Is the existence of life on Earth any indication of the likelihood of abiogenesis? That's a question that has stumped scientists and others for a long time.
Brandon Carter argued that the selection effect of our own existence makes it hard to observe. Since we had to find ourselves on a planet where abiogenesis occurred, there is nothing we can say about the likelihood of life elsewhere.
He said that the knowledge of life on Earth is not worth much. Earth isn't a typical Earth-like planet because it hasn't been selected at random from a group of Earth-like planets.
A new paper by a professor at the University of A argues that Carter used faulty logic. Carter's theory suffers from the old evidence problem, which is used to update a theory or hypothesis in light of new evidence.
After giving a few examples of how this formula is used to calculate probabilities and what role old evidence plays, he turned to what he called the conception analogy.
One could argue that I exist regardless of whether my conception was easy or hard, and so nothing can be inferred from my existence alone.
"Hard" means contraception was used. No contraceptive was used. The values are assigned to the proposition.
My existence is old evidence and needs to be treated as such. It is more likely than not that my conception was simple. It's the same thing when it comes to abiogenesis. The likelihood that abiogenesis is easy is much more probable than the existence of life on Earth.
The case for life on other planets is not based on the evidence of life on Earth. Life is more likely to emerge on other Earth-like planets than it is on the recently discovered "super- Earth" type planet.
The paper "Abiogensis: The Carter Argument Reconsidered" is available in the International Journal of Astrobiology.
More information: Daniel P. Whitmire, Abiogenesis: the Carter argument reconsidered, International Journal of Astrobiology (2022). DOI: 10.1017/S1473550422000350 Journal information: International Journal of Astrobiology
All Rights Reserved © 2024
