The Fermi Paradox

[QED]

In this debate I would like to see some resolutions offered to The Fermi Paradox:

[T]he apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence for, or contact with, such civilizations.

The extreme age of the universe and its vast number of stars suggest that if the Earth is typical, extraterrestrial life should be common. Discussing this proposition with colleagues over lunch in 1950, the physicist Enrico Fermi asked: "Where are they?"

Note that when it comes to the colonization of our galaxy it would take only one ETC (extraterrestrial civilization) to pull it off. So offering an explanation such as "they blow themselves up before they embark on a program of colonization" wouldn't be particularly convincing as it would have to be something that got in the way of all ETC's ambitions.

Colonization seems to be a reasonable expectation as life appears to spread wherever resources permit. Various estimates range from around one to ten million years for a wave of colonization to sweep throughout the galaxy -- based on propulsion systems consistent with known physics. Although long in terms of a civilization, this kind of time-scale is nothing in terms of the age of the universe and is within the span of many of our own terrestrial species.

So, given the conservative estimate that conditions in the universe were amenable to life some 3 billion years before us (Livio 1999) we might expect ETC's to have expanded into every conceivable niche, or at least have left evidence of such an expansion behind by now.

Question for debate: Where are they?

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., we are evidence of life in the universe.

Well, that was helpful ...

[The Duke of Vandals]

..., we are evidence of life in the universe.

Well, that was helpful ...

It was, actually. I don't find the fermi paradox the least bit compelling. It's like saying, "I have reason to believe that people from Alaska exist. Because none have come to where I live (that I know of) there's some problem with my ideas about Alaska."

[QED]

Unlike Mayr I do perceive a pattern in evolution, a kind of Moor's Law ...

How silly of Mayr to overlook Moor's Law.

I deliberately said a kind of Moor's law because (obviously) biology isn't made out of transistors. I think it's entirely reasonable to expect the course of evolutionary development to be marked by periodic "breakthroughs" or "gear changes". Not that anything changes overnight, but I think the shift away from an anoxic atmosphere represents an enabling event (change of gear) on the grandest of scales. It took a lot of patient work to do it, but once it was done the environment was transformed in a way that would make the next round of innovation happen a lot faster. Maybe you don't believe there's such a thing as natural innovation?

This is anthropocentric nonsense - not perception but delusion.

How can you be so sure that it's delusional nonsense? I agree that I'm using the analogy of mechanical gearing as a way of explaining why I think evolution can't be entirely pattern free -- and I'm still sticking to that notion for the time being.

Where was your Moor's Law over the 2 billion year prokaryote reign?

Isn't it right there in your figures? (and remember, it's Moor's law not mine)



Eons and Eras in the Geologic Time Scale above are identified by major shifts in the forms of life on the planet. Remember that I'm not predicting a precise geometrical progression, but an overall picture where stuff gets off to a real slow start but the "next big thing" tends to follow-on in significantly less time. Doesn't the above diagram have anything like that look about it to you?

Put it another way, if something like the Cambrian was inserted between the Archean and Proterozoic it would stand out like a sore thumb -- a frenetic period of "innovation" sandwiched between Eons in which hardly anything changed.

How does your Moor's Law anticipate the K/T event?

If each Era is entirely due to external catastrophe then it would seem that the "pattern" would be entirely random. But there's a growing consensus that catastrophes aren't directly and solely responsible for major extinctions.

Your 'argument' - which amounts to little more than a claim repeated - is essentially ID respun - with your Moor's Law reprising the role of God.

It's an argument from observation, and experience. You seem to be putting emphasis on arbitrary laws dictating what must go on, while I see the hint of a natural, logical, order from which we might derive a law.

At this point two things are very clear:

1. You chose to ignore everything that Mayr wrote, and
2. when you offered

   • If you wish. But the fact remains that to argue that evolution implies a successful SETI or that the failure of SETI serves as an argument against evolution is to wallow in teleology and expose one's ignorance of the theory and process under discussion.

     I totally agree.

you were obviously confused.

I still am by your reckoning. I think Mayr is overly pessimistic and I expect there to be a substantial quantity of ETC's in most galaxies. I don't, however, expect them to show-up in SETI.

[Jayhawker Soule]

How does your Moor's Law anticipate the K/T event?

If each Era is entirely due to external catastrophe then it would seem that the "pattern" would be entirely random. But there's a growing consensus that catastrophes aren't directly and solely responsible for major extinctions.

What a remarkable piece of nonresponsive acrobatics that was!

[QED]

How does your Moor's Law anticipate the K/T event?

If each Era is entirely due to external catastrophe then it would seem that the "pattern" would be entirely random. But there's a growing consensus that catastrophes aren't directly and solely responsible for major extinctions.

What a remarkable piece of nonresponsive acrobatics that was!

I agree it could have done with some elaboration, but you know we haven't always got time to do things justice here. Isn't it generally understood that evolution "needs" a bit of a shake-up now and then to get it out of a rut? BTW, you can tell that I'm no biologist so I'm counting on you to put me right if I spout any more nonsense

It certainly seems reasonable to suppose that some evolutionary developments remain in restricted circulation while being overshadowed (quite literally) by dominant life-forms (a small mammal fleeing from the foot-falls of a Dino is the usual mental image). So I've got another mental image of a sieve holding a range of rocks in different sizes. The sieve needs constant shaking to permit the smaller grains to pass the bigger ones and exit through the mesh. Just the other month New Scientist carried an article titled Mass extinctions: The Armageddon factor. It placed less emphasis on bombardment from space and more on volcanic eruptions. Either way, it looks to me as though extinction through catastrophe is a fairly regular background (the diagram in the New Scientist article shows a very rough spacing of around 50MY -- if you squint at the page in a poorly-lit room) to whatever is trying to evolve.

The 2 billion year reign of the prokaryotes was presumably disturbed by a similar series of unfortunate events but life wasn't yet equipped to make the moves. This tells me that "any pattern" is not solely due to external events, but it takes such events to make it manifest.

Eons and Eras in the Geologic Time Scale above are identified by major shifts in the forms of life on the planet. Remember that I'm not predicting a precise geometrical progression, but an overall picture where stuff gets off to a real slow start but the "next big thing" tends to follow-on in significantly less time. Doesn't the above diagram have anything like that look about it to you?

Obviously the K/T Is a consequence of a chance catastrophe, but the shape of life thereafter seems to have already been primed to change.

Despite what you've stated, I'm not ignoring Mayr -- I simply find his opinion uncompelling. His position implies that had some chance mutation not happened in one of our ancestors (something that seems to have been shared between us and another species -- the Neanderthals that you've yet to comment on) life could easily have gone on for another four billion years without ever re-visiting that trick. I think this puts far too much emphasis on "luck" and ignores the patient preparation of the landscape.

[QED]

It was, actually. I don't find the fermi paradox the least bit compelling. It's like saying, "I have reason to believe that people from Alaska exist. Because none have come to where I live (that I know of) there's some problem with my ideas about Alaska."

I like that way of putting it. The "problem" can be solved by finding out why nobody from Alaska has visited you -- just as easily as it can by finding that nobody exists there. I opened this thread to collect a range of ideas, obviously "we are alone in the universe" can't be embellished any further as a solution.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Despite what you've stated, I'm not ignoring Mayr -- I simply find his opinion uncompelling. His position implies that had some chance mutation not happened in one of our ancestors (something that seems to have been shared between us and another species -- the Neanderthals that you've yet to comment on) life could easily have gone on for another four billion years without ever re-visiting that trick.

I did not comment on Neanderthal simply because I believe that any attempt to extrapolate a Moor's Law from an event that occurred in the last 0.013 percent of bio-history is a near fatuous diversion - something akin to extrapolating a Moor's Law of Super Bowl based on the last half second of an arbitrarily selected game.

I think this puts far too much emphasis on "luck" and ignores the patient preparation of the landscape.

As in the advent of Panama? This is teleological nonsense.

[Jayhawker Soule]

How does your Moor's Law anticipate the K/T event?

If each Era is entirely due to external catastrophe then it would seem that the "pattern" would be entirely random. But there's a growing consensus that catastrophes aren't directly and solely responsible for major extinctions.

What a remarkable piece of nonresponsive acrobatics that was!

I agree it could have done with some elaboration, ...

At issue is not elaboration but responsiveness and relevancy. It would also be nice if you'd simply drop the absurd "solely responsible" strawman.

Project yourself back 75 mya. Do you truly wish to claim a 1% likelihood for the evolution of an intelligent civilization?

[Goat]

How does your Moor's Law anticipate the K/T event?

If each Era is entirely due to external catastrophe then it would seem that the "pattern" would be entirely random. But there's a growing consensus that catastrophes aren't directly and solely responsible for major extinctions.

What a remarkable piece of nonresponsive acrobatics that was!

I agree it could have done with some elaboration, ...

At issue is not elaboration but responsiveness and relevancy. It would also be nice if you'd simply drop the absurd "solely responsible" strawman.

Project yourself back 75 mya. Do you truly wish to claim a 1% likelihood for the evolution of an intelligent civilization?

I would actually put it lower than that.. however that is irrelevant at this point. The chances of an intelligent civilization having occurred are 1, since we have an example.


So??

[QED]

I did not comment on Neanderthal simply because I believe that any attempt to extrapolate a Moor's Law from an event that occurred in the last 0.013 percent of bio-history is a near fatuous diversion - something akin to extrapolating a Moor's Law of Super Bowl based on the last half second of an arbitrarily selected game.

Sure, but what about the first half of the game? 50% of Earth's bio-history was played-out by bacteria alone. Why does nothing that follows look like more than a half-such a lazy performance? It's all a bit hazy for paleobiologists but the eukaryotic organisms of the Mesoproterozoic and Neoproterozoic appear to discover most of their big-hitters (e.g. larval and embryonic stages) in the short run-up to the Cambrian big-bang.

I agree with you that backwards extrapolation from the events of the last few tens of millions of years is bound to be hopeless -- but I also think Neanderthals are well worthy of comment as, at a stroke, they double the number of species posessing what is questionably termed "higher intelligence" in Mayr's accounting.

I think this puts far too much emphasis on "luck" and ignores the patient preparation of the landscape.

As in the advent of Panama? This is teleological nonsense.

Please elaborate. Why is it nonsense to pay attention to the vast amount of time taken to get from prokaryote to eukaryote and then to note the relatively minor time from the Cambrian to today? I'm normally the one accusing people of seeing patterns where there are none, so I wish you would put me out of my current misery with something more compelling than what sounds like "if you don't agree with Ernst Walter Mayr then you must be a knuckle-head".