I would like to see them filled in, rather than hand-waved away.
huxley, I believe God created because I cannot bring myself to believe that all this complexity arose entirely at random. But either my way, your way, or some other, crystals from Mars aren’t much of an explanation.
Kate: Well, I don’t entirely leave out God or some Intelligence far vaster than we humans comprehend. I’d just rather not go there right off the bat.
However, at every level — the existence of the universe, the beginning of life, and the evolution of life — it’s hard for me to credit some sort of evolutionary randomness as the answer. It all looks so terribly unlikely.
The current scientific solution is that there are a google-zillion universes so, even with near infinite odds against this universe which supports you and I having a conversation, it had to happen somewhere. So there!
To me that choice is between believing in a God I can’t scientifically sense and believing in a google-zillion universes I can’t scientifically sense. I call it a draw.
Huxley — Of course I believe in the multiverse theory — just ask a Democrat whether Mueller proved Trump to have colluded with Russia, and you’ll get an answer which is obviously based on a different reality than ours!
huxley: “I’m not an Intelligent Design guy and I don’t argue that there must be a God because of the Gaps, but there are gaps and I would like to see them filled in, rather than hand-waved away.”
physicsguy: “The organic components of DNA and RNA are easily made in nature. Getting them to assemble into a replicating molecule like DNA is another aspect. That seems to be the big question in molecular biology.”
I concur. One aspect that I believe should receive even greater attention in the various stages in the formation of life is the role of catalytic surfaces and/or localized catalytic molecules to reduce the free energy differences between states and enhance or augment reactions that might seem difficult to occur otherwise. This idea is clearly not new with me but may deserve to be considered more widely by researchers. This also reduces the “complexity” factor if a series of intermediate reaction stages can be hypothesized (by someone who knows a lot more about biochemistry than I do) to eventually build up to the more complex case. Or does that idea qualify as a hand wave?
Thus I can accept the likelihood that life did form on Earth rather than being transferred from elsewhere. The path from inorganic to organic to bio chemistry has plenty of opportunities to occur here. And an 800 million year period might not be too short if we consider reaction rate opportunities (trial molecular interactions) as occurring at 100 to one million times per second. The potential for autobiogenesis seems great enough that we do not need multiple universes to find just this one where it can occur.
I don’t give much credence to ideas that forming life involved/ involves quantum level physics or chemistry, aside from generating random mutations via cosmic or earthly radiation. Everything is basically happening in the electromagnetic realm of chemistry.
Let me also put in a good word for the beauty of evolution as the random (passive) generation of options from which the best solution for continued survival or existence within a given environment can occur (be selected). This can apply at the precursor molecular level as well as via RNA/ DNA/ gene level changes. If there is an Intelligent Designer, that may very well have been His design solution. Thereby the purpose of life is life (continued).
But for this blog, maybe a better question is why don’t the Leftists get a life of their own, and leave the rest of us alone? Or go to Mars and turn it into a blue planet rather than a red one.
DNA by itself doesn’t have much significance without a translation system, which means external protein structures to process the ‘code’, so to speak. (huxley’s point about the programming language – a kind of nifty way of thinking about it)
What about the catalytic tRNA structures that are posited? Just throwing those out there.
For my own part, I feel I can confidently say that I am not a Martian. I also don’t know anyone from there.
As far as I can tell, no one really has a handle on my question of whether there has been sufficient time for life to emerge and enough time for emerged life to evolve into intelligent creatures such as ourselves.
I see no reason to suppose life couldn’t emerge/evolve under current physical laws. It just seems unlikely to me that it could do so in the time scales of millions and billions of years allotted given randomness.
I’m a computer programmer, I have no idea whether “catalytic surfaces and/or localized catalytic molecules” etc might make the path to emergent life short enough for our purposes.
However, as a programmer, I notice DNA is a sort of computer with its own machine language and running specific, incredibly complex, programs — something way beyond, say, the ATP cycle. How does the DNA computer emerge over time from the random combinations of relatively simple organic molecules?
There have been efforts to simulate Darwinian evolution on computers. I first heard of this back in the 90s. Like AI in the 50s/60s there was optimism that this mission was straightforward, but those hopes have not yet been vindicated.
Here’s a series of articles from an evolution-skeptic site:
AesopFan: I was excited back in 2012 when a young biologist claimed to have discovered a form of life in Mono Lake in which its DNA used arsenic instead of phosphorus. Super cool.
Well, it turned out that the organism required shockingly low amounts of phosphorus and tolerated arsenic well, but it was not some new alien DNA.
Great. Amidst all this intelligent, educated discourse, I’m sitting here singing “Purple People Eater” to myself.
Along with everything that needs to be explained about the mystery of life, we need to recognize the fact that in a space smaller than would fit in a football, we have something going on that can see the words “Purple People Eater” and, just from memory, can start singing a song I haven’t heard in decades, with all the words and melody, including changing my voice to chant “He wears short shorts!” just the way they did in the song.
Incredible.
Huxley,
David Gelernter addressed some of your questions about DNA and time in his essay at the Claremont Review of Books Spring 2019. Sorry I can’t make the link work – it’s titled ‘Giving Up Darwin’. Manhattan Contrarian had a post about it as well, you can find it there, too.
Molly Brown: Thanks for reminding me of the Gelernter article. It’s in my Evernote file and this link still works:
The article is based on Stephen Meyer’s “Doubting Darwin,” which I checked out of the library. I followed subsequent debate on the web and wasn’t much impressed with the Neo-Darwinists, though they seemed impressed with themselves.
I may revisit Stephen Meyer.
Whatever our ultimate origins, this passage in James Hillman’s book “In Search: Psychology & Religion” struck me as useful as a way of understanding many of the things we are witnessing in this day and age–
“Anthropologists describe a condition among “primitive” people called “loss of soul.” In this condition a man is out of himself, unable to find either the outer connection between humans or the inner connection to himself. He is unable to take part in his society, its rituals, and traditions. They are dead to him, he to them. His connection to family, totem, nature, is gone. Until he regains his soul he is not a true human. He is “not there.” It is as if he had never been initiated, been given a name, come into real being. His soul may not only be lost; it may also be possessed, bewitched, ill, transposed into an object, animal, place, or another person. Without this soul, he has lost the sense of belonging and the sense of being in communion with the powers and the gods. They no longer reach him; he cannot pray, nor sacrifice, nor dance. His personal myth and his connection to the larger myth of his people, as raison d’etre, is lost. Yet he is not sick with disease, nor is he out of his mind. He has simply lost his soul. He may even die. We become lonely. Other relevant parallels with ourselves today need not be spelled out.”
In Search, p. 43.
Larry Niven already told this story, in “Protector”.
And if he’s right, the other Protectors are coming and we’re in serious trouble.
It seems to me that the old fashioned “panspermia” idea, where, over vast periods of time, the “seeds” of life drift throughout space from some originating solar system, might also turn out to be correct.
I am always struck by the realization that we live in a restricted, sensory box, given that we can only see and sense only a small portion of the complete electromagnetic spectrum. Who knows what may live and move all around us that we cannot sense?
As well, there is also the fact that we live in and perceive only 3 dimensions, when quantum mechanics posits some 10 or 11 dimensions.
Who knows what might exist and move through those higher dimensions?
richf–“Protector” is one of my favorites.
Huxley: I found an article in my collection suggesting catalytic action might have found a self-sustaining niche that would help reduce randomness and increase the rate of exploring alternative molecular configurations and biochemical solutions during the evolution of proto-life. (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0030396 ) wherein he says “As products of the original [mineral based] reactions catalyzed new reactions, metabolic networks quickly arose. Feedback loops developed when two molecules regulated one another’s synthesis. “The system can piggyback its way upward,” “
Huxley: when you say “DNA is a sort of computer with its own machine language and running specific, incredibly complex, programs” I would suggest a rephrasing to identify the complex of RNA molecules they call a ribosome as the “computer” and DNA as either the program or database from which routines are called, or data is extracted, to assemble (fabricate?) the amino acids into proteins. Then the ATP cycle becomes the “electricity” helping to run the computer. But your question is then simply moved over to “how did the ribosome complex develop in the RNA world?” Not a clue!
In regard to the Darwin’s algorithm article you cited, I did not find that particular summary article to actually say anything related to its title; and I don’t have the background to properly explore his references if they are the source of his answers. But I have concerns when he says “It is possible that the theory [of evolution] cannot be simulated due to limits in our current computational capacity, hardware design, or capability of programmers and that it will become simulatable in the future, but until such time, it should have a tentative status.” I consider those factors as peripheral to the core problem. I would think before you can simulate a process you have to have a sufficiently valid and reliable model of that process. I gather researchers have at least two issues to model: 1) at the level of detailed molecular biology and “at the interface” for protein formation (i.e., the ribosome or whatever); and 2) the overall changes in genes, the creation of related proteins, and how those new proteins impact the organism’s survival. The first is probably still not well enough understood to model properly, if at all. The 2nd basically involves random impacts from several vectors (radiation, replication errors, etc.) and might also defy useful modeling. Remember, the random element of evolution is totally a passive event, and the resultant (survival or not) is therefore really not directed or teleological in any way. How can you even define a target towards which to aim your model? The degree of adaptability (survivability) provided by a given change in turn also depends on what kind of environment (or environmental change) is under consideration. Clearly not an easy problem no matter how to address it.
HHHmmmm; a lot to comment on in this thread.
Molly and Huxley: I initially found Gelernter, along with Stephen Meyer and David Berlinksi, via an Uncommon Knowledge interview by Peter Robinson (https://youtu.be/noj4phMT9OE ). In exploring his/their assertions I found they were relying on analysis by Douglas Axe and his book: Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed [2016]. But in sampling the Amazon reviewers for Axe’s book (and also Meyer’s) I found the negative reviewers more helpful in refuting Axe’s and Meyer’s theses. But perhaps a more succinct reply was provided by Jerry Coyne (clearly a neo-Darwinian) at: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2019/05/17/computer-scientist-david-gelertner-drinks-the-academic-kool-aid-buys-into-intelligent-design/ . I read Coyne here as being confident in his view, but not arrogant or self-impressed.
If we end up agreeing to disagree, that is fine. But it should be noted that this concept that forming a standard 150 amino acid protein is impossibly complex, thereby leading to a hypothesis for an intelligent director, does have a set of reputable counter arguments.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
My bet is we aren’t Martians either. My bet is DNA came from outside our solar system.
The problem, as I see it, is that life on Earth emerged within 800 million years or less of the Earth’s formation, when the planet was a pretty volatile place. Mars is only 100 million years older.
DNA as a self-reproducing molecule is fabulously complex. I have trouble imagining DNA “evolved” (scare quotes because this isn’t Darwinian evolution) from basic compounds in less than 800 million years or half that.
Of course, that’s my gut sense. Several hundred million years is a long time and maybe something like DNA can develop that quickly. However, DNA is not just some molecule, it’s a molecule with a reproductive mechanism and effectively a programming language.
It seems much more likely to me that DNA had several billion years to develop in an older solar system and it is durable enough to survive long interstellar voyages.
Martians? No.
Monsters? Yes.
It’s fairly well established that Mars was once warmer and wetter. Martian life in the past is certainly plausible. But seeding the earth?
Huxley has an interesting point. The organic components of DNA and RNA are easily made in nature. Getting them to assemble into a replicating molecule like DNA is another aspect. That seems to be the big question in molecular biology.
Day 4 with no power. Neversource is such a great company (sarc). And in CT we pay the highest electric rate in the country.
I have had discussions with my wife, who buys into the visitors from outer space theme. I maintain that it is logically impossible for a Christian to believe that. Simply put, it is inconsistent with the whole theme of the Old Testament of the Bible; not to mention the New. So, I should think it would hold true for Judaism as well. I won’t speak for other religions, because I am not well enough versed.
We have had similar discussions about whether pets have souls, and whether they will greet us in Heaven.
She doesn’t refute my logic; just says I am wrong. LOL.
We aren’t Martians.
We’re the Klingons. My theory is we’re the big, dangerous barbaric race (compared to those little gray aliens of UFO lore). We’ve been quarantined and embargoed, for lack of better terms, and that explains the Fermi Paradox.
All those other races shudder at the thought of savage, resourceful humans getting their hands on an interstellar drive. Until an existential threat from another galaxy appears. And the peaceful, advanced aliens who have forgotten war, might need to take some drastic measures.
“Give those evolved apes weapons and starships?!?! Are you out of your mind?!”
At least, that’s the premise of the Science Fiction trilogy I have almost finished writing! Kind of inspired by Pohl’s The High Crusade.
physicsguy: Thanks for “self-replicating.” Better than “self-reproducing.”
The theory of life beginning on Mars doesn’t answer any foundational questions about why life exists at all and who (in my opinion) created it. I hope they have fun arguing about it.
physicsguy, I had to look up Eversource. — My experience living in CT was that they don’t ever trim the trees and are then astounded when the trees come down in storms and take out power lines. Around here, where we’ve had lots of outages, Duke Power has been aggressively trimming along the major distribution lines.
Are we Martians? Sheb Wooley had a more appropriate question. Are we Purple People Eaters? ?
(Erick, Oklahoma was the home of both Roger Miller and Sheb Wooley. Lot of music for such a small town.)
The theory of life beginning on Mars doesn’t answer any foundational questions about why life exists at all and who (in my opinion) created it.
Kate: Agreed.
If DNA is found on Mars or Martian rocks, it doesn’t even answer the question of where DNA started (leaving aside my interstellar hypothesis). Given the different gravity wells on Earth and Mars, plus the Sun’s gravity, more likely DNA started on Mars, but not definitively.
The Earth could have experienced impact events of sufficient force to knock chunks off the Earth, which make their way to Mars. It’s not likely, but it could happen. Just as bits of Venus or Mercury could reach Earth (though none yet have been identified).
In any event the real issue is how the heck did DNA happen in the first place and that’s a hot potato evolutionists won’t touch beyond mumbling about the “RNA World.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world
I’m not an Intelligent Design guy and I don’t argue that there must be a God because of the Gaps, but there are gaps and I would like to see them filled in, rather than hand-waved away.
huxley, I believe God created because I cannot bring myself to believe that all this complexity arose entirely at random. But either my way, your way, or some other, crystals from Mars aren’t much of an explanation.
Kate: Well, I don’t entirely leave out God or some Intelligence far vaster than we humans comprehend. I’d just rather not go there right off the bat.
However, at every level — the existence of the universe, the beginning of life, and the evolution of life — it’s hard for me to credit some sort of evolutionary randomness as the answer. It all looks so terribly unlikely.
The current scientific solution is that there are a google-zillion universes so, even with near infinite odds against this universe which supports you and I having a conversation, it had to happen somewhere. So there!
To me that choice is between believing in a God I can’t scientifically sense and believing in a google-zillion universes I can’t scientifically sense. I call it a draw.
Huxley — Of course I believe in the multiverse theory — just ask a Democrat whether Mueller proved Trump to have colluded with Russia, and you’ll get an answer which is obviously based on a different reality than ours!
huxley: “I’m not an Intelligent Design guy and I don’t argue that there must be a God because of the Gaps, but there are gaps and I would like to see them filled in, rather than hand-waved away.”
physicsguy: “The organic components of DNA and RNA are easily made in nature. Getting them to assemble into a replicating molecule like DNA is another aspect. That seems to be the big question in molecular biology.”
I concur. One aspect that I believe should receive even greater attention in the various stages in the formation of life is the role of catalytic surfaces and/or localized catalytic molecules to reduce the free energy differences between states and enhance or augment reactions that might seem difficult to occur otherwise. This idea is clearly not new with me but may deserve to be considered more widely by researchers. This also reduces the “complexity” factor if a series of intermediate reaction stages can be hypothesized (by someone who knows a lot more about biochemistry than I do) to eventually build up to the more complex case. Or does that idea qualify as a hand wave?
Thus I can accept the likelihood that life did form on Earth rather than being transferred from elsewhere. The path from inorganic to organic to bio chemistry has plenty of opportunities to occur here. And an 800 million year period might not be too short if we consider reaction rate opportunities (trial molecular interactions) as occurring at 100 to one million times per second. The potential for autobiogenesis seems great enough that we do not need multiple universes to find just this one where it can occur.
I don’t give much credence to ideas that forming life involved/ involves quantum level physics or chemistry, aside from generating random mutations via cosmic or earthly radiation. Everything is basically happening in the electromagnetic realm of chemistry.
Let me also put in a good word for the beauty of evolution as the random (passive) generation of options from which the best solution for continued survival or existence within a given environment can occur (be selected). This can apply at the precursor molecular level as well as via RNA/ DNA/ gene level changes. If there is an Intelligent Designer, that may very well have been His design solution. Thereby the purpose of life is life (continued).
But for this blog, maybe a better question is why don’t the Leftists get a life of their own, and leave the rest of us alone? Or go to Mars and turn it into a blue planet rather than a red one.
DNA by itself doesn’t have much significance without a translation system, which means external protein structures to process the ‘code’, so to speak. (huxley’s point about the programming language – a kind of nifty way of thinking about it)
What about the catalytic tRNA structures that are posited? Just throwing those out there.
For my own part, I feel I can confidently say that I am not a Martian. I also don’t know anyone from there.
In the beginning … was Barsoom.
Here’s another article on aliens-among-us.
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/could-invisible-aliens-really-exist-among-us-an-astrobiologist-explains
R2L: Nice to hear from you.
As far as I can tell, no one really has a handle on my question of whether there has been sufficient time for life to emerge and enough time for emerged life to evolve into intelligent creatures such as ourselves.
I see no reason to suppose life couldn’t emerge/evolve under current physical laws. It just seems unlikely to me that it could do so in the time scales of millions and billions of years allotted given randomness.
I’m a computer programmer, I have no idea whether “catalytic surfaces and/or localized catalytic molecules” etc might make the path to emergent life short enough for our purposes.
However, as a programmer, I notice DNA is a sort of computer with its own machine language and running specific, incredibly complex, programs — something way beyond, say, the ATP cycle. How does the DNA computer emerge over time from the random combinations of relatively simple organic molecules?
There have been efforts to simulate Darwinian evolution on computers. I first heard of this back in the 90s. Like AI in the 50s/60s there was optimism that this mission was straightforward, but those hopes have not yet been vindicated.
Here’s a series of articles from an evolution-skeptic site:
“What Can and Can’t Darwin’s Algorithm Compute?”
https://evolutionnews.org/2020/07/what-can-and-cant-darwins-algorithm-compute/
AesopFan: I was excited back in 2012 when a young biologist claimed to have discovered a form of life in Mono Lake in which its DNA used arsenic instead of phosphorus. Super cool.
Well, it turned out that the organism required shockingly low amounts of phosphorus and tolerated arsenic well, but it was not some new alien DNA.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/7/120709-arsenic-space-nasa-science-felisa-wolfe-simon/
Sad.
Great. Amidst all this intelligent, educated discourse, I’m sitting here singing “Purple People Eater” to myself.
Along with everything that needs to be explained about the mystery of life, we need to recognize the fact that in a space smaller than would fit in a football, we have something going on that can see the words “Purple People Eater” and, just from memory, can start singing a song I haven’t heard in decades, with all the words and melody, including changing my voice to chant “He wears short shorts!” just the way they did in the song.
Incredible.
Huxley,
David Gelernter addressed some of your questions about DNA and time in his essay at the Claremont Review of Books Spring 2019. Sorry I can’t make the link work – it’s titled ‘Giving Up Darwin’. Manhattan Contrarian had a post about it as well, you can find it there, too.
Molly Brown: Thanks for reminding me of the Gelernter article. It’s in my Evernote file and this link still works:
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/giving-up-darwin/
The article is based on Stephen Meyer’s “Doubting Darwin,” which I checked out of the library. I followed subsequent debate on the web and wasn’t much impressed with the Neo-Darwinists, though they seemed impressed with themselves.
I may revisit Stephen Meyer.
Whatever our ultimate origins, this passage in James Hillman’s book “In Search: Psychology & Religion” struck me as useful as a way of understanding many of the things we are witnessing in this day and age–
“Anthropologists describe a condition among “primitive” people called “loss of soul.” In this condition a man is out of himself, unable to find either the outer connection between humans or the inner connection to himself. He is unable to take part in his society, its rituals, and traditions. They are dead to him, he to them. His connection to family, totem, nature, is gone. Until he regains his soul he is not a true human. He is “not there.” It is as if he had never been initiated, been given a name, come into real being. His soul may not only be lost; it may also be possessed, bewitched, ill, transposed into an object, animal, place, or another person. Without this soul, he has lost the sense of belonging and the sense of being in communion with the powers and the gods. They no longer reach him; he cannot pray, nor sacrifice, nor dance. His personal myth and his connection to the larger myth of his people, as raison d’etre, is lost. Yet he is not sick with disease, nor is he out of his mind. He has simply lost his soul. He may even die. We become lonely. Other relevant parallels with ourselves today need not be spelled out.”
In Search, p. 43.
Larry Niven already told this story, in “Protector”.
And if he’s right, the other Protectors are coming and we’re in serious trouble.
It seems to me that the old fashioned “panspermia” idea, where, over vast periods of time, the “seeds” of life drift throughout space from some originating solar system, might also turn out to be correct.
I am always struck by the realization that we live in a restricted, sensory box, given that we can only see and sense only a small portion of the complete electromagnetic spectrum. Who knows what may live and move all around us that we cannot sense?
As well, there is also the fact that we live in and perceive only 3 dimensions, when quantum mechanics posits some 10 or 11 dimensions.
Who knows what might exist and move through those higher dimensions?
richf–“Protector” is one of my favorites.
Huxley: I found an article in my collection suggesting catalytic action might have found a self-sustaining niche that would help reduce randomness and increase the rate of exploring alternative molecular configurations and biochemical solutions during the evolution of proto-life. (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0030396 ) wherein he says “As products of the original [mineral based] reactions catalyzed new reactions, metabolic networks quickly arose. Feedback loops developed when two molecules regulated one another’s synthesis. “The system can piggyback its way upward,” “
Huxley: when you say “DNA is a sort of computer with its own machine language and running specific, incredibly complex, programs” I would suggest a rephrasing to identify the complex of RNA molecules they call a ribosome as the “computer” and DNA as either the program or database from which routines are called, or data is extracted, to assemble (fabricate?) the amino acids into proteins. Then the ATP cycle becomes the “electricity” helping to run the computer. But your question is then simply moved over to “how did the ribosome complex develop in the RNA world?” Not a clue!
In regard to the Darwin’s algorithm article you cited, I did not find that particular summary article to actually say anything related to its title; and I don’t have the background to properly explore his references if they are the source of his answers. But I have concerns when he says “It is possible that the theory [of evolution] cannot be simulated due to limits in our current computational capacity, hardware design, or capability of programmers and that it will become simulatable in the future, but until such time, it should have a tentative status.” I consider those factors as peripheral to the core problem. I would think before you can simulate a process you have to have a sufficiently valid and reliable model of that process. I gather researchers have at least two issues to model: 1) at the level of detailed molecular biology and “at the interface” for protein formation (i.e., the ribosome or whatever); and 2) the overall changes in genes, the creation of related proteins, and how those new proteins impact the organism’s survival. The first is probably still not well enough understood to model properly, if at all. The 2nd basically involves random impacts from several vectors (radiation, replication errors, etc.) and might also defy useful modeling. Remember, the random element of evolution is totally a passive event, and the resultant (survival or not) is therefore really not directed or teleological in any way. How can you even define a target towards which to aim your model? The degree of adaptability (survivability) provided by a given change in turn also depends on what kind of environment (or environmental change) is under consideration. Clearly not an easy problem no matter how to address it.
HHHmmmm; a lot to comment on in this thread.
Molly and Huxley: I initially found Gelernter, along with Stephen Meyer and David Berlinksi, via an Uncommon Knowledge interview by Peter Robinson (https://youtu.be/noj4phMT9OE ). In exploring his/their assertions I found they were relying on analysis by Douglas Axe and his book: Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed [2016]. But in sampling the Amazon reviewers for Axe’s book (and also Meyer’s) I found the negative reviewers more helpful in refuting Axe’s and Meyer’s theses. But perhaps a more succinct reply was provided by Jerry Coyne (clearly a neo-Darwinian) at: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2019/05/17/computer-scientist-david-gelertner-drinks-the-academic-kool-aid-buys-into-intelligent-design/ . I read Coyne here as being confident in his view, but not arrogant or self-impressed.
If we end up agreeing to disagree, that is fine. But it should be noted that this concept that forming a standard 150 amino acid protein is impossibly complex, thereby leading to a hypothesis for an intelligent director, does have a set of reputable counter arguments.