Two planets with life are more miraculous than one

The Sensuous Curmudgeon, who presently cannot post to his weblog, comments:

This Discoveroid article is amazing. Could Atheism Survive the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life?. I wish I could make a new post about it. They say that if life is found elsewhere, that too is a miracle, so then you gotta believe in the intelligent designer. They say:

“The probability of life spontaneously self-assembling anywhere in this universe is mind-staggeringly unlikely; essentially zero. If you are so unquestioningly naïve as to believe we just got incredibly lucky, then bless your soul.”

Actually, “they” who posted at Evolution News and Views is someone we all love dearly, and see occasionally in the Zone — that master of arguments from improbability, Kirk Durston.

120 thoughts on “Two planets with life are more miraculous than one”

  1. TristanM

    Mung:

    It’s the other way around. Life on one planet is more improbable than life on two planets. Just ask Neil.

    No, let’s ask you.

    According to ID, is life more or less likely to appear on more than one planet? Show your math.

  2. RobinRobin

    Robert Byers: Robin:
    I would say that if we find humans – biologically identical Homo sapiens – on other worlds, I’d be forced to start believing in a Designer. Barring that, there’s no reason to go there.

    AHA. You don’t need to go to another planet. Convergent evolutionism teaches that creatures in unrelated family groups can evolve top look exactly alike.
    marsupials being the great living case. So there were marsupial wolves, moles, lions that looked exactly like our wolves, moles, lions. They invoke convergent evolution.

    Robert, you need to work on your reading skills. Note this particular clause:

    Robin: “…– biologically identical Homo sapiens – …”

    Convergent evolution can’t create identical biological organisms from different lineages. As you note, convergence is a fact of how similar organisms from different families will acquire similar appearances as a result of selective pressures from similar niches. You know…like dolphins and ichthyosaurs.

    But no matter what, different lines of organisms cannot evolve into identical biological Homo sapiens. That would require a premeditated miracle.

    so why not a marsupial ape leading to a marsupial humanoid??

    Possible, but it wouldn’t be a “biologically identical Homo sapien”

    Likewise there were other familys, creodonts , litopterns etc, with perfect likeness to other creatures yet said to be independently evolved under niche influence.

    Yep…and they’re not identical.

    So evolutionists sHOULD be expecting humanoid like creatures if they expect to find life on other planets. no reason not to. The great claim of convergent evolutionism demands this.

    Absolutely. Other humanoids are quite possible; identical Homo sapiens…not.

  3. RobinRobin

    petrushka: The time scale of evolution is such that it would be astonishing to find anything other than bacteria on an exoplanet.

    Ehh…I think given the number of worlds out there and the amount of time the universe has been around, there’s a reasonable chance of higher life forms than bacteria existing. Encountering them…well…not very likely.

  4. John HarshmanJohn Harshman

    Science has shown us that alien beings for the most part are identical to humans, though some of them come in different colors than are seen on Earth or have a few odd bumps on their heads. See Roddenberry 1966, Lucas 1977, Lee et al. 2017, and other references.

  5. Robert Byers

    Robin,

    The word identical is the rub I guess.
    Convergent evolution is not about dolphins/the other one as they are oNLY identical due to a water world they libve in. not due to niche. A special case.
    Convergent evolution does make a litoptern ‘horse” as unrelated to our horses thought exactly like a horse. likewise creodont bears, wolves and marsupial bears and wolves are said unrelated to ours. Yet identical save for trivial details.
    so humanoid type creatures not only could of happened on earth, just not found in fossils, but easily should be expected on other planets.
    If evolutionism is true.
    If we met a marsupial/creodont/litoptern humanoid ONE would not know they were not human until closer inspection. Very close.

    I don’t think evolutionists think through convergent evolutions ideas relative to a general theory of evolution.
    I think this is because convergent evolution is entirely based on a last ditch attempt to explain the improbable.

  6. RobinRobin

    Robert Byers:
    Robin,

    The word identical is the rub I guess.
    Convergent evolution is not about dolphins/the other one as they are oNLY identical due to a water world they libve in. not due to niche. A special case.

    Uhh…the water world they live in IS part of their niche. What do you think niche means?

    But the fact is that ichthyosaurs and dolphins are not identical. They are very similar, but not identical.

    Convergent evolution does make a litoptern ‘horse” as unrelated to our horses thought exactly like a horse. likewise creodont bears, wolves and marsupial bears and wolves are said unrelated to ours. Yet identical save for trivial details.

    You apparently don’t know what “identical” means, Robert. “Similar” and “identical” are not synonymous terms. Any difference, no matter how trivial you insist it is, means the two are not identical.

    so humanoid type creatures not only could of happened on earth, just not found in fossils, but easily should be expected on other planets.
    If evolutionism is true.

    Absolutely. I’m certain there are humanoid organisms out in the universe somewhere. And heck, technically Neanderthals and Homo erectus were humanoids. So I have no problem with the concept whatsoever.

    If we met a marsupial/creodont/litoptern humanoid ONE would not know they were not human until closer inspection. Very close.

    Maybe, but they still would not be identical. And my guess is, they would behave very differently from humans simply based on the difference in biology.

    I don’t think evolutionists think through convergent evolutions ideas relative to a general theory of evolution.
    I think this is because convergent evolution is entirely based on a last ditch attempt to explain the improbable.

    ???

    I have no idea what you mean here. There’s nothing improbable about the similarity of disparate species resulting from similar evolutionary pressures from similar environmental niches. If a given body plan works really well for a given niche, it makes sense that the body plan would crop up again and again in similar niches.

  7. MungMung

    TristanM: According to ID, is life more or less likely to appear on more than one planet? Show your math.

    Exactly.

    If we discover life on another planet it will not change the probability one single IOTA that life on earth or anywhere else arose naturally. Show your math.

  8. Robert Byers

    Robin,

    Its a famous case the one you bring up about the dolphin and reptil;e thing.
    I doubt its a reptile but thats beside the point.
    Its the same as niche creating the body plan.
    convergent e3volution is invoked fopr niche, hunting/hiding etc etc, creating like body plans in unrelated creatures. Marsupials being a existing case.
    In your example its not the niche but ONLY the special case of a waterwoprld boundary. moving through water, like air, is a great general condition.
    In other words it could only be that creatures are streamlined for the water.
    this has nothing to do with the claims of convergent evolution.
    having a marsupial lion converge with a regular lion is not based on the air.
    Its claimed to be the result of great numvers of selective traits to bring about a like body plan.
    Its very unlikely, impossible, this would happen and quite a lot.
    mutation, even worse drift mutations, would never appeasr and then be selected on.
    Evolutionism has never thought this through.
    A marsupial lion does not look like a regular lion because of the climate.
    They don’t say that as your poster chart thing says.

    yes humanoid type creatures should be expected on earth, in the past, (as options) and on other planets.
    Yet few evolutionists do as they smell its impossible even as a option.
    Niche does not equal climate. just a minor other detail.

  9. newton

    Mung: If we discover life on another planet it will not change the probability one single IOTA that life on earth or anywhere else arose naturally. Show your math.

    Exactly , design is unfalsifiable.

  10. Tom EnglishTom English Post author

    Mung: If we discover life on another planet it will not change the probability one single IOTA that life on earth or anywhere else arose naturally. Show your math.

    State your interpretation of probability.

  11. MungMung

    Tom English: State your interpretation of probability.

    As usual, you win the prize.

    Neil Rickert: (2) if we find another planet with life, we will see that as evidence that natural formation of life is more probable than we had previously thought.

    What was Neil’s interpretation of probability?

  12. OMagain

    Mung: What was Neil’s interpretation of probability?

    There are N other people you could ask the same, but however many answers you receive none of those will answer the question you were asked.

    You made a strong claim:

    If we discover life on another planet it will not change the probability one single IOTA that life on earth or anywhere else arose naturally.

    But are unable to back it up when asked and instead misdirect. Transparent bluffer.

  13. J-MacJ-Mac

    Two planets with life are more miraculous than one…
    …The probability of life spontaneously self-assembling anywhere in this universe is mind-staggeringly unlikely; essentially zero.

    Hmmm…If on one planet there is zero evidence that life could have spontaneously self-assembled, finding another planet with life could mean:
    1. 2 x 0 evidence = still zero
    2. 2 x 0 evidence = whatever materialist wish it to be
    3. 2 x 0 evidence = same pile of s..t like on the first planet, just bigger
    4. 2 x 0 evidence = all the above

  14. MungMung

    Tom English: State your interpretation of probability.

    Bayesian, when it suits my purposes. 🙂

    I get the sense that far too many people here wouldn’t even understand the question.

  15. phoodoo

    Robin,

    I remember the first time I heard of the proposed theory of convergent evolution.

    I couldn’t stop laughing for an hour. And I realized, wait, The Marx Brothers were the founders of evolutionary theory? Its a performance art movement? It was never intended to be taken seriously?

  16. newton

    phoodoo: I couldn’t stop laughing for an hour. And I realized, wait, The Marx Brothers were the founders of evolutionary theory

    I believe you are confused ” Monkey Business ” is not about evolutionary theory.

  17. RobinRobin

    phoodoo:
    Robin,

    I remember the first time I heard of the proposed theory of convergent evolution.

    I couldn’t stop laughing for an hour.And I realized, wait, The Marx Brothers were the founders of evolutionary theory?Its a performance art movement?It was never intended to be taken seriously?

    I can’t image what you found so funny about the concept of convergence, but I’ll take your word that you did.

Leave a Reply