Researchers use Moore's Law to calculate that life began before Earth existed

Apr 18, 2013 by Bob Yirka report
On this semilog plot, the complexity of organisms, as measured by the length of functional non-redundant DNA per genome counted by nucleotide base pairs (bp), increases linearly with time (Sharov, 2012). Time is counted backwards in billions of years before the present (time 0). Credit: arXiv:1304.3381 [physics.gen-ph]

(Phys.org) —Geneticists Richard Gordon of the Gulf Specimen Marine Laboratory in Florida and Alexei Sharov of the National Institute on Aging in Baltimore have proposed, in a paper uploaded to the preprint server arXiv, that if the evolution of life follows Moore's Law, then it predates the existence of planet Earth.

Moore's Law, of course, famously suggests that the complexity of computers grows at a rate of double the transistors per circuit every two years, resulting in . Looking at the complexity of computers today and working Moore's Law backwards shows that the first came about during the 1960s, which is when they were actually invented. In their paper, Gordon and Sharov take the same approach, only they apply it to .

The two researchers acknowledge their ideas are more of a "thought exercise" than a theory proposal, but at the same time suggest their calculations ought to be taken seriously. They start with the idea of doubling every 376 million years—working backwards, they say, means that life first came about almost 10 billion years ago, which of course predates the creation of Earth itself. Most scientists agree the Earth formed just 4.5 billion years ago. Assuming that Moore's Law does apply to biological complexity, this would suggest that life began somewhere other than on Earth and migrated here.

Of course there are other possibilities to explain what happened, as the two acknowledge—life could have evolved following Moore's Law during certain periods but not at others—a could have temporarily halted changes in complexity, for example, or cataclysmic events could have periodically killed off the more advanced biotic life forms. There is also the possibility that the development of life had to reach a certain before it began to conform to Moore's Law. Then of course, there is the very real possibility that the beginnings and don't conform to Moore's Law at all.

Gordon and Sharov's paper is likely to set off multiple rounds of discussion regarding not just the origin of life on Earth, but in the galaxy as well. If life truly predates our planet, and it can be proved, what impact might that have on religious thought and what might it mean to those looking for meaning in its very existence?

Explore further: New microscope collects dynamic images of the molecules that animate life

More information: Life Before Earth, arXiv:1304.3381 [physics.gen-ph] arxiv.org/abs/1304.3381

Abstract
An extrapolation of the genetic complexity of organisms to earlier times suggests that life began before the Earth was formed. Life may have started from systems with single heritable elements that are functionally equivalent to a nucleotide. The genetic complexity, roughly measured by the number of non-redundant functional nucleotides, is expected to have grown exponentially due to several positive feedback factors: gene cooperation, duplication of genes with their subsequent specialization, and emergence of novel functional niches associated with existing genes. Linear regression of genetic complexity on a log scale extrapolated back to just one base pair suggests the time of the origin of life 9.7 billion years ago. This cosmic time scale for the evolution of life has important consequences: life took ca. 5 billion years to reach the complexity of bacteria; the environments in which life originated and evolved to the prokaryote stage may have been quite different from those envisaged on Earth; there was no intelligent life in our universe prior to the origin of Earth, thus Earth could not have been deliberately seeded with life by intelligent aliens; Earth was seeded by panspermia; experimental replication of the origin of life from scratch may have to emulate many cumulative rare events; and the Drake equation for guesstimating the number of civilizations in the universe is likely wrong, as intelligent life has just begun appearing in our universe. Evolution of advanced organisms has accelerated via development of additional information-processing systems: epigenetic memory, primitive mind, multicellular brain, language, books, computers, and Internet. As a result the doubling time of complexity has reached ca. 20 years. Finally, we discuss the issue of the predicted technological singularity and give a biosemiotics perspective on the increase of complexity.

via Arxiv blog

Related Stories

A $1000 genome could be reached by 2013

Jul 21, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- A new report published in the journal Nature describes the new machine created by Jonathan Rothberg of Ion Torrent Systems which uses semiconductors to decode DNA and takes them one step c ...

Building a Molecular Computer Chip

Feb 13, 2007

For Dr. Jerry Bernholc, a trip to Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is like a suburbanite’s trek to Costco. Bulk consumption is the name of the game.

Recommended for you

Cooling with molecules

Oct 22, 2014

An international team of scientists have become the first ever researchers to successfully reach temperatures below minus 272.15 degrees Celsius – only just above absolute zero – using magnetic molecules. ...

User comments : 116

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

El_Nose
3 / 5 (12) Apr 18, 2013
Moore later said that he basically pulled 18 months out of his hat, because he had been working on something with a similiar scale and with quick calculations seemed to fit when he was talking in the interview.

Now I question the 376 million years -- was it pulled out of a similar hat?
dogman
2 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2013
of course, if you could call an organism with just a single base pair of nucleic acid 'alive' - by just what criteria?
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (26) Apr 18, 2013
The two researchers acknowledge their ideas are more of a "thought exercise" than a theory proposal, but at the same time suggest their calculations ought to be taken seriously.

Seems more like an excercise in GIGO (garbage in - garbage out)
Moore's law is a fitting to a development which is valid for a VERY short period of time. If you look at the natural starting point (invention of the transistor, or the first integrated circuit prototypes) then you will notice that the exponential growth is nowehere near a good fit in the first phase.

Applying this to biological systems (which are under all kinds of changing environmental pressures, including die-back, mass extinctions and sometimes even evolutionary adaptation that leads to SIMPLER organisms as you go along) is just idiocy.

This is really a paper for the circular file.
Eikka
3.4 / 5 (13) Apr 18, 2013
There are at least three different definitions of Moore's law, and the only reason it fits so well is because people keep changing the time period, and the thing that they're actually counting to fit the facts.

First it was the number of transistors on an "affordable" silicon chip, then Intel re-defined it as "computing power" because the original law broke down and they weren't doing as much transistors on a chip any longer but the transistors were getting faster, and now it seems to be the number of transistors in a "circuit" and taking account parallel chips in a computer etc.

It's not really meaningful.
Q-Star
3.8 / 5 (21) Apr 18, 2013
This is really a paper for the circular file.


Yeppers, it belongs with the one that the social "scientist" wrote a few months ago about there not being any discoveries left for "geniuses" of the Einstein sort left to science. Do ya remember that one?
Aaron1980
2.7 / 5 (18) Apr 18, 2013
This is an superb approach. Since life on earth was restarted from scratch roughly six times by the vaporization of the crust. Life must get seeded from outer space. It makes no sense to assume that for the first 10 billion years the universe did nothing and then four billion years ago developed life six separate times from scratch on this measly planet we call earth.
kow
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2013
It would be still interesting to see graph of the increase of genetic complexity if we assume that life begun on Earth.
Aaron1980
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2013
looking at DNA today and working backwards we should not have much trouble finding a rhythm of change to use to go as far back in time as we can and extrapolate the values for a Moore's Type Law to apply to life.
Lurker2358
2.4 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 2013
DNA forms a double-helix, but the string of bases is represented by a one dimensional code. IN the actual chemistry the 1 dimensional code is twisted into a helix, which is a 3-d shape, but genes don't magically go off in another direction.

Moore's law is based on miniaturization of components in a roughly 2-D surface, and it is powered by human intelligence intentionally seeking to further minimize the size of those individual components (transistors and wires).

It makes little sense for DNA to become arbitrarily complex, and moreover, the complexity of DNA is not necessarily even correlated to the success or dominance of the species. The Coelacanth is more complex than a human, yet humans are the dominant life form on the planet, and by far the most intelligent.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (15) Apr 18, 2013
The Coelacanth is more complex than a human, yet humans are the dominant life form on the planet, and by far the most intelligent
What makes you think youre all that much more intelligent than a coelecanth? Compared to, say, our machine successors for instance?

And why do you think coelacanths are more complex than humans??
beleg
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2013
"There are at least three different definitions of Moore's law, and the only reason it fits so well is because people keep changing the time period, and the thing that they're actually counting to fit the facts. - Eikka"

...people keep changing the time period...and the thing
they're counting to fit the facts.
That's the climate that exists in science.
Aaron1980
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2013
"...people keep changing the time period...and the thingthey're counting to fit the facts.That's the climate that exists in science."

That is how science is supposed to work. One pull an idea out of the air and then try to fit facts to it to make your theory" There is nothing wrong with this theory and they can fit number to it.... until someone has a better way to look at it. Clearly the idea than life began elsewhere and came to earth ... holds water... in my opinion holds more water than saying it developed on earth from scratch six different times over the last 4 billions years and no where else in the prior 10 billion years.

antonima
3 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2013
An organism without the critical genome size will immediately lose the ability to self-replicate, making it a 'virus' and by definition not a living organism.. this study is not about physical reality.
Ophelia
5 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2013
"Moore's law" should be known as "Moore's observation".
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2013
We are all aliens!
cyberCMDR
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2013
Several problems with this. First, they are using genomes available today. We don't know what the genome size of a prokaryote was when they first appeared. Did they become more complex, or did they reduce complexity by evolving more efficient metabolic processes? We also have "simpler" organisms today with many times the number of genes found in humans.

This paper makes assumptions that are fundamentally flawed.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (12) Apr 18, 2013
In AWT the intelligent life is sorta Boltzmann brain, which would imply, its complexity depends on the scope, in which it evolved linearly.
Q-Star
4.4 / 5 (20) Apr 18, 2013
In AWT the intelligent life is sorta http://en.wikiped...n_brain, which would imply, its complexity depends on the scope, in which it evolved linearly.


Zeph, I've reached the point where I am no longer surprised by scope of the AWT. What does it predict for next presidential election?
Rute
4 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2013
I would think that the increase in complexity is proportional to the number of organism generations instead of being a constant expressed in years, because evolution doesn't happen within a generation. And everyone knows that bacterial generations are shorter than those of large eukaryotes.

Also, it's hard to imagine a law for increase in genetic information because evolution is opportunistic and in many instances and many lineages increasing complexity is not favourable.
Husky
2.5 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2013
It would be so nice if their reverse-engineering concluded that the simplest lifeforms came into being BEFORE the big bang or must have coincided with the bible version and yes somehow AWT must be fit in as well, because in an electric universe everything is connected.
Mumrah
1 / 5 (1) Apr 18, 2013
It would be still interesting to see graph of the increase of genetic complexity if we assume that life begun on Earth.


Its pretty easy to imagine, just take that graph and it has to bomb down to nothing before 'Origin of Earth', which implies that evolution was faster early on.

These guys are shooting from the hip for sure but I think they might be on to something, it seems very unlikely that evolution would be markedly faster when life first arose than during the last 3.5 billion years.
dnatwork
4 / 5 (1) Apr 18, 2013
The thing I haven't seen anyone say yet is, who says a life-form can have zero complexity (zero base pairs), as implied by the graph? "Oh, that quantum vacuum fluctuation has zero base pairs. I've just discovered a new species!"

Or maybe you need a minimum amount of complexity (which life on Earth happens to encode in number of base pairs) in order to be a functioning organism. Viruses have simpler genomes than bacteria, and they cannot live on their own. Somewhere between the two is the limit. Gee, look at the graph, the lower limit is reached about 3.5 billion years ago.
Yarking_Dawg
3.5 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2013
It's a thought experiment people. That's what scientist call speculating with intent to provoke ideas. Moore's law may not be appropriate, or even good, but the idea of looking backwards for a zero point convergence on the complexity of life, in the particular way they have done it, is an interesting idea, that, obviously, provokes thoughts even from people without a lot of knowledge on the subject. Even some of the usual tard BS about electric universes shows evidence of actually having read the summary enough to think about it.
Sanescience
2 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2013
This is a fun thought experiment, with some people who know their organisms well enough to at least elevate it above "thinking out loud". If it interests some of their colleagues to play with it more who is to say it is GIGO or the seed that might grow into something unforeseen.

As for what kind of rigor belongs on Physorg... lets just say there is a lot worse out there.
jaseman125
1 / 5 (1) Apr 18, 2013
It may appear to be linear growth over short periods - But exponential growth over longer periods. Have you not read Kurzwiel's book on the singularity?
Moebius
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2013
The theory that life came here from space has been around for a long time. Longer than the universe has been in existence according to Moore's law.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2013
1: The image caption is wrong. The relation is log not linear with time.

2: The only genomes they can look at are current, and hence have no ability to determine what was and was not functional 4 billion years ago.

This paper is so bad it is almost like a Chicago School Economist wrote it.

ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2013
I've reached the point where I am no longer surprised by scope of the AWT
But it's logical - or not? The tiny density fluctuation can interact with its close neighborhood only via transverse waves because its too simple. When it becomes larger and more complex, then it can interact with gradually larger and larger area of density fluctuations of its environment in deterministic way. From this perspective the size (and seeming age) of observable universe corresponds the complexity of its observer: simple observer can see simpler reality. For me it's not accidental, that the estimated number of atoms inside of observable universe (100^500 = 10^(23x23)) corresponds just the number of state permutations of atoms inside of our brain (10^23 atoms). For me our Universe is not blurred at the 40Gyrs distance because it was just formed there, but because we have no sufficient informational capacity to observe it at larger distance in this moment.
Eikka
2.2 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2013
That is how science is supposed to work.


In the general sense, yes, but in this particular case no.

Because Moore's law is about predicting the future, so it either gets it right or it gets it wrong. Changing the thing you're actually measuring, like shifting from the number of transistors to some vaguely defined metric of computing power, and then re-fitting your curve to fit the history is basically just shifting your goalposts so you can claim that you were right all along. If the original metric didn't work, what makes you think your new one does any better?

The original Moore's law is long dead. The modern moore's law is just cherrypicking data to find some thing that still appears to grow exponentially and then hoping it will continue to do so. The problem is that it's no longer meaningful; "computing power" as measured in gigaflops per dollar doesn't work because you can't actually stack processors in parallel and expect to get that much real performance out of them.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2013
I've reached the point where I am no longer surprised by scope of the AWT
But it's logical - or not? The tiny density fluctuation can interact with its close neighborhood via transverse waves because its too simple. When it becomes larger and more complex, then it can interact with larger and larger area of density fluctuations of its environment in deterministic way. From this perspective the size of observable universe corresponds the complexity of its observer: simple observer can see simpler reality. For me it's not accidental, that the estimated number of atoms inside of observable universe (100^500 = 10^(23x23)) corresponds just the number of state permutations of atoms inside of our brain (10^23 atoms).


Well there ya are Zephyr, I must admit ya have posited a thing that I will never, ever, be able to refute sure.
ValeriaT
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2013
The modern moore's law is just cherrypicking data to find some thing that still appears to grow exponentially and then hoping it will continue to do so
The same can be said about every branch of science - don't you think? The relativists don't even try to describe the Niagara falls or flight of moth with general relativity theory - because they can justifiably feel, that their theory would face a deep debacle in that case. They just apply it at the safe distance scale and mass/energy density. The Moore law proved its validity in many areas, for example with scientific publications. Between 1990 and 1960, they doubled in number every 15 years or so. Extrapolating this backwards gives the origin of scientific publication as 1710, about the time of Isaac Newton. Is it just a coincidence? I don't think so.
inglenook_hampendick
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2013
Extrapolating outside the range of the data set. Very scientific.
komone
1 / 5 (2) Apr 18, 2013
Interesting that the backward extrapolation didn't end up predicting a time prior to a time before any kind of structure... no?
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 2013
The modern moore's law is just cherrypicking data to find some thing that still appears to grow exponentially and then hoping it will continue to do so
The same can be said about every branch of science - don't you think? The relativists don't even try to describe the Niagara falls or flight of moth with general relativity theory - because they can justifiably feel, that their theory would face a deep debacle in that case. They just apply it at the safe distance scale and mass/energy density. The Moore law proved its validity in many areas, for example with scientific publications. Between 1990 and 1960, they doubled in number every 15 years or so. Extrapolating this backwards gives the origin of scientific publication as 1710, about the time of Isaac Newton. Is it just a coincidence? I don't think so.


What were those things Kepler wrote? Galileo? Copernicus? Bacon (Roger and Frances, not Kevin) Your personal favorite, Ptolemaeus? Archimedes? Aristotle? Et al.?
komone
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2013
of course, if you could call an organism with just a single base pair of nucleic acid 'alive' - by just what criteria?

FWIW I think that's a good question, but perhaps the term "alive" is a category of relative complexity. Where does the line get drawn before we say that something is not "dead as a stone"?
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2013
Extrapolating outside the range of the data set. Very scientific.
This is what the prediction is called in science. The theories without testable predictions (i.e. extrapolations outside the existing data sets) are ignored and dismissed like "non-scientific ones" in general. So we could say, just the extrapolation is, what is scientific about the above approach.
Where does the line get drawn before we say that something is not "dead as a stone"?
Definition of life
hrfJC
1 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2013
The danger of extrapolating backwards and forward yields GIGO, e.g. do 10 bp at log 1 constitute a living self replicating specie?
Whydening Gyre
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2013
Complexity vs variety. We humans are not that much more complex than a fruit fly from a DNA standpoint. The only thing truly more complex about us is the fact that we can imagine more things than that fruit fly. However, we still do it pretty much the same way - electrical impulses across neurons.
Osiris1
1 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2013
It is easy. There is one universal God and He created the mother of all multiverses. In the eleven dimension scheme of things, three dimensional subsets of the parent 11 can abound to infinity. Certainly there is room for God here too. Since he created the hyperspace from which universes sprang and retreated, so too did he give rise to life 9.6GYA! It is this life that spread thru panspermia throughout the universe. And when sufficiently established, He created the first sentients. The fact that follow on sentients bioengineered US changes nothing for God created them by extension from his first creation. Corollary is that similar base pairs of DNA should be omnipresent in the universe. Because of this and because of how WE are on our only planetary home, we should be careful which neighbors we choose to contact....if we have a choice. I suspect our neighbors already have our number and already have treaties and bases here. That is why our guv will NEVER tell the truth.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2013
...people keep changing the time period...and the thing
they're counting to fit the facts.
That's the climate that exists in science.

With the small niggle that Moore's law isn't science. (And that what you describe doesn't happen in science at all)
alfie_null
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2013
If we use Moore's Law for this, we ought to be able to use it to extrapolate into the future, right? How long then, using Moore's Law, will it be before our cell nuclei weigh on the order of grams or more to contain the vast amount of DNA that has evolved? Unlikely. The point being there are many factors that balance in determining DNA size. We are complex only to the point it serves us in survival as a species.
sparks2013
1 / 5 (1) Apr 19, 2013
This is an interesting concept but they've cherry picked genome sizes and made unscientific assertions.
Plants have up to 50 times more DNA (e.g. Japanese Japonica) than mammals. Also some "simple' brown algae have much larger genomes (by weight) than humans, though so far only algae with smaller genomes have been sequenced.
And how could a scientific paper contain such garbage statements as "there was no intelligent life in our universe prior to the origin of Earth" How does anyone know that? It's highly probable there was.
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2013
With the small niggle that Moore's law isn't science.
Who decided it? You? Is there some list of topics, which don't belong into science and which do?
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2013
Who decided it? You?

Science is when you have a mechanism which makes predictions.
The various Moore's laws are not based on any mechanism but are simply a fit of a curve to datapoints.

You can fit any number of -mutually contradictory- curves to any set of datapoints. That alone doesn't make any one of them 'science' (at that stage it's just regression analysis)
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2013
Science is when you have a mechanism which makes predictions
And we can get this mechanism just from empirical data sets. After all, in physics the experiment always important than theory. In addition many theories of Moore law already exist - you just don't know about it ( Koomey's theory for example) - so you're labeling it nonscientific because of your ignorance.
Is it scientific approach? I'd say, it's quite typical approach for many contemporary scientists or even scientific media... Some mainstream journals even don't accept experimental works without underlying theory. It's evident, we are losing many unique experimental findings in this way - because at the moment, when we find something accidentally, we can never have theory for it developed. This is one of many mechanisms, in which mainstream science converges to rigidity and dogmatism and enforces the reassuring of existing theories into account of their falsification (which is the main principle of scientific method)
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2013
And we can get this mechanism just from empirical data sets

Not really. From the data you just get the relationship between various factors (in this case time and transistor size).
But that doesn't tell you WHY transistor size shrinks over time. If you have a mechanism that causes transistor shrinkage then THAT would be something that could then be combined with Moore's law to do some science.
Koomey's theory for example

Koomeys law is no different than Moore's law. It's just a curve fit to datapoints. It doesn't propose a mechanism WHY that curve should look the way it does.

Don't fall into the trap that because something is called a 'law' it has to be scientific.

Is it scientific approach? I'd say, it's quite typical approach for many contemporary scientists or even scientific media...

Well, since you know nothing about science I'm not surprised that you'd call this a 'scientific approach'.
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2013
You can fit any number of -mutually contradictory- curves to any set of datapoints. That alone doesn't make any one of them 'science'
But only few of such curves have sufficiently low number of parameters, as Occam's razor requires. The regression fit with exponential or logarithmic curve is common approach in physics. It indicates the process which is driven with power law (typically the radioactive decay, activation energy driven phenomena, etc.) and/or range of conditions under which such mechanism can apply. It belongs into important tools of experimental data mining.
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2013
BTW So far many explanations for natural law don't exist. For example, the scientists still have no idea, why the gravitational law fits the inverse square law (the only logical explanation of it, i.e. the deDuillier/LeSage shielding theory is ignored, because it's aether based). And the inverse square law is used in subsequent derivation of relativity equations and many other theories developed so far, which become empirical in this way as well.
Does it mean, all such a derivations based on empirical dependence and parameters aren't the science, because some anonymous troll at PO forum decided so? I beg to disagree...;-)
since you know nothing about science
LOL, does anything what you say mean, it must be true without evidence? At any case, you're no arbiter of it. If you're not arbiter, you're not expected to talk about it here, because it would be just a void spam.
Eikka
2.8 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2013
But only few of such curves have sufficiently low number of parameters, as Occam's razor requires


Yes, and?

The fact that you can find a curve that correlates with your dataset tells you nothing. Even the best fitting curve won't reveal to you the mechanism that makes the sample, because it may be simply a coincidence, or a part of a bigger function you're not seeing. For example, if you zoom in to a sine function, you will find a slope that looks like a straight line if you don't measure it very very carefully.

For example, the scientists still have no idea, why the gravitational law fits the inverse square law


It's a kind of a geometric necessity. Any point source which spreads its influence equally in all directions without a limit to its range will obey the inverse square law. The intensity of the influence at any given radius r is the source strength divided by the area of the sphere.
Claudius
1 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2013
Science is when you have a mechanism which makes predictions.


Perhaps you should have said "reliable predictions."

My understanding is that science is a tool, or mechanism, used in the pursuit of reliable knowledge about the world we live in. If you have a mechanism that makes unreliable predictions, it is not science.
verkle
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2013
It is shameful that such an article could be posted on a science website. There is no science to it.
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2013
It's as scientific as the Newton's discovery of gravitational law. It works but we don't know why is it so. If Newton is adored for it, I don't see any reason, why the authors of this study shouldn't be adored as well (actually Newton played a troll in this matter, as he believed in inverse law - it was Robert Hooke, who pointed to inverse square law from beginning).

The above article demonstrates, that the speed of life complexity evolution is not linear, which indicates the possibility of panspermia event, as Fred Hoyle argued before fifty years already. Which is why the dogmatic mainstream science proponents get upset with such finding, because they do believe in evolution as the sole mechanism of life formation. But such a finding plays quite well with another observer fact, that the life emerged at Earth very soon once it cooled off after last meteoritic bombardment.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2013
Even the best fitting curve won't reveal to you the mechanism that makes the sample, because it may be simply a coincidence, or a part of a bigger function you're not seeing
Sorry, this is how the research is done - with analysis of experimental data sets. If we detect for example linear or logarithmic dependence, we postulate the hypothesis, which fits such a dependence. If the hypothesis fits with another data set well, it's extrapolated with some functional regression and published/presented as a theory. The idea, that the theories come first in science is solely naive. Even in physics most of findings were made accidentally. We didn't expect the neutrino or muon, we didn't expect the Higgs boson finding at 126 GeV, we didn't expect the age of Universe at 13.8 GYears, we didn't expect the WIMS at 8 GeV - these are all just an experimental findings - no less, no more.
Eikka
3 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2013
It's as scientific as the Newton's discovery of gravitational law. It works but we don't know why is it so.


No.

There's a plausible assumption that gravity works as a point source of influence - the mass is the source of the influence - from which follows that it should follow a power law in space, and the observations agree. That's science: you take an assumption about reality, figure out what its results should be, and then observe that they are or aren't.

Moore's law is nothing of the sort. It starts from an observation that you can fit a logarthmic curve on some historical measurement about electronics with some degree of correlation, and then it simply claims that what was will be. There's no mechanism, no underlying assumption why it should be so - it's just a hopeful guess.

Moore himself said: "Over the longer term, the rate of increase is a bit more uncertain, although there is no reason to believe it will not remain nearly constant for at least 10 years"
Eikka
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2013
Sorry, this is how the research is done - with analysis of experimental data sets.


No. If you do analysis by first finding correlations and then trying to figure out what they mean, you're committing the texas sharpshooter fallacy. That's really bad science.

For example, a study was done in Sweden about whether powerlines cause diseases. They took statistics about people who live under or near powerlines and then took 800 different diseases to see if any were present in significant amounts. The problem of course is, that the probability of any single disease occurring in the sample by sheer coincidence is low, but since you are looking for so many different diseases from the same sample, the probabilities add up and you will find a correlation to say leukemia with power lines even though it's just dumb luck that the sample had lots of people with leukemia in it.

ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2013
from which follows that it should follow a power law in space, and the observations agree
LOL, derive it..:-) And why it should work like the "point source of influence"? It could work in similar way, like the magnets. IMO you're just unconsciously projecting your familiarity with subject into its properties. Even so bright scientist like the Newton didn't believe, that the gravity is proportional to square of distance - which indicates, that this notion is far from intuitive.
That's science: you take an assumption about reality, figure out what its results should be, and then observe that they are or aren't.
Most of scientific findings (actually just these most significant ones) were done just accidentally during attempts for confirmation of another theories. We didn't expect the electricity, magnetism, electrons, X-rays, EM waves, muon, neutrino, antiparticles, nuclear fusion or fission, radioactive decay, constant speed of light, whatever...
Eikka
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2013
The powerline study is equivalent to taking a cloud of data points and finding a curve that fits before you make your assumptions about which kinds of curves should fit.

Because you have an infinite number of different possible curves you can produce mathematically, you will actually find an infinite number of different curves that will fit your data set, and each one predicts different things outside of it. Even Occam's Razor won't help you, because you'll have an infinite number of equally simple but different curves that reproduce your data set. Therefore you have exactly zero probability that the curve you pick describes reality.

That's why you always start with an assumption and test its results, instead of observe the results and find an assumption that fits.

ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2013
I know perfectly, where your idealistic opinion about significance of theoretical approach in contemporary comes from. It's an immanent part of mainstream science propaganda, because it renders the scientists as a knowledgeable gurus, who handle the key from future progress - but it's biased approach.The deform of contemporary educational system is, it glorifies inductive method and presents all theories like the concepts ready-made with scientists, because it helps the jobs and social position of teachers and theorists - but the experimental reality is completely different and way more empirical one.
Actually we can see in recent time, many fundamental findings (cold fusion, magnetic motors, antigravity, scalar waves and superluminal phenomena) are enforced despite the obstinate many years standing resistance of mainstream physicists. The theoretical approach of mainstream science, which helped the evolution in the past has become the brake of the further progress instead.
Eikka
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2013
And why it should work like the "point source of influence"?


No reason. It's an axiom - a guess. You can't prove your axioms, you can only test whether they produce results that match reality. If they don't, you dump the axiom. If they do, you hold on to it until you get a contradicting result.

That's why nothing in science is definitively proven. Even the law of gravity isn't really absolutely certainly so - it's just that the assumptions work time after time to such an incredible degree of accuracy that it's probably the right answer. If you can observe the power law for gravity breaking down, well, you'll re-write science.
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2013
you'll have an infinite number of equally simple but different curves that reproduce your data set
In reality only few curves (linear, parabolical, exponential, logaritmic, sine wave) are checked and analyzed. For example, the recently announced finding of WIMPs seeked for logaritmic dependence of WIMPs with energy, despite many other curves could be extrapolated with these data.

At any case - no matter, how the actual dependence of genome size with time appears, it's just the purpose of science to explain, why it appears in the way, it appear. You cannot exclude most of observational reality from future research just because it was observed already, i.e. before some theory was postulated for it. It's evident, for mainstream science wannabes the reality simply doesn't exist, until it's not included in someone's theory.
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2013
If you can observe the power law for gravity breaking down, well, you'll re-write science.
This is another schematic opinion: that the existing theories are completely rewritten, when some minor correction is found. In AWT the theories do behaving like fibers of dark matter connecting the galaxies (experimental facts or scalar postulates). They're deterministic for most of their length, but they get deformed very often. Actually nothing in reality follows the gravitational law exactly - this is just an abstract model derived from of abstract data. We aren't surrounded with quantum wave packets, spheres and triangles, fractals and another abstract low-dimensional models of theorists: we are living inside of wild complex mess made of mutually contradicting and intersecting theories. In AWT the influence of extradimensions begins at the dimensional scale, where the gravity law gets violated with whatever force, not just some unknown yet force.
Eikka
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2013
The theoretical approach of mainstream science, which helped the evolution in the past has become the brake of the further progress instead.v


There's nothing "theoretical" about it, whatever you mean by it. It's simple logic.

Take a rock in a valley. Why did it get there? It could roll down a hill, or a bird could carry it, or it could have fallen from the sky, or pushed up out of the ground. You cannot reason why it's there just by observing that it is there - you have no reason to assume any of the alternatives. Same thing with the Moore's law - you're merely observing what seems to be, which doesn't give you knowledge about why it seems to be.

If you do science the wrong way around, you cannot tell the difference between what is real and what is not because for each observation there are endless amounts of equally plausible explainations.
Eikka
1 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2013
In reality only few curves (linear, parabolical, exponential, logaritmic, sine wave) are checked and analyzed.


Makes no difference. It's still the same principle.

What you are doing there is shooting a wall full of holes, and then drawing the target on top of the best cluster. That don't make you a sharpshooter - it just makes you look like a good shot.
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2013
So according to you for example the thirty years standing research of high-temperature superconductivity is not science, because we are just collecting data without any reliable theory? And when we find it finally, then all this previous research will sudden become a "scientific" in your eyes - or what? Of course, the stamp collection, i.e. the collection of observational data is what predates the development of most of successful theories. Even the general relativity wasn't based on solely ad-hoced assumptions: the constant speed of light was already known, the Mercury precession was already known in the times of Einstein. Actually we can observe, just at the moment when the theorists dared to violate this rule (with development of string theory or SUSY theory, for example) - they faced deep and many years standing failure. The lack of experimental feedback is devastating for every theory.
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2013
Same thing with the Moore's law - you're merely observing what seems to be, which doesn't give you knowledge about why it seems to be
Of course, the observation of gravitational law or magnetic field still provides no clue, how the massive objects are doing their gravity, or how these fucking magnets work. But does it mean, such an empirical observation is still not science and it doesn't belong into it, after then? It took hundreds of years of extensive scientific labor just to realize, that the gravity fits the trivial inverse square law. And Einstein or Maxwell based whole extensive theories just on these empirical laws and ad-hoced assumptions! Actually for me the finding of functional regression is the very beginning of every scientific research and it doesn't imply, we have understood the subject at its intuitive level at all.
Eikka
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2013
Here's a good question to you Valeria, How do you know that the progress of computer technology is a logarithmic curve, and not a sigmoid curve? Given the right parameters, both curves start the same, grow the same, but at some point where the logarithmic curve would just keep going, the sigmoid curve turns down and stops growing.

Moore's law is observing just the beginning of the curve where both look the same, so how do you tell it's one and not the other?

You can't. One is as good as the other in reproducing what has already happened.

But, there's a reasonable assumption that Moore's law is wrong and what we have is actually a sigmoid curve, because computer technology resembles an autocatalytic system - computers catalyze the progress of computer technology and are limited by available energy and physical limits of material technology - and autocatalytic systems are known to follow sigmoid functions.

ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2013
What you are doing there is shooting a wall full of holes, and then drawing the target on top of the best cluster
So you're saying, that the experimental finding of gravity law or gauss law for magnetism is essentially just a random data-fishing? Why for example the finding of Hubble law shouldn't be judged in the same way? Actually Hubble law is an eminent example of such bias, it's religious character driven with social authority of Hubble indicates the exponential dependence of Hubble constant with time.

The most crucial point here is, that the complexity of genome isn't linear function of time, it even doesn't goes through zero during Earth formation. The fact, that it's similar to Moore law and another creationist dependencies isn't so crucial in this matter, because every other curve, which would manage to extrapolate this dependence through zero would require way higher number of parameters. And this is what is important here.
Eikka
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2013
So according to you for example the thirty years standing research of high-temperature superconductivity is not science, because we are just collecting data without any reliable theory?


I think you're misrepresenting superconductivity research, and not by a little. What you're proposing the research is is like swinging at a pinata and seeing what falls out.

They're making hypotheses, trying to predict what should happen given certain assumptions, trying to find new assumptions, and then testing them against the data they collect. Starting an experiment without any idea what you are looking for is pointless - how would you even know what to do and how to set it up?

ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2013
They're making hypotheses, trying to predict what should happen given certain assumptions
So that the authors of study made a hypothesis, that the genome complexity follows logarithmic curve and they compared it with some experimental finding and assumptions (the early formation of life at Earth, the panspermia hypothesis). I still don't see any conceptual difference from superconductivity research.
Starting an experiment without any idea what you are looking for is pointless
They assumed, they're looking at the logaritmic analogy of Moore law. What do you think you're looking at when your'e doing research of gravitational or gauss laws? I'd say, you would have absolutely no idea, what actually happens during it as well.
Eikka
1 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2013
So you're saying, that the experimental finding of gravity law or gauss law for magnetism is essentially just a random data-fishing? Why for example the finding of Hubble law shouldn't be judged in the same way?


They all started from an observation that something happens, but then they went to come up with an assumption about why it happens, and then they went back and collected new data to test whether the assumption works. Had the assumptions not worked, they would have tossed them.

Moore's law doesn't do that. It merely changes the parameters of the logarithmic curve to find a new best match for the new dataset, which is meaningless because you can always find a new best match no matter how the data set changes.

Eikka
2 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2013
So that the authors of study made a hypothesis, that the genome complexity follows logarithmic curve


That's not a proper hypothesis. It doesn't suggest why it happens.

I still don't see any conceptual difference from superconductivity research.


In superconductivity research, they first observed the disappearance of electrical resistance and then came up with different hypotheses about what phenomena could cause it, and then started testing these against empirical observation.

I don't see any suggestion of a plausible phenomenon that would cause Moore's law in computers, or in the evolution of life.

What do you think you're looking at when your'e doing research of gravitational or gauss laws?


Falling apples and cannonballs, or lodestones and loops of wire pulling at each other. You make an assumption about the nature of the phenomenon you're looking at, and then see if that assumption produces predictions that match with observations.
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2013
but then they went to come up with an assumption about why it happens
That's really strange, because by respected mainstream scientists the solving of WHY? questions is deeply non-scientific and as such prohibited by their very nature...;-) The scientists are supposed to provide only the faithful DESCRIPTION or reality and not to confuse itself with some causality...;-)
How the hell it's possible, you're considering scientific exactly the opposite stuffs like celebrated prof. Feynman? Dare you consider yourself a better scientist than just HIM? You're a bit suspicious for me: you should be barbecued for sure, I can tell you!
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2013
I don't see any suggestion of a plausible phenomenon that would cause Moore's law in computers, or in the evolution of life.
Umm, I don't see any plausible explanations of what is responsible for gravity or let say electron or neutrino existence. The research of such thingies should be prohibited by all means possible, as it violates the wholy principle of SCIENCE. We can research the magnetic field you know - but we shouldn't ask about causes, as it would render us a crackpots. Do you like being considered a crackpot? You should remain separated from grant support for to enjoy it more!
Eikka
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2013
That's really strange, because by respected mainstream scientists the solving of WHY? questions is deeply non-scientific and as such prohibited by their very nature...;-) The scientists are supposed to provide only the faithful DESCRIPTION or reality and not to confuse itself with some causality...;-)


You're talking of a different "why".

What I'm talking about is that the hypothesis should include a proposition of a mechanism that causes something to happen. Without such a thing, it's not really a hypothesis.

You can't just say, "Genetic complexity follows a logarithmic curve" and leave it at that, because that would be simply a tautology and a logical fallacy. You have to say why it does so, what mechanism would make it so, and then you get to point out that the empirical data agrees. (but you can't use the same empirical data for obvious reasons)

Eikka
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2013
Umm, I don't see any plausible explanations of what is responsible for gravity or let say electron or neutrino existence. The research of such thingies should be prohibited by all means possible, as it violates the wholy principle of SCIENCE.


Now you're just shifting words and talking nonsense. Again, you're talking of a different thing. You're mixing philosophy into it.

What you asked is, why does gravity follow the inverse square law, and the answer is that a a particle with mass is a point source of a force, and the inverse square law arises out of simple geometry. That is the plausible explaination why gravity does what it does - the assumption about the nature of massive particles that forms the hypothesis and the theory of gravity.

It's not an explaination of what is fundamentally responsible for gravity, but that was not the question.
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2013
The memo of this discussion is, the notion of what the science is or what it shouldn't be is impressively flexible and it merely depends on the actual stance of observer. When the "true scientist" faces the lack of theoretical explanations of some observation, he can choose not to publish it, because "the study of WHY questions is not scientific". Or when he faces the lack of phenomenological explanation of some observation, he may choose not to publish it, because "the answering of HOW questions is not scientific". The oxen always have some arguments prepared for why not to face the new uncomfortable facts - and they're very inventive in their reasoning.
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2013
and the answer is that a a particle with mass is a point source of a force, and the inverse square law arises out of simple geometry
Why do you think? For example, the nucleons inside of atom nuclei are held together with nuclear force, which is merely inversely proportional on fifth power of distance. Aren't they a point source of that force as well?
That is the plausible explanation why gravity does what it does
It's plausible explanation only for specific group of people, who do want to use the inverse square law in subsequent derivations without bothering, which principle this law is formed by. It's reductionist approach whose main purpose is to conserve the existing state of understanding. Such a people fear of both every attempt for deeper explanation, both every new empirical fact, which could threat the existing laws - so they're fighting against it instinctively.
Eikka
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2013
because "the study of WHY questions is not scientific" (...) "the answering of HOW questions is not scientific"


Again, you're abusing semantic ambiguity to argue your point.

What is not scientific is not the questions of "why" and "how", but the way You reach the answers to those questions. What you are suggesting is that any pattern points to a law or a principle that can be discovered just by studying the pattern, while ignoring the fact that a pattern may exist just because it does, or that you're only seeing a part of the pattern, or that there isn't really a pattern because the way you're measuring things is confused.

Eikka
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2013
Why do you think? For example, the nucleons inside of atom nuclei are held together with nuclear force, which is merely inversely proportional on fifth power of distance. Aren't they a point source of that force as well?


I don't think. I have no idea about nuclear physics at the quantum scale.

The theory of gravity works with classical physics on the large scale, where the approximation of a point source force is sufficient and accurate to explain what is happening. It seems to work very precisely, which suggests that any other working theory would produce the same equations at the same scale of reference.

You're just seeing the situation as a giant conspiracy theory where some "Newtonists" are deliberately holding everyone back, and I don't even know what your problem is.
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2013
while ignoring the fact that a pattern may exist just because it does
Such a pattern would violate every meaningful causality. Every pattern has its deeper origin, no matter how accidental it can be. We apparently disputing the problem from two opposite perspectives, whereas in objective reality both these perspectives are equally relevant. The systematical ignorance of WHY questions is as non-scientific (actually futile effort), like the systematical ignorance of HOW questions. In AWT both these approaches must be balanced, which doesn't exclude some periodicity, which is given with hyperdimensional character of observable reality. Even the ripples at the water surface exhibit the random stochastic character at the proximity, later they change into regular circles, which get scattered at even larger distance. Analogously the evolution of knowledge goes into circles, where the episodes of empirical "stamps collection" are alternated with epochs of development of theories.
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2013
When the theories are developed, they're maintained until the increased number of empirical facts from dual side of reality will not increase above some threshold (critical density), which will lead into postulation of another level of theories, and so on. We apparently handle the empirical facts like the particles and the theories like their emergent density fluctuations, which are connecting them by principle of least action. These gnoseologic layers of reality repeat like the cyclical patterns and they penetrate mutually.

The only problem is, that the proponents of existing theories gain social credit gradually and they become intellectually lazy, so they start to behave like the dinosaurs, who fear of further progress. Which makes the seeming transition between layers of causality somewhat asymmetric and biased with hysteresis. The people don't like to have things unexplained - but what they really hate is the change the established paradigms.
Eikka
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2013
Such a pattern would violate every meaningful causality. Every pattern has its deeper origin, no matter how accidental it can be.


Ignoring the claim about causality, a pattern doesn't necessarily follow form any law. It can just as well be a coincidence of different factors, each following a law of their own. By studying the pattern you can not recognize whether there's one or many. That's the problem.

The systematical ignorance of WHY questions is as non-scientific (actually futile effort), like the systematical ignorance of HOW questions.


You are apparently not sane.
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2013
a pattern doesn't necessarily follow form any law
Random fluctuation not - but the existence of pattern (i.e. repeated structure in data) indicates the presence of deeper connections worth of further study. The patterns are many and repeatable by the whole definition of "pattern" world. Maybe you just wanted to tell about "coincidence", which I usually describe with difference between analogy and homology.
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2013
You are apparently not sane.
LOL, why do you think so? For me the mutual balance of analytical and synthetic approach in science is really very important. The scientists should have both the ability to construct theories from many experimental facts, both the ability to recognize new phenomena from mutual contradictions of existing theories. Without it we would have the science full of blind functional regressions of reality (formal equations) without deeper intuitive understanding, or just a blind collection of experimental facts without formal deterministic description of their connections.

I can see absolutely nothing wrong on this balanced approach. Currently we are just in the epoch, when the blind adherence on formal theories has lead us to ignorance of many empirical phenomena (cold fusion, magnetic motors, antigravity) and into energetical and subsequent financial crisis.
Osiris1
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2013
The article supports pan-spermia. AND supports the idea that transplanted life is much more likely than spontaneous life on a new world. Kind of like flies laying eggs on shit. Crap never lays around long enuf for life to randomly create itself so is 'ripe' for life to just 'happen by'.
beleg
1 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2013
Proponents of pan-spermia have powerful assumptions. There was only one point in the span of the universe where heat prevented life. A double.edged sword. A 'green zone' means replication. How many 'refrigerators' (planets) of the universe are preserving 'life' in suspension before the birth of the earth? Hmm. The flies thingy is too graphic.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2013
I can see absolutely nothing wrong on this balanced approach. Currently we are just in the epoch, when the blind adherence on formal theories has lead us to ignorance of many empirical phenomena (cold fusion, magnetic motors, antigravity) and into energetical and subsequent financial crisis.


Ya left out "electron ducks", "water spider neutrons", and me own personal favorite, the "AWT with a dense thick vacuum riding on longitudinal-transverse-water-surface-ripples-of-superluminal-Brown-freckles-waves".

By the By: (I'm sure I may regret asking.) But what the heck is an "energetical and subsequent financial crisis"?
dacarls
1 / 5 (2) Apr 19, 2013
When I eyeball the straight line "fitted" to the points......
my analog mind wants to see an asymtotic line that levels out and becomes horizontal long before 14 billion years ago.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 20, 2013
[qI Currently we are just in the epoch, when the blind adherence on formal theories has lead us to ignorance of many empirical phenomen
I think you should go out and do some actual science (or just go out and talk to some actual scientists - instead of conspiracy nutters) and you'd find out within 5 minutes that you're so far off base with this statement it isn't even funny.

It's actually sort of sad, that one can spend years (decades?) spinning some sort of crazy idea about how the world works in one's head instead of checking it against actual fact (you know: the empirical phenomena you were talking about)

In this you are the ultimate hypocrit. Try practicing what you preach and your world view will change DRASTICALLY within minutes: I promise you.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 20, 2013
Reformatted. Dammit.
Currently we are just in the epoch, when the blind adherence on formal theories has lead us to ignorance of many empirical phenomen


I think you should go out and do some actual science (or just go out and talk to some actual scientists - instead of conspiracy nutters) and you'd find out within 5 minutes that you're so far off base with this statement it isn't even funny.

It's actually sort of sad, that one can spend years (decades?) spinning some sort of crazy idea about how the world works in one's head instead of checking it against actual fact (you know: the empirical phenomena you were talking about) In this you are the ultimate hypocrit.

Try practicing what you preach and your world view will change DRASTICALLY within minutes: I promise you.
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2013
But what the heck is an "energetic and subsequent financial crisis"?
When the fossil fuels get depleted, their price is rising steadily, which brings the problem for democratic countries which are forced to buy them from authoritative regimes. Which brings the instability into financial system, which we are experiencing by now.
Reformatted. Dammit.
Why you're spending so many time and effort into writing of posts, which don't contain any matter of fact arguments? I indeed know the mainstream science intimately. But I cannot share the position of mainstream scientists, or I would lost the contact with reality in the same way, like these scientists itself. They do behave like the frog boiled inside of warm water. They're working frenetically on their nonsensical useless projects - but after twenty years we still have no peer-reviewed attempt for nickel cold fusion replication, although it would replace the effort of many of them. Or actually just because of it.
beleg
1 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2013
With the small niggle that Moore's law isn't science. (And that what you describe doesn't happen in science at all -AP{/q]

The reply/quote above to following mixed quote below.
Eikka/beleg:
"...people keep changing the time period...and the thing
they're counting to fit the facts.
That's the climate that exists in science."

Yes to AP's first assertion - the law is not a law or science.
No to AP's second assertion - if the word "climate" is change to the following (intended) meaning and wording: "one of the many ways of thinking in scientific communities" with the stipulation or accusation the such thinking does happen in science.

The word "climate" carries too much baggage of meaning so "one of the many ways of thinking" is what was originally meant.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Eikka is spot on in the majority of retorts to Val. It's not Eikka's tribute to 'mainstream' science. The tribute is to one's own effort to maintain a consistency in science.

Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 20, 2013

If ya are going to quote me don't change the words I used when I am directly verbatim quoting ya.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 20, 2013
Zephyr,,,,

If ya are going to quote me don't change the words I used when I am directly verbatim quoting ya.
AJW
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 20, 2013
"there was no intelligent life in our universe prior to the origin of Earth" Really? How do you know that?
teodorescu_gabriel
1 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2013
Regarding this study have some reservations because any modeling mainly involves a high degree of abstraction of a real phenomenon, which is certainly in addition the model should anticipate the evolution of the phenomenon itself. Modeling of the original system, namely life and her appearance on Earth is but a far more complex phenomenon. Assumptions set out in the study, based on analogy with Moore's law, the deduction can not generate consequences that can be verified with certainty towards the existence of experimental evidence. Even a similarity between the appearance of life on Earth and technological development can not be applied correctly in the first place because of the orders of magnitude of the dimensions taken into account but also due to specific intrinsic characteristic constant. Modeling the two researchers have some shortcomings, in terms of numbers may have validity, but analog has some cracks should be identified by the fact that most of the problems on the emergence of life and creating a range of models for each problem detected, thus this case we can not talk only possible subject to constraints and calculations that can be interpreted in different ways but the simple predictions. Simple calculation gives no clear evidence of the fact that life appeared before the formation of Earth, it is not known with certainty whether living matter evolved complexity imposed by law, especially if increased steadily throughout the period of evolution and creation Universe as a whole. In addition if genetic complexity grows steadily talking would then develop genetic all life in the universe would be about equal to that existing on Earth
teodorescu_gabriel
1 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2013
As such parallel between cosmic origin of life, more accurate term in my opinion to that of extaterestre life, and the relationship between life on Earth and the whole human knowledge, born again questionable because human evolution occurs not only in the genome, but also mentally and knowledge when it should be recognized that the complexity coevoluează!. Note also that the definition of biological complexity is a subject, rather than complex. A study published in the journal Nature in 2008 presented 42 definitions of complexity, which means that what is meant by the term human civilization. Regarding Moore's Law can not speak for about a scientific law in the true sense of the word, but rather an observation that underlies a finding of huge leaps in technological progress. This statement describes a trend that has lasted nearly 50 years that the number of transistors that can be coupled on an integrated circuit doubles approximately 18-24 months and lately up to 36 months, although with a limited and even a decrease in time. Estimates made in 1965 that the number of transistors produced in a year would equate to the number of existing ants in the world, is a premise that is no longer valid since 2003, so there is no analogy made by Moore maintain accuracy. At the same time, the principle of Moore's Law, it has a total durability and generalization as applied eg aircraft building industry and air transport, shows that if a commercial flight on the route New York - Paris cost about $ 1000 and take seven o'clock in the 1980s, when the same flight in the year 2013 should cost under $ 1 and last less than a second!. It is a certainty that in the last decade has clearly reached a technological limit which no longer allows integrating double the number of transistors in the same sequential process to make it twice as fast. Thus Moore's prediction and hypothesis regarding lower power consumption per transistor with increasing density of integration is no longer valid and therefore no processor clock frequency can not increase beyond four gigahertz than the dramatic increase in the price of power dissipated in the form Heat up the values ​​that are hard to absorb the normal cooling systems used. Thus, increasing performance beyond the limitation of technology is through parallelism, thus achieving not only a single processing unit sequentially, but several, thus maintaining the growth of computing power processors.
In case of life in the universe there is the possibility of even sequential programming, parallel could be more effective in certain prescribed conditions imposed and / or educated, but I do not think that until now has been calculated or at least estimated that energy to be consumed for the emergence of life in the universe and on Earth.
Clearly research is trying to establish all connections with different theories, and in the case of a complex whole, like life, must clearly state postulate and initial conditions, and all entries that can cause the overall system evolution during existential default.
Aaron1980
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2013
Mankind has been awake technologically for less than one hundred years. There are people alive today from the time when heavier than air flight was considered not scientifically possible.

10,000 years ago the most sophisticated people on earth were about as technologically advanced as the American Indians were when Columbus arrived. There are people on earth today who are still living the same way those people did 10,000 years ago.

Wonder about beings who where the way we are say two billion years ago and how far ahead of us they are now.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2013
I indeed know the mainstream science intimately.

No you do not. There is no way you could know even one scientist to talk to and arrive at the type of attitude that you have towards scientists (except by just disregarding everytzhing anyone says and just constructing and living in your own fantasy world - which is very much what you do anyways).
JonathanR
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2013
And they used Hubbert peak theory to predict we would be in decline of oil now, however it didn't take into account... in the case of oil fracking, in the case of the beginning of life something else.
tkjtkj
not rated yet Apr 21, 2013
An organism without the critical genome size will immediately lose the ability to self-replicate, making it a 'virus' and by definition not a living organism.. this study is not about physical reality.

I wish to bring to your attention that 'pre-biotic' evolution is based upon *molecules* self-replicating .. becoming more and more efficent and complex over eons of time ..
Please tell us how you might integrate your comment into the essence of that pre-life basic tenent?
JIMBO
2 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2013
Interesting, but it is reminiscent of research in astronomy ~ 20 yrs ago, that pegged some stars as Older than the universe itself ! Clearly impossible, but embarrassingly grabbed a lot of media attention. Eventually, this erroneous result was resolved, but it reminds us that speculative research always needs tb taken w/a grain of salt.
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2013
Appears to me that an easy verification of this would be to determine when all 6 elements of amino acids were first available in the universe at the same time. Were these elements (created as a result of supernovas) all here after the first cycle of supernova activity or the second? Or Third? Add a hundred million years or so to that point and we'd have a pretty good idea of when life's precursors started.
BSD
1 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2013
As such parallel between cosmic origin of life, more accurate term in my opinion to that of extaterestre......................overall system evolution during existential default.


There is no brevity therefore no wit.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 23, 2013
Appears to me that an easy verification of this would be to determine when all 6 elements of amino acids were first available in the universe at the same time.


There is no way that could "easy" to verify. It's not like in a college chemistry lab where ya can isolate these "elements" in time and space.

Were these elements (created as a result of supernovas) all here after the first cycle of supernova activity or the second? Or Third?


No, no or no. 1) They are not elements. 2) They are complex molecules that could not be formed in the extreme environment of a supernova event.

Add a hundred million years or so to that point and we'd have a pretty good idea of when life's precursors started.


Add hundred million years? Why not just fifty millions? Or 500 millions? How do ya pick a number? And what does a "guess" like that do for ya?
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2013
Q,
Apologies for the lack of clarity. CHNOPS - the basic elements of Amino acids were created in supernovas (except hydrogen, of course). These are the elements I was referring to. I was under the impression scientists were able to spectrographically see these elemental particles.
As to the number of years after they were all available in the same "room" to assemble (randomly?) - you are right - it was a guess. Could have been 1 year, for all we know. Or one second. It doesn't matter. What matters is that they were all somehow pulled (maybe even pushed) together to allow the a free electron of one element to fill a hole of another and bind.
An act of balance that our Universe does with unequivocal precision, thru infinite numbers of progressions and is the absolute rule of existence.
We (as a species) are incredibly (and inevitably) fortunate to be here at this place and time, with the observational tools we have created, to see it all happen.
+1.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2013
Apologies for the lack of clarity. CHNOPS - the basic elements of Amino acids were created in supernovas (except hydrogen, of course). These are the elements I was referring to. I was under the impression scientists were able to spectrographically see these elemental particles.


Oh, I see, yes we can assess objects spectroscopically for the element content. We can even look for compounds. But until we see the amino acids, the "when" has no meaning, the "when" will be answered by the "finding" them.

It doesn't matter. What matters is that they were all somehow pulled (maybe even pushed) together to allow the a free electron of one element to fill a hole of another and bind.


We can put them together in the lab. We even possess the blueprints and rules. We can manipulate the lab parameters at will and still can not do it.

It can only be more difficult for nature to do, being constrained by randomness and chance, which we are not.
jibbles
1 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2013
It may appear to be linear growth over short periods - But exponential growth over longer periods. Have you not read Kurzwiel's book on the singularity?


it's linear on a semilog plot.
Eikka
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2013
But exponential growth over longer periods. Have you not read Kurzwiel's book on the singularity?


It's still essentially just the gambler's fallacy without a reason - a mechanism - that suggests why it does that and why it can keep doing that. Flipping a coin heads up a hundred times in a row might mean that the coin is rigged, or the tosses are rigged, or it might just be a freak coincidence. Natural history is a one-time event as far as we know, so we have no statistical sample to tell otherwise.

A good question is, how are we even measuring genetic complexity of organisms that are so long dead we can't find a single intact nucleotide in the fossils. If so, how are we inferring the slope of the curve?

Kurtzweil is half loony and half in it to sell a book.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 24, 2013
Kurtzweil is half loony and half in it to sell a book
Doesnt mean hes wrong.does it? He is also by the way director of engg at google where I assume he will have some influence in making his prophesy come true.

Imagine when we will be able to access internet info directly with our brains and communicate with each other via links instead of words. No opinions, just facts. Of course, AI will have to clean up the web considerably before this will be dependable.
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2013
We can put them together in the lab. We even possess the blueprints and rules. We can manipulate the lab parameters at will and still can not do it.

It can only be more difficult for nature to do, being constrained by randomness and chance, which we are not.

Nature has a WAY bigger lab than we can put together - AND has been doing it a lot longer.
Anyway, we are the ones constrained - by time and, unfortunately, linear thinking, to mention but 2. Nature has no constraints. Everything we have observed exhibits an incredible amount of order and precision that hardly appears "random". I'd say the Universe has it's own "scientific method" that human scientists need to understand.
But of course, then it would all happen way too fast and we humans couldn't keep up. So - I guess some constraints are fortuitously in place...:-)
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2013
Kurtzweil is half loony and half in it to sell a book.

Amen. Good and emphatic speaker. But his theories are definitely of the "pulled-out-of-his-behind-without-a -shred-of-substantiation"-type.
adave
1 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2013
The further back in time you go the greater the distance for panspermia from the Earth. The origin of life had genesis 10 billion light years from the earth. How strange we have not found the continuous generation of life from existing earthly materials. Why only very early universes that drove the components of life outward by nova explosions? What is the concentration of life on the volume of the earth? What would be the concentration of life after an explosion in a galaxy? It looks too small to support panspermia. It looks like we need to find another solution. Assign a number to the complexity of life vs minerals. Even at time zero you would have to find bioite minerals that give rise from a two dimensional surface containing the information of life to a three dimensional complex alive structure. The application of Moore's law may be questionable but there is a big gap from 4.5 billion years to zero.
adave
1 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2013
The further back in time you go the greater the distance for panspermia from the Earth. The origin of life had genesis 10 billion light years from the earth. How strange we have not found the continuous generation of life from existing earthly materials. Why only very early universes that drove the components of life outward by nova explosions? What is the concentration of life on the volume of the earth? What would be the concentration of life after an explosion in a galaxy? It looks too small to support panspermia. It looks like we need to find another solution. Assign a number to the complexity of life vs minerals. Even at time zero you would have to find bioite minerals that give rise from a two dimensional surface containing the information of life to a three dimensional complex alive structure. The application of Moore's law may be questionable but there is a big gap from 4.5 billion years to zero.
Eikka
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2013
How strange we have not found the continuous generation of life from existing earthly materials.


Because existing life tends to eat everything that even resembles a living organism. If it has carbon and hydrogen linked up together in a chain, some bacteria or fungus will gobble it up.

And we have only been observing for such possibilities for a very short period of time. The structure of DNA wasn't discovered until the 1950's, and it's pretty hard to keep watch all over the place.
tadchem
1 / 5 (3) May 13, 2013
When the data does not fit the theory, an empirical scientist chucks the theory and a political scientist chucks the data.