...
His model, published in the journal Astrobiology, suggests an
upper limit for the probability of each step occurring is 10
per cent or less, so the chances of intelligent life emerging
is low - less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years.
...

Is there anybody out there?

Is there anybody out there? Probably not, according to a scientist from
the University of East Anglia.

A mathematical model produced by Prof Andrew Watson suggests that the
odds of finding new life on other Earth-like planets are low, given the
time it has taken for beings such as humans to evolve and the remaining
life span of the Earth.

Structurally complex and intelligent life evolved late on Earth and it
has already been suggested that this process might be governed by a
small number of very difficult evolutionary steps.

Prof Watson, from the School of Environmental Sciences, takes this idea
further by looking at the probability of each of these critical steps
occurring in relation to the life span of the Earth, giving an improved
mathematical model for the evolution of intelligent life.

According to Prof Watson a limit to evolution is the habitability of
Earth, and any other Earth-like planets, which will end as the sun
brightens. Solar models predict that the brightness of the sun is
increasing, while temperature models suggest that because of this the
future life span of Earth will be 'only' about another billion years, a
short time compared to the four billion years since life first appeared
on the planet.

"The Earth's biosphere is now in its old age and this has implications
for our understanding of the likelihood of complex life and intelligence
arising on any given planet," said Prof Watson.

"At present, Earth is the only example we have of a planet with life. If
we learned the planet would be habitable for a set period and that we
had evolved early in this period, then even with a sample of one, we'd
suspect that evolution from simple to complex and intelligent life was
quite likely to occur. By contrast, we now believe that we evolved late
in the habitable period, and this suggests that our evolution is rather
unlikely. In fact, the timing of events is consistent with it being very
rare indeed."

Prof Watson suggests the number of evolutionary steps needed to create
intelligent life, in the case of humans, is four. These probably include
the emergence of single-celled bacteria, complex cells, specialized
cells allowing complex life forms, and intelligent life with an
established language.

"Complex life is separated from the simplest life forms by several very
unlikely steps and therefore will be much less common. Intelligence is
one step further, so it is much less common still," said Prof Watson.

His model, published in the journal Astrobiology, suggests an upper
limit for the probability of each step occurring is 10 per cent or less,
so the chances of intelligent life emerging is low - less than 0.01 per
cent over four billion years.

Each step is independent of the other and can only take place after the
previous steps in the sequence have occurred. They tend to be evenly
spaced through Earth's history and this is consistent with some of the
major transitions identified in the evolution of life on Earth.

Source: University of East Angliahttp://www.physorg.com/news127574989.html

Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek

On Apr 17, 1:18 am, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <rston...@bigpond.net.au
wrote:
(snip)
...
  - What is a habitable planet for other possible biochemistries.

However, I'm all in favor of these kinds of speculations.  They
induce people to try to think quantitatively about subjects that
most of us assume, without trying, can't be quantified.  They
can't give us accurate answers, but they can focus our thinking
on understanding what the issues are.

    Alan

Is there anybody out there?

Is there anybody out there? Probably not, according to a scientist from
the University of East Anglia.

A mathematical model produced by Prof Andrew Watson suggests that the
odds of finding new life on other Earth-like planets are low, given the
time it has taken for beings such as humans to evolve and the remaining
life span of the Earth.

Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
Is there anybody out there?

Is there anybody out there? Probably not, according to a scientist from
the University of East Anglia.

A mathematical model produced by Prof Andrew Watson suggests that the
odds of finding new life on other Earth-like planets are low, given the
time it has taken for beings such as humans to evolve and the remaining
life span of the Earth.

An argument could be made that Earth throughout its history has not been
a very life friendly place.  From bombardment by asteroids to sporadic
spasms of hyper-volcanic activity spewing huge amounts of methane and
other greeenhouse gases into the atmosphere.  Solar luminosity
increasing by 30%.  Snowball earth.  The Permian, KT and many other mass
extinctions.  Periodic ice ages.  Drifting continents.

Throughout deep time it's been one thing or another -- Mother Earth
giving its living inhabitants a very rough time.  No wonder it's taken
billions of years to evolve intelligent life, and a rather unremarkable
example of such in humans.

This sad story does not necessarily have to be repeated in other solar
systems.  On halcyon planets it's possible that life goes from
abiogenesis to beings much more intelligent than us in a few hundred
million years.

    --dk...@cris.com

Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
Is there anybody out there?

Is there anybody out there? Probably not, according to a scientist from
the University of East Anglia.

A mathematical model produced by Prof Andrew Watson suggests that the
odds of finding new life on other Earth-like planets are low, given the
time it has taken for beings such as humans to evolve and the remaining
life span of the Earth.


An argument could be made that Earth throughout its history has not been
a very life friendly place. From bombardment by asteroids to sporadic
spasms of hyper-volcanic activity spewing huge amounts of methane and
other greeenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Solar luminosity
increasing by 30%. Snowball earth. The Permian, KT and many other mass
extinctions. Periodic ice ages. Drifting continents.

Throughout deep time it's been one thing or another -- Mother Earth
giving its living inhabitants a very rough time. No wonder it's taken
billions of years to evolve intelligent life, and a rather unremarkable
example of such in humans.

This sad story does not necessarily have to be repeated in other solar
systems. On halcyon planets it's possible that life goes from
abiogenesis to beings much more intelligent than us in a few hundred
million years.

On 2008-04-21, dkomo <dkomo871@comcast.net> wrote:

Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:

Is there anybody out there?

Is there anybody out there? Probably not, according to a scientist from
the University of East Anglia.

A mathematical model produced by Prof Andrew Watson suggests that the
odds of finding new life on other Earth-like planets are low, given the
time it has taken for beings such as humans to evolve and the remaining
life span of the Earth.


An argument could be made that Earth throughout its history has not been
a very life friendly place. From bombardment by asteroids to sporadic
spasms of hyper-volcanic activity spewing huge amounts of methane and
other greeenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Solar luminosity
increasing by 30%. Snowball earth. The Permian, KT and many other mass
extinctions. Periodic ice ages. Drifting continents.

Throughout deep time it's been one thing or another -- Mother Earth
giving its living inhabitants a very rough time. No wonder it's taken
billions of years to evolve intelligent life, and a rather unremarkable
example of such in humans.

This sad story does not necessarily have to be repeated in other solar
systems. On halcyon planets it's possible that life goes from
abiogenesis to beings much more intelligent than us in a few hundred
million years.



I've often thought that this whole debate is based on the hidden
assumption that it's somehow the "purpose" of the universe to produce
intelligent life. Is this perhaps the last refuge of anthropocentrism,
the ultimate hubristic delusion? As J.B.S. Haldane remarked, if we look
at the reality of the situation it suggests that the main aim of
evolution is to produce beetles. It hardly seems that the goal is the
production of intelligence. The dinosaurs had 150 million years to do
so but didn't take the opportunity.

Do insects, bats and birds think that the purpose of evolution is to
produce creatures capable of flight?

Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:
Is there anybody out there?

Is there anybody out there? Probably not, according to a scientist from
the University of East Anglia.

A mathematical model produced by Prof Andrew Watson suggests that the
odds of finding new life on other Earth-like planets are low, given the
time it has taken for beings such as humans to evolve and the remaining
life span of the Earth.

An argument could be made that Earth throughout its history has not been
a very life friendly place.  From bombardment by asteroids to sporadic
spasms of hyper-volcanic activity spewing huge amounts of methane and
other greeenhouse gases into the atmosphere.  Solar luminosity
increasing by 30%.  Snowball earth.  The Permian, KT and many other mass
extinctions.  Periodic ice ages.  Drifting continents.

Throughout deep time it's been one thing or another -- Mother Earth
giving its living inhabitants a very rough time.  No wonder it's taken
billions of years to evolve intelligent life, and a rather unremarkable
example of such in humans.

This sad story does not necessarily have to be repeated in other solar
systems.  On halcyon planets it's possible that life goes from
abiogenesis to beings much more intelligent than us in a few hundred
million years.

    --dk...@cris.com

On Apr 21, 12:50 pm, dkomo <dkomo...@comcast.net> wrote:

Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:

Is there anybody out there?

Is there anybody out there? Probably not, according to a scientist from
the University of East Anglia.

A mathematical model produced by Prof Andrew Watson suggests that the
odds of finding new life on other Earth-like planets are low, given the
time it has taken for beings such as humans to evolve and the remaining
life span of the Earth.

An argument could be made that Earth throughout its history has not been
a very life friendly place. From bombardment by asteroids to sporadic
spasms of hyper-volcanic activity spewing huge amounts of methane and
other greeenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Solar luminosity
increasing by 30%. Snowball earth. The Permian, KT and many other mass
extinctions. Periodic ice ages. Drifting continents.

Throughout deep time it's been one thing or another -- Mother Earth
giving its living inhabitants a very rough time. No wonder it's taken
billions of years to evolve intelligent life, and a rather unremarkable
example of such in humans.

This sad story does not necessarily have to be repeated in other solar
systems. On halcyon planets it's possible that life goes from
abiogenesis to beings much more intelligent than us in a few hundred
million years.

--dk...@cris.com


But I would contend that an unfriendly place would stimulate more
selection pressure which would speed up evolution. Here is my model:

The greater the selection pressure (directional or diversifying
selection)
the greater the speed of evolution in the area of the selection
pressure
AND
The lower the selection pressure (stabilizing selection)
the lower the speed of evolution in the area of the selection
pressure.

Anthony Campbell wrote:

On 2008-04-21, dkomo <dkomo871@comcast.net> wrote:

Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:

Is there anybody out there?

Is there anybody out there? Probably not, according to a scientist from
the University of East Anglia.

A mathematical model produced by Prof Andrew Watson suggests that the
odds of finding new life on other Earth-like planets are low, given the
time it has taken for beings such as humans to evolve and the remaining
life span of the Earth.


An argument could be made that Earth throughout its history has not been
a very life friendly place. From bombardment by asteroids to sporadic
spasms of hyper-volcanic activity spewing huge amounts of methane and
other greeenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Solar luminosity
increasing by 30%. Snowball earth. The Permian, KT and many other mass
extinctions. Periodic ice ages. Drifting continents.

Throughout deep time it's been one thing or another -- Mother Earth
giving its living inhabitants a very rough time. No wonder it's taken
billions of years to evolve intelligent life, and a rather unremarkable
example of such in humans.

This sad story does not necessarily have to be repeated in other solar
systems. On halcyon planets it's possible that life goes from
abiogenesis to beings much more intelligent than us in a few hundred
million years.



I've often thought that this whole debate is based on the hidden
assumption that it's somehow the "purpose" of the universe to produce
intelligent life. Is this perhaps the last refuge of anthropocentrism,
the ultimate hubristic delusion? As J.B.S. Haldane remarked, if we look
at the reality of the situation it suggests that the main aim of
evolution is to produce beetles. It hardly seems that the goal is the
production of intelligence. The dinosaurs had 150 million years to do
so but didn't take the opportunity.


I think the debate is based on the obvious fact that life on earth went
through a series of many progressions across enormous time spans before
it arrived at creatures with high intelligence. If it had happened that
intelligence had developed right after the appearance of multicelluar
life, and that then, much later, jellyfish and snails came along, your
anthropocentric complaint might have a better basis.

Do insects, bats and birds think that the purpose of evolution is to
produce creatures capable of flight?


We're focused on intelligence because it is an obvious marker in the
search for life in other parts of the universe. It is much harder to
search for biochemical markers on planets in solar systems light years
from our own.

This is true, at least at present, but it's irrelevant. Just because

On 2008-04-24, dkomo <dkomo871@comcast.net> wrote:

Anthony Campbell wrote:


On 2008-04-21, dkomo <dkomo871@comcast.net> wrote:


Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:


Is there anybody out there?

Is there anybody out there? Probably not, according to a scientist from
the University of East Anglia.

A mathematical model produced by Prof Andrew Watson suggests that the
odds of finding new life on other Earth-like planets are low, given the
time it has taken for beings such as humans to evolve and the remaining
life span of the Earth.


An argument could be made that Earth throughout its history has not been
a very life friendly place. From bombardment by asteroids to sporadic
spasms of hyper-volcanic activity spewing huge amounts of methane and
other greeenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Solar luminosity
increasing by 30%. Snowball earth. The Permian, KT and many other mass
extinctions. Periodic ice ages. Drifting continents.

Throughout deep time it's been one thing or another -- Mother Earth
giving its living inhabitants a very rough time. No wonder it's taken
billions of years to evolve intelligent life, and a rather unremarkable
example of such in humans.

This sad story does not necessarily have to be repeated in other solar
systems. On halcyon planets it's possible that life goes from
abiogenesis to beings much more intelligent than us in a few hundred
million years.



I've often thought that this whole debate is based on the hidden
assumption that it's somehow the "purpose" of the universe to produce
intelligent life. Is this perhaps the last refuge of anthropocentrism,
the ultimate hubristic delusion? As J.B.S. Haldane remarked, if we look
at the reality of the situation it suggests that the main aim of
evolution is to produce beetles. It hardly seems that the goal is the
production of intelligence. The dinosaurs had 150 million years to do
so but didn't take the opportunity.


I think the debate is based on the obvious fact that life on earth went
through a series of many progressions across enormous time spans before
it arrived at creatures with high intelligence. If it had happened that
intelligence had developed right after the appearance of multicelluar
life, and that then, much later, jellyfish and snails came along, your
anthropocentric complaint might have a better basis.



It's precisely the "obvious fact of progression" that I wanted to
query. Your argument is circular. In talking about "arriving at
creatures with high intelligence" you implicitly define "progress" as
the production of intelligent beings and then use the fact that we exist
as evidence for progression.

Not everyone agrees that there has been
progress in evolution.

I tend to agree with the late Stephen J. Gould
that if the tape of evolution were rerun it might lead to a different
endpoint. If the KT impact had not occurred, would the world still be
populated by dinosaurs?

On 2008-04-24, dkomo <dkomo...@comcast.net> wrote:





Anthony Campbell wrote:

On 2008-04-21, dkomo <dkomo...@comcast.net> wrote:

Robert Karl Stonjek wrote:

Is there anybody out there?

Is there anybody out there? Probably not, according to a scientist from
the University of East Anglia.

A mathematical model produced by Prof Andrew Watson suggests that the
odds of finding new life on other Earth-like planets are low, given the
time it has taken for beings such as humans to evolve and the remaining
life span of the Earth.

An argument could be made that Earth throughout its history has not been
a very life friendly place.  From bombardment by asteroids to sporadic
spasms of hyper-volcanic activity spewing huge amounts of methane and
other greeenhouse gases into the atmosphere.  Solar luminosity
increasing by 30%.  Snowball earth.  The Permian, KT and many other mass
extinctions.  Periodic ice ages.  Drifting continents.

Throughout deep time it's been one thing or another -- Mother Earth
giving its living inhabitants a very rough time.  No wonder it's taken
billions of years to evolve intelligent life, and a rather unremarkable
example of such in humans.

This sad story does not necessarily have to be repeated in other solar
systems.  On halcyon planets it's possible that life goes from
abiogenesis to beings much more intelligent than us in a few hundred
million years.

I've often thought that this whole debate is based on the hidden
assumption that it's somehow the "purpose" of the universe to produce
intelligent life. Is this perhaps the last refuge of anthropocentrism,
the ultimate hubristic delusion? As J.B.S. Haldane remarked, if we look
at the reality of the situation it suggests that the main aim of
evolution is to produce beetles. It hardly seems that the goal is the
production of intelligence. The dinosaurs had 150 million years  to do
so but didn't take the opportunity.

I think the debate is based on the obvious fact that life on earth went
through a series of many progressions across enormous time spans before
it arrived at creatures with high intelligence.  If it had happened that
intelligence had developed right after the appearance of multicelluar
life, and that then, much later, jellyfish and snails came along, your
anthropocentric complaint might have a better basis.

It's precisely the "obvious fact  of progression" that I wanted to
query. Your argument is circular. In talking about "arriving at
creatures with high intelligence" you implicitly define "progress" as
the production of intelligent beings and then use the fact that we exist
as evidence for progression. Not everyone agrees that there has been
progress in evolution. I tend to agree with the late Stephen J. Gould
that if the tape of evolution were rerun it might lead to a different
endpoint. If the KT impact had not occurred, would the world still be
populated by dinosaurs?

Tim Tyler, who inhabited this forum a
couple of years ago, is now over on comp.ai.philosophy pushing,
amongst other things, the "inevitiability of human life" and
intelligence, and using Simon Conway Morris as his "authority" ... to
wit: "Anyhow, Conway-Morris is the cannonical antidote to those who
think chance rules in evolution: ", etc...

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.ai.philosophy/browse_frm/thread/c70c6f2a9d
f28bbf
[starting about msg #32]

He's also pushing the idea that evolution is deterministic, based
upon ...
============
New Findings Confirm Darwin's Theory: Evolution Not Random

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080118134531.htm

Evolution Is Deterministic, Not Random, Biologists Conclude From
Multi-species Study

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071119123929.htm
=============

What's the opinion of this stuff, including Conway Morris, in the
science/evolution community? Sounds pretty much left field.

Where do you get this stuff? I was talking about progressions in *time*
and factual observations about the evolution of life. For example: the
1st fishes appeared in the Ordovician, the 1st land plants in the
Silurian, the 1st insects in the early Devonian, the 1st reptiles in the
Carboniferous, the 1st apes during the Oligocene, the 1st hominids
during the Miocene, the 1st modern humans in the early Pleistocene, and
so on and so on and so on. These are the "many progressions" I referred
to. These are *facts*. I wrote absolutely nothing and implied
absolutely nothing about "progress".

Now, it is also a fact that human level intelligence appeared at the end
of this progression. Noting this is not an instance of anthropocentrism
nor does it necessarily imply anything about evolutionary progress.

I frankly think you brought a red herring into the discussion by raising
the issue of progress. Andrew Watson in his mathematical modeling makes
use of the historical fact that human intelligence developed late in the
life span of the earth, and that the earth has already used up most of
its allotted life span. In my original reply, I suggested that on other
planets evolution could proceed much faster, and that you can't conclude
that because it took 4 billion years before intelligent creatures
appeared on earth, it would also take 4 billion years somewhere else.