Life on Earth: Chance or Deliberate. A Reply

Dear Salman

Many thanks for taking the time to provide an excellent critical angle to the article. It was informative to say the least. Apologies for the ratio mistakes. I guess my research wasn`t refined enough (a certain scientific journal shall be hearing from me very soon) and since you are light years ahead of me in physics, I shall not challenge that figure though we both know that in future, that particular number shall be modified / changed.

A few points:

Regarding the Greeks, I still believe that their science was speculative, though now I`ll say `largely speculative` to please a few others. The Greeks were more than scientists, they were a civilisation and a beautiful one at that. There is a romanticism attached to their science and every modern scientist would like to think that the principles he exercises were derived from an old civilisation which excelled in arts and literature and they had their own beautiful mythical people such as Zeus, Hera etc. etc. There is then a natural tendency to hype the `progenitors.`

Few years back, historians stumbled upon a preserved artefact in Iran (sorry I can`t remember the specific place right now). It was dated to be 2500-2700 (general date) years old, certainly dated before Alexander the great conquered the Achaemenid Empire. What they discovered was an orange and a lemon connected together by two metal wires. This is essentially an ancient `battery.` The wires complete the circuit. The orange and lemon have different hydrogen potentials due to different pHs. The question is, would you consider the battery a part of the Greek civilisation or would you say it were the Persian?

Another thing, bosons, and leptons and neutrinos and top, down, charm, heavy and pions and grvitons and gluons, taus, muons, positrons are all mythical creatures. We still haven`t `held them in our hands` or `seen them with our own two eyes. That does not imply that they do not exist. I personally would hate it if someone were to stop discovering these particles because of such reasons but let`s have some humility. Every day, someone almost seems to make a designer particle with a nice name. You have an ambiguity or some anomaly in your result and someone decides to create a particle, give it a name and says that this particle can do this and that and that`s why our readings are different. There`s nothing wrong with that but in essence, you are doing the same thing, taking a leap with your eyes closed. Then you get proved wrong and the particle goes down the drain. Many times one would think that science was a pure trial and error process. But then this is how science progresses and a simpleton like me would not dare the ingenious minds of those scientists.

Regarding aliens, I`m just wondering. Do you believe that non-carbon based life could exist? It seems like so. Is it possible for life to exist as pure `structured` energy that lacks all matter? What if one was to say that life on Earth was geared towards achieving that goal, the fact that it`s not about evolution of organisms but the evolution of the brain/mind. It began with communication amongst a few rogue molecules that got together under a structure (i.e. prokaryotic organisms-bacteria). Crude communication took place until the eukaryotic organisms bought with them a better means of interaction. Then came other organisms (plants, amoebae) which also utilised chemical communication until animals came to `life` and they bought with them different means of communication, a nervous system. This nervous system was crude in the earlier models but improved with time. They started off with single neural cells in simple animals and developed into circuits and later on as life evolved, into `pools` and so on. The axons (processes that transmit an impulse to another neurone) of `old` animals (e.g. squids) are unmyelinated, that is they lack a fatty padding at every given interval along the axon. Higher organisms however, e.g. dolphins have myelinated axons. This means that the speed by which an impulse travels across a neurone is much faster and efficient in a dolphin than in a squid. The neural network is an electrical network of communication and is an upgrade on the older chemical methods. Humans are of course the best example since they have pound for pound, the largest brain (1400cc) and the most developed one also (Neanderthals an exception with their 1500cc brains). `Conscious` it self is electrical since when you die you can no longer put a light bulb on your head and expect it to light up (sorry for the crude joke).

I personally think of humans as the worlds fastest train that`s being fed on coal. The universe`s most complex structure requires food and organ baggage like lungs and heart to burn food and release ENERGY which sustains the human conscious. In fact the more and more organisms get complex, the more and more the body becomes designed solely to support the brain. When does the `cut off` point arrive when the conscious does not require pink matter or blood

Could there be a method of communication that`s is even more superior to the nervous system? Now, if I was to ask you, do you believe in angles or jinns (Ha Ha Ha), would you believe me? I won`t bore you any longer.

Once again, thank you for taking the time and I look forward to the day when they find an ET. When they find one, I`ll bow down and accept there was something wrong in my thinking.

Take care and best wishes,

Omar Phoenix

RSexena (#3): I pretty much agree with what you said except for the last sentence:

[Fair enough, I too don`t find the thought of there being only a marginal difference between us and inanimate objects particularly comforting.]

Actually there is not even marginal difference between us and inanimate objects at micro level. The quote from Physicist Steven weinberg as well as my comments later (post #1) dealt with the matter at atomic and sub-atomic levels. No atom or sub-atomic particle can be marked as animate or inanimate. It is at the molecular or macro level that we see different properties for different forms of molecules. No serious person can argue for marginal differences at supra-macro level, i.e., between life and inanimate matter. Even without bringing the religions, social evolution and morality into discussion, a human being (dead or alive) is lot more valued than its atomic components. The market value of the atoms and compounds extracted from a cremated human being are worth 10-15 cents. A careful seperation and purification of all the compounds of a human being (without cremation or decomposition) are worth 7-10 million dollars(without excluding the cost of seperation and purification). It would be stupid of me or any other person to ask a mother to love a stone as much as her child based upon atomic or sub-atomic Physics. This article is about Astronomy, Cosmology and Physics. My response was strictly based on the current understanding of science at that level. Speaking strictly, based on Physics, Chemistry and Biology, our current understanding does not require a purposefulness of life on earth. I think, deliberate or chance are not the right terms to debate this issue. The favorable treatment of certain acquired characters by the natural conditions (as the long neck of giraffe or thick wooly skin of polar bears--survival of the fittest) through evolution could be termed as deliberate by nature. Using natural selection as a justification for a creator is in the realm of religions and human psyche and not Astronomy or Cosmology.

This reminds me of an episode in a movie called ``Einstein meets Marilyn Monroe`` !

Einstein is staying at a hotel attending a conference and going down to the lobby in the elevator. He recognises the elevator boy as a Red Indian and asks him `` Are you a Cherokee ?``. The elevator boy says `` Yes, that`s correct.`` Einstein says ``Did you know wherever a Cherokee is, he is always at the centre of the universe ?`` The elevator boy replies `` Yes I`ve heard that, but it`s difficult to believe it when you`re going up and down in a 5`x4` elevator all day !``

Rgds

RSaxena #3:

TUNNEL-VISIONED IMBECILES

When I read, ``Excellent writing. It`s unfortunate that it is on Chowk and will suffer the inevitable cycle of degenerating into a battle over Islam, then Pakistan, then India, and then India vs. Pakistan.`` I chuckled.

I chuckled because at times you are in the forefront of such futile pissing matches!

You seem intelligent and caring person. Can I implore you to ignore the Tunnel-Visioned imbeciles?

(Of course there will always be a few shouting from atop some mandir or minaret; but if we ignore them they will go fart elsewhere.)

I share your last thought, `` It`s a complex topic with contradictions at every corner and I too have more questions than answers.``

rgds

t

Salman:

Welcome to Chowk.

At the risk of being drenched under a rain of missiles of quotes from chapters and verses from the Book I guess I am in that minority that believes in an unending pursuit of ilm, knowledge.

I also recognise that human intelligence is simply not equipped to understand EVERYTHING. Or, in another turn of phrase: human intelligence has its limitations.

While we may go on speculating till dooms day about certain fundamental issues ..... this probing..... the relentless pursuit (of knowledge) enriches us ... enables us to extend our froniters ever so far.

This game of life with some pursuing knowledge, and others reconciling, recoiling, rejecting or following will go on........

Keep writing,

regards

t

salman:

Thank you for resurrecting the subject.I have gleaned & rifled through the article but I`ll do intend to participate when I`m ready.



wassalam

There is also a new science book out, that argues that intelligent life might be rather rare, and that humans on the earth might actually be unique.

The idea is that to develop intelligent life takes billions of years through evolution and requires a rather stable stellar neighborhood. This excludes globular clusters and the central parts of galaxies, too many star collisions and supernova and so on. Likewise, you need a long-lived star, should not be in a binary system. You need a Jupiter-size planet to sweep the area clean of asteroids and so on. I haven`t read the book, only a review, so I`ll stop here. Large though the visible universe is, such conditions turn out to be probably unique under these assumptions.

I`ll dig out the name of the book if anyone is interested. The point being that science does not yet rule out the solar system being special.

-arun gupta

Question : did not Aristotle make statements that were accepted as truth that adult women had fewer teeth than adult men ? What is not an Aristotlean theory that motion required force ? No denying the brilliance of the Greeks, but remember that like us, the West feels a need to justify itself with a long lineage, and they have erected myth around the Greeks to do so. Ancient Greek civilization and science more resembled that in other parts of the ancient world than it does modern Western Christian culture. Or to put it another way, Greek knowledge was available all over the ancient world, and was lost in Europe only for several centuries (reintroduced via the Muslims ). So, if the Greeks invented what we call science, then there were a lot of opportunities to follow up. We can loosen our definition of science, and then every society had it, probably the greatest measure in the Chinese, or else we can accept that it was a modern invention. Take your pick.

Regarding Weinberger`s comment on the pointlessness of the universe, one can counter with George Smoot`s seeing the face of God in the fluctuations in the microwave background radiation that were discovered in the experiment that he lead. Weinberger, Smoot and Omar Phoenix are all making the same kind of mistake.

-arun gupta

Excellent writing. It`s unfortunate that it is on Chowk and will suffer the inevitable cycle of degenerating into a battle over Islam, then Pakistan, then India, and then India vs. Pakistan.

In any case, here`s my two cents. It has and will continue to be very difficult for man to ever remove himself from the center of the universe (metaphorically speaking of course.) We cannot accept ourselves as simply another arrangement of atoms much like the computer keys I am striking, the water I just drank or the sun that baked me outside. However, it`s fair to make the distinction that in ``our world`` - the world defined by a collection of human beings - we are significant but holisitically we are not. But our minds and curiosities do not permit us to simply forget and ignore the universe or abandon our need to explain our existence (at least those of us with wandering minds.)

On a similar note, we are centuries away from from removing ourselves from the clutches of religion. What once started as a way for Mr. Caveman to reassure his family frightened by the unexplainable thunderstorm (``god is angry, but you can control it by being a good human being``), has devolved into perhaps the biggest source of violence and destruction in our history. Unfortunately we still do need religion, if for nothing else than to give the hopeless a measure of hope and to keep cynicism about our coincidental and perhaps meaningless existence at bay. Fair enough, I too don`t find the thought of there being only a marginal difference between us and inanimate objects particularly comforting.

I apologize if this is a little jumbled. It`s a complex topic with contradictions at every corner and I too have more questions than answers.

great article...healthy criticism should always be welcome...and it was indeed very informative.

cheers.

Salman Hameed: Very good article.

Let me begin with a quote from Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg of UT Austin: ``The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless``. The realm of inanimate matter, really does offer no evidence of higher purpose. When we move into the realm of animate matter--all life forms including human beings--and move from evolution to human history, a sense of direction or arrow is what, for some, justifies their belief in a causation for all such causes, though not necessarily God. On the other hand, since inanimate matter is the backbone of all forms of life, the direction or arrow can as well be explained as the result of billions of years of natural selection and survival of the fittest to reach where we are today.

Many creationists would accept the purposlessness of each and every grain of sand on the beaches but they have difficulty to accept the complexity of matter cooperating--guided by enzymes-- enzymes production guided by DNA, to create copies of itself. Beats me!!!