Astronomical Origins of Life - Steps Towards Panspermia

Rating:
Summary: On the right track
Review: Hoyle is on the right track when he calculates the odds of the DNA needed for a simple cell forming by chance. I go similar numbers for a cell with about 250 genes (a theoretical cell that can reproduce and use food). He calculated the odds to be 1 out of 10 to the 40,000th power! He correctly realized that there was not enough time or material on earth to make it mathematically possible to get even a simple cell by chance - even if you were given whole DNA molecules (thermodynamics rules out large molecules before cells - see TIME'S ARROW by Blum). However to suggest that such cells formed elsewhere in the universe only increases the chances slightly. If you calculated the maximum number of events in the entire univers over the past 20 billion years they would not exceed 10 to the 120th power. (Take the number of atomic vibrations per second - 10 to the 11th max - for every atom in the universe - 10 to the 80th - and multiply that times the number of seconds in 20 billion years and you get about 10 to the 108th events). To make the human (or most any other creature's) genome by random chance mutations is mathematically impossible. To get all my A,T,C,and G's of my DNA code in the order they are in by chance is less than one out of 10 to the billionth power (assuming the Human genome to be about 3.12 billion base pairs, teh odds for each base is 1/4, 1/4 times itself 3 billion times is less than 1 out of 10 to the billionth power). Even if 99% is nonsense it would still be 1 out of 10 to the 10 millionth power - or impossible anywhere in a universe with only 10 to the 108th events. Impossible unless there is intelligence acting. Chance is not intelligent, Natural laws are not intelligent - they cannot produce complex specific information (such as language and DNA see INTELLIGENT DESIGN by Dembski. Natural selection is a law that selects good information by selecting functional traits in reproducing organisms. Natural selection does not PRODUCE the information. Natural Selection explains the survival of the fittest, NOT THE ARRIVAL of the fittest! The information gap between life and non life and between every major goup of creatures on earth is immense and impossible to cross without intelligence. Maybe this intelligence is the same one that caused the Universe for you can't get something from nothing and the cause must equal or exceed the effect, therefore the cause of hte universe must be outside and probably greater than the universe. From the amazing complexity of the laws of nature and the fact that the cause had to choose to make the universe - it is logical to conclude that the cause of the universe is intelligent.Darwin may have hit the nail on the head on the last page of his book ORIGIN OF SPECIES when he attributed the first cells to the Creator's direct act. The calculations Hoyle and Wickramasinghe did are evidence that there may have been much more involvement by the Creator than Darwin thought.

Rating:
Summary: Off the wall
Review: I think the idea behind this book is way off base. Let's examine Hoyle's basic argument, which is behind the papers in this book.

In one of the papers ("Deductions from the Weak Anthropic Principle"), Hoyle claims that the information content of a simple cell or, worse, of a complex organism, is so huge that it would be basically impossible for life to originate in a Big-Bang cosmology. That would force us to return to one of Hoyle's favorite ideas, basically a steady-state universe.

Let's not completely dismiss the idea of Hoyle's steady-state universe. In spite of the convincing evidence for a Big Bang, there is the worry that we're being a little provincial by saying that all of Reality may be less than 15 billion years old. There is the question: what else is there? What was there "before" Reality? And note that a universe that had an infinite number of consecutive "Big Bangs" might be "steady-state" in effect. But I am still extremely unimpressed by Hoyle's argument.

For one thing, I can't abide the argument that life has virtually no chance (1 in 10 to the tens of thousands or more) of arising in our Universe, a Universe which if anything seems ideal for the development of life. The Universe is here. We're here. Why not believe that it is possible? I for one would bet that it is. And if that does not agree with Hoyle's theory, I'm perfectly prepared to believe that his theory is wrong.

For another, I think Hoyle is completely wrong to say that the transition from non-living to living matter can't really proceed by a relatively small set of surprisingly likely steps. Hoyle calls this a semantic argument, "which seeks to replace the probability for the whole chain by the sum of the individual probabilities of the many steps, instead of by the product." That statement by Hoyle is very insulting and totally incorrect. In addition, Hoyle's conclusion is absurd.

Finally, let's get to the meat of much of the book, namely discussions of life in space. Perhaps the motivation for this was something like the following argument: Life could not have originated on Earth. Therefore it must have originated on a planet just like Earth and moved here from there.

I know I have stated this argument sarcastically. But that does not mean that Hoyle can't be right about life on Earth coming from Mars or elsewhere. I'd bet against it. But it is possible. For Hoyle's idea to have a chance, we'd want evidence that some logical steps in the origin of life simply did not happen on Earth, or had insufficient time to occur. Then, find some evidence that there was indeed a more hospitable environment elsewhere, plus time for life to develop there, plus a good mechanism to get that life here, and we'd have a very legitimate scientific discussion on our hands.

That is what leads to many of the papers in this book, which try to assess what organic polymers there are in space. This fits in with questions about whether life can survive the space environment: no gravity, no atmosphere, cosmic rays and other radiation, little if any water, and extreme cold. Plus the problems of getting into space and surviving a landing on Earth. And especially the issue of whether life is out there right now.

Hoyle and his co-authors discuss the nature of interstellar grains. They find that there may be an enormous amount of bacteria out there, but this conclusion has not been supported by many others in the academic community. I feel that the strength of the evidence for such claims is indeed exaggerated in this book.

I found this book to be unsatisfying. I was hoping to learn some astrobiology from it, and wound up not being able to trust many of its conclusions.