3 ms·

> Second, consider the possibility that abiogenesis is just stupendously rare I think a better way to phrase this is that abiogenesis is stupendously picky, bu

by delecti 10y ago

> Second, consider the possibility that abiogenesis is just stupendously rare I think a better way to phrase this is that abiogenesis is stupendously picky, but also incredibly eager. My understanding is that current life developed about as quickly as it possibly could have, at least on a geological scale. It's possible that worlds we're finding that look "ideal for life" from the perspective of what we can detect from this distance may be missing something vital that Earth had.

jessriedel 10y ago
> My understanding is that current life developed about as quickly as it possibly could have, at least on a geological scale. This is commonly quoted, but actually not at all implied by the data, at least as long as you allow for the very real possibility that the road from inert matter to conscious observers required multiple improbable steps. For counter-intuitive probabilistic reasons, you can't infer the "improbableness" of a step from the amount of time it took to occur when several such steps occur. http://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/greatfilter.html http://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/greatfilter.html
- delecti 10y ago
  I actually mean solely abiogenesis. From the perspective of the Drake Equation [0], I think it's likely that ne [1] is quite low, and fl [2] is quite high. I don't think we can speculate on fi [3], given a sample size of 1. Though as we seem to be somewhat of an anomaly across several great extinction events, a low estimate there seems fair as a starting point. The great filter theory implies that the last two terms are also low, but again, my point was mainly focused on going from no life to basic life. Essentially I think that while there are improbably steps between inert matter and consciousness, abiogenesis itself does not seem to be one of them, though the suitability for abiogenesis likely is. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Equation [1] the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets [2] the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point [3] the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    But what I'm telling you is that this > My understanding is that current life developed about as quickly as it possibly could have, at least on a geological scale. does not actually imply that abiogenesis is "eager". Our evidence is consistent with it being being so improbable that even if the universe were filled with young Earth's with the appropriate conditions, there would still be less than one such event to date per observable universe.

by delecti 10y ago

jessriedel 10y ago

> My understanding is that current life developed about as quickly as it possibly could have, at least on a geological scale. This is commonly quoted, but actually not at all implied by the data, at least as long as you allow for the very real possibility that the road from inert matter to conscious observers required multiple improbable steps. For counter-intuitive probabilistic reasons, you can't infer the "improbableness" of a step from the amount of time it took to occur when several such steps occur. http://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/greatfilter.html http://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/greatfilter.html

delecti 10y ago
I actually mean solely abiogenesis. From the perspective of the Drake Equation [0], I think it's likely that ne [1] is quite low, and fl [2] is quite high. I don't think we can speculate on fi [3], given a sample size of 1. Though as we seem to be somewhat of an anomaly across several great extinction events, a low estimate there seems fair as a starting point. The great filter theory implies that the last two terms are also low, but again, my point was mainly focused on going from no life to basic life. Essentially I think that while there are improbably steps between inert matter and consciousness, abiogenesis itself does not seem to be one of them, though the suitability for abiogenesis likely is. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Equation [1] the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets [2] the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point [3] the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)
- jessriedel 10y ago
  But what I'm telling you is that this > My understanding is that current life developed about as quickly as it possibly could have, at least on a geological scale. does not actually imply that abiogenesis is "eager". Our evidence is consistent with it being being so improbable that even if the universe were filled with young Earth's with the appropriate conditions, there would still be less than one such event to date per observable universe.