Infinity was invented to account for the possibility that in a never-ending universe, anything can happen. Life on other Earth-like planets, for example, is possible in an infinite universe, but not probable, according to a scientist from the University of East Anglia.
The mathematical model produced by Prof Andrew Watson suggests that the odds of finding new life on other Earth-like planets are low because of the time it has taken for beings such as humans to evolve and the remaining life span of the Earth. Structurally complex and intelligent life evolved late on Earth and this process might be governed by a small number of very difficult evolutionary steps.
Prof Watson, from the School of Environmental Sciences, takes this idea further by looking at the probability of each of these critical steps occurring in relation to the life span of the Earth, giving an improved mathematical model for the evolution of intelligent life.
According to Prof Watson a limit to evolution is the habitability of Earth, and any other Earth-like planets, which will end as the sun brightens. Solar models predict that the brightness of the sun is increasing, while temperature models suggest that because of this the future life span of Earth will be ‘only’ about another billion years, a short time compared to the four billion years since life first appeared on the planet.
“The Earth’s biosphere is now in its old age and this has implications for our understanding of the likelihood of complex life and intelligence arising on any given planet,” said Prof Watson.
“At present, Earth is the only example we have of a planet with life. If we learned the planet would be habitable for a set period and that we had evolved early in this period, then even with a sample of one, we’d suspect that evolution from simple to complex and intelligent life was quite likely to occur. By contrast, we now believe that we evolved late in the habitable period, and this suggests that our evolution is rather unlikely. In fact, the timing of events is consistent with it being very rare indeed.”
Prof Watson suggests the number of evolutionary steps needed to create intelligent life, in the case of humans, is four. These probably include the emergence of single-celled bacteria, complex cells, specialized cells allowing complex life forms, and intelligent life with an established language.
“Complex life is separated from the simplest life forms by several very unlikely steps and therefore will be much less common. Intelligence is one step further, so it is much less common still,” said Prof Watson.
His model, published in the journal Astrobiology, suggests an upper limit for the probability of each step occurring is 10 per cent or less, so the chances of intelligent life emerging is low – less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years.
Each step is independent of the other and can only take place after the previous steps in the sequence have occurred. They tend to be evenly spaced through Earth’s history and this is consistent with some of the major transitions identified in the evolution of life on Earth.
Comments
Anonymous (not verified) | 02/13/09 | 12:11 PM
primal (not verified) | 12/06/08 | 19:01 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 01/07/09 | 01:24 AM
planets that support life in which that is what the above caculates, again in infinity to say what is the probablity is
to say it is possible and if it is possible then it is also possible that it occurs over and over again in to infintum
in an endless cycle. A once in a trillion chance that a planet would fall into a possible sun zone that would
spark life and a trillion failures of the ones that meet the criteria for life and a trillion more that dies at
and early stage , trillions more that died out in the dinosaur age and then one in an immeasurable amount
of space and time that allowed me to make this speculation of a fool.
Albert eat your heart out
russell (not verified) | 01/07/09 | 05:44 AM
Soujiro (not verified) | 08/23/09 | 01:06 AM
I for one think its arrogant to believe that we are the only living things in all of infinity. I guess what we need is tangible proof of life elsewhere.
Last comment. There is no need to find conditions that fit life because life evolves to meet certain conditions. There are places at the very bottom of the ocean get zero rays of sunlight year round yet life exists there? Unbelievable pressure and cold. Life is a force that fights to live. It evolves to the conditions it finds itself in..
Anonymous (not verified) | 03/22/09 | 19:26 PM
Rick (not verified) | 04/14/09 | 03:46 AM
Who's doing that then? I don't think any self respecting scientist would ever dare to suggest that they had an answer to that or many other mysteries of the universe.That doesn't mean that one day we won't find out though.
In the mean time these mysteries are what inspire awe in us and make life and the Universe so fascinating.
Tapemeister (not verified) | 05/17/09 | 11:21 AM
Right, I am not sure why any commenters in here have objections to asking questions and seeking answers. St. Augustine of Hippo did that same thing (tried to find an intelligible and sensible origin of the individual soul and all life) and he was hardly an enemy of religious people. Religion was never meant to be brainwashing and isolation from creative thought - that's instead what cults do.
Hank Campbell | 05/17/09 | 11:59 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 09/24/09 | 00:12 AM
Anonymous (not verified) | 06/03/09 | 18:12 PM
Patrick Lockerby | 06/03/09 | 18:41 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 09/24/09 | 00:07 AM
Religious Dude! (not verified) | 09/24/09 | 00:15 AM
The premise of Prof Andrew Watson is that life is the result of casualty or ramdom interactions that by luck resulted in life. Giving the other assumption of infinity, the comment of Jim Myres seems very outstanding.
Strictly speaking we do not know if any of the assumptions are right (we cannot know).
What about this, putting aside all religion thinking or belief, faith or whatever you call it; let's assume that there is some natural law which is not discovered yet, by which some elements have synergy with others (i.e. H, O, C and all elements of the organic chemistry), then the combinations of these elements will be more resilient, or once they are generated, the probability to be destroyed is is less than for any combination ramdomly created; so by natural selection there will be an evolution and more complex composites etc. will evolve. It is just the opposite of entropy which as time pases lead to chaos, in this case because of synergy as time passes and the specimens are subject to "creative destruction" their synergy and complexity will increase. We have examples of this in the economy or automotive industry which by the force of "competition" and the survival of the most apt or with better "synergy" the system becomes more and more complex.
Daniel Blancas | 09/26/09 | 00:12 AM
The premise of Prof Andrew Watson is that life is the result of casualty or ramdom interactions that by luck resulted in life.
Actually you want to be careful here. He actually said:
"If we learned the planet would be habitable for a set period and that
we had evolved early in this period, then even with a sample of one,
we’d suspect that evolution from simple to complex and intelligent life
was quite likely to occur. By contrast, we now believe that we evolved
late in the habitable period, and this suggests that our evolution is
rather unlikely. In fact, the timing of events is consistent with it
being very rare indeed.”
His point is not that life is rare, but rather the likelihood of finding comparably intelligent life in the universe would be more rare. If you consider all the life forms present on the earth and then consider how many have developed the ability to communicate using radio waves, and then consider over what period of time (considering the existence of the earth), you can easily see that this is a very tiny window indeed.
Gerhard Adam | 09/28/09 | 11:51 AM
Steve Davis | 09/26/09 | 16:06 PM
Daniel Blancas | 09/27/09 | 22:42 PM
Steve Davis | 09/28/09 | 02:05 AM
There are a couple of more philosophical problems with this perspective than simply the evolution of intelligent life.
In the first instance, we only have one demonstrable case of intelligent life evolving. However, we have to be careful to not infer that this was an "objective" of evolution, therefore we have to consider the possibility that it was an "accident" whose biological merit has not yet been established. Even if we argue about our success in populating the planet, there are many species that experience such population bursts, but they don't require "intelligence" to do so and they never last.
Additionally we have to consider what the probability is of actually being able to detect and communicate with another intelligent species at the same time interval where our technologies would align.
However, perhaps the most important consideration is our implicit assumption that intelligence necessarily translates into the scientific method and the desire to communicate with others. Once again, we have to consider how long we (as humans) have embraced the scientific method as contrasted with our total time on earth.
In the first instance, we only have one demonstrable case of intelligent life evolving. However, we have to be careful to not infer that this was an "objective" of evolution, therefore we have to consider the possibility that it was an "accident" whose biological merit has not yet been established. Even if we argue about our success in populating the planet, there are many species that experience such population bursts, but they don't require "intelligence" to do so and they never last.
Additionally we have to consider what the probability is of actually being able to detect and communicate with another intelligent species at the same time interval where our technologies would align.
However, perhaps the most important consideration is our implicit assumption that intelligence necessarily translates into the scientific method and the desire to communicate with others. Once again, we have to consider how long we (as humans) have embraced the scientific method as contrasted with our total time on earth.
Gerhard Adam | 09/28/09 | 12:08 PM
I was reading Gerhard comments to calculationg the odds... and I got amazed about his knowledge and logical way of thinking ...and patience. I could not find the comment where a similar idea than mine was explained, but it does not matter, I'm not looking for a having a primicia (wouldn't have share it), but I want to know more about this.
About your comments Gerhard, I think you are very right about the conclusions of Prof Andrew Watson. Only point here would be that it seems to me tht even the smallest (not cero) probability multiplied by "infinity" would result perhaps in "Life on other Earth-like planets... is probable". To be honest, I think he would have to have done a deep mathematical analysis, which I haven't, then I wrote "perhaps". If he would have said "Life on other Earth-like planets, for example, is possible in a finite portion of the universe, but not probable", I would totally agree with that.
Also your philosophical considerations I found them very logical and agree with them very much.
what I wanted to explain, and I want to make clear this is not a belief or a "want it would be" or "like it would be", as an idea (as a mental experiment), is that if there is a natural law by which matter gets complex and organized as time pases (even at a very slow pace), then it is very probable that as a result inteligent living organisms would result, such as us or even more inteligent, not as an accident but as an unavoidable result. Again, I am not saying that this is something that it has to be like that because of god or somebody having planned it since the beginning etc; I am saying that it could be, as any other possibility could.
Daniel Blancas | 09/29/09 | 00:27 AM
I would suggest you read Dave Deamer's posts for some interesting discussions regarding the origins of life and the chemistry involved.
Prebiotic Simulations Show That Organic Compounds Were Present On Early Earth
Volcanic Chemistry And Hydrocarbons In Early Earth History
Stirring The Volcanic Pot For A Hydrothermal Origin Of Life
Life: An Icy Origin?
There are others, but this should get you started.
Prebiotic Simulations Show That Organic Compounds Were Present On Early Earth
Volcanic Chemistry And Hydrocarbons In Early Earth History
Stirring The Volcanic Pot For A Hydrothermal Origin Of Life
Life: An Icy Origin?
There are others, but this should get you started.
Gerhard Adam | 09/29/09 | 13:38 PM
This .01 percent chance of intelligent life (unknowable but sounds reasonable enough) applies of course to Earth like planets only, the likelyhood of any particular solar system containing an Earth is far smaller than this:
We don't know how big the universe actually is, but taking the observable universe we have an
estimate of I think 9 billion trillion (9,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) stars?
21 zeros almost seems like a practical infinity- but when we start dividing for known hurdles to forming Earth-like planets they start to dissapear.- some of these are very rough- but just for argument-
only 10 percent solar systems lie in Galactic habitable zone (take off 1 zero)
needs to stay there-circular orbit & correct speed
only 10 percent have protoplanetary disks not blown away by radiation
small percentage are single systems (1 star not multiple)
small percentage are Sun-like (not to hot/short lived or small/cold)
only 5% of these remaining systems observed have Jupiter-like gas giant to shield inner system from meteors
now you have a decent solar system- you need a perfect inner rocky planet
has to fit right in the habitable zone (decent chance)
but very small chance of circular orbit- most other systems observed are eccentric
You need a single very large moon to stabilize wobbles-(almost freakishly unlikely?)
correct elements for atmosphere/oceans- no tidal locking to Sun, tectonic activity/ molten core-magnetic field etc etc
what you're left with may well be a very small number of probable Earths- it depends
on more accurate numbers- and any other unknown or overlooked factors- and the actual sie of the total universe.
But the chances of one of these occuring close enough to detect, with intelligent life, at the same time as us?
My money would be on no contact ever between two planets' intelligent life?
Steve L (not verified) | 11/18/09 | 16:36 PM
In engineering, when you make a pure technical judgment you should be pesimistic to make sure you are preventing any risk.
but very small chance of circular orbit- most other systems observed are eccentric
Is this because we are observing stars which are representative of the total universe star population or it is as a result of our detection methods or procedures limitation, for instance we are watching tiny star displacements derived from an eccentric orbit, then concluding that there is an orbiting planet, but for the circular orbit planets there is no such tiny displacements so even they may exist we do not have a suitable technology to detect them.
Daniel Blancas | 11/20/09 | 00:45 AM












Prof. Watson, unfortunately, may be correct in his conclusion that "life on other Earth-like planets...(is)..not probable." He may have proved the opposite by introducing infinity, "Infinity was invented to account for... a never-ending universe."
"His model... suggests an upper limit for the probability of each step occurring is 10 per cent or less, so the chances of intelligent life emerging is low – less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years." Less than 0.01% of infinity is a pretty big chunk of celestual relistate even over four billion years. Intelligent life may be impossible to find - the proverbial needle-in-the-haystack but with these odds we at least know that the needle is there somplace.
Had Prof. Watson not mentioned "infinity" his arguments would have been rock solid.