4 ms·
Another day, another panspermia article. So transistor density and publication frequency follow a very strict exponential rule and that rule can in turn be used
by Udo 14y ago
Another day, another panspermia article. So transistor density and publication frequency follow a very strict exponential rule and that rule can in turn be used to trace the time elapsed to their origins. Most systems though don't follow such a rule, and if they do they generally don't at the extremes of the graph (near the beginning and after a long time).
That said, the estimated 9.7 ± 2.5 billion years for life to evolve is at least within an order of magnitude correct, which makes it pretty cool. Also, we don't know how long abiogenesis takes and through which stages (presumably: many) the whole thing has to go until even the most basic building blocks as we know them today are set up. So you can add X billion years on top of that estimate while you're at it.
Does that prove anything? Absolutely not. But even without evoking the tiring panspermia hypothesis this result is interesting, because the result is not completely off. It means that, within a certain period at least, the complexity of life does follow this exponential rule. Clearly, the formula needs to be tuned (based on evidence, not on open-mouth extraterrestrial finger-pointing), but it's a great start. I would venture that a more detailed genetic analysis of relatively recent organisms might result in a curve that is much more accurate.
Assuming something will always double within a certain interval is not detailed enough as a model for this.
- leot 14y agoWhat's so tiresome about panspermia?
- Udo 14y agoThere is usually not a lot of actual science involved. The motivations for presenting panspermia papers are in most cases philosophical in nature and it shows. This paper, too, implies that's what happened even though the accuracy of the model is highly dubious for a number of reasons. Compare that to when Hubble first attempted to calculate the age of the universe by measuring the history of its expansion. It was quite a similar method: simply roll the equation back in time to where the universe's size was zero. He got a result that was lower than the geologically known age of the Earth, in fact we now know he was off by a factor of ten! Refreshingly, people didn't jump to conclusions though and in time everything fell into place. Hubble had fallen victim to a systematic measuring error. We are also now pretty certain that the expansion of the universe was not always linear. Hubble's method is still valid and impressive, but the tools and models needed to be refined. It's easy to see that the same applies to this finding.