Saturday, June 23, 2007 | Science : Evolution and Biology | print version

Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker

Chuck Kopec, cdk007

Reposted from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

In this video I deconstruct the broken watch straw man argument used by creationist / ID supporters to attack evolution. I had to pack a ton of information into this video so you WILL need to pause it periodically.

The basic premise of the argument is that a bunch of parts will never randomly assemble into the correct arrangement to form a properly functioning complex. Once again, creationists / ID supporters miss the basic concept of evolution entirely. No biologists believes, nor is there any evidence that complex systems form spontaneously in one fell swoop. That would be creation. Systems evolve through many intermediates, one step at a time, slowly building up the complexity.

Here I deconstruct their straw man argument. Basically, I simulate clocks as living organisms. Selective pressure is focused on their ability to accurately tell time. NO goal is imposed on the design (you can tell this because every simulation ends with a differently constructed clock). And it works. Clocks evolve through a series of transitional forms: Pendulum, Proto-clock, 1-handed Clock, 2-handed Clock, 3-handed Clock, and 4-handed Clock. Gradually the complexity is built up.

These labels I have assigned to the transitional forms have nothing to do with the simulation itself. They are names I assigned so that we could analyze what the population was doing. The clocks are just clocks, living in their world, trying to tell time as accurately as possible.

One thing I wanted to address but didn't have time in the video is how rapid the transitional period can be. In some simulations the population goes from pendulums to 3-handed Clocks in a hundred or so generations. And the transitions between the transitional forms are even more rapid, happening in about ten generations. Chances are none or a very limited representation of that transition will be preserved in the fossil record.

One thing I should add. The program does not draw the clocks. It maintains, mates, and simulates them, but the drawing must be done manually from the genome matrix.

The program is written in MatLab.

The hand rotations that begin with 86 are 86,000 not 86.000. When YouTube compressed the video it becam hard to tell a comma from a period.

I think this is one of the creationist videos that the author has in mind:
http://www.kids4truth.com/watchmaker/watch.html

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Saturday, June 23, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 36 of 36 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #51618 by maton100 on June 23, 2007 at 8:06 pm

Maybe a little less Coldplay? Nice analysis though...

Other Comments by maton100

2. Comment #51620 by steve99 on June 23, 2007 at 8:10 pm

I see a couple of problems with this. Firstly, I have never been convinced about the need to separate evolution from abiogenesis. It seems an artificial distinction, implying that life is somehow special, as against being on a continuum with simpler chemical and physical systems. There is no clear 'non-life to life' transition, and forms of selection can work even on simpler systems.

Secondly, I think this gives a false impression of how evolution works. There are no long-term objectives in evolution, which is suggested by the selection only for clock-functionality. More realistic would be a period of selection for some other behaviour, which eventually resulted in structures which could also function as clocks.

Other Comments by steve99

3. Comment #51625 by Dog Boots on June 23, 2007 at 9:09 pm

There is the "automatic" long term objective in evolution to create beings that replicate, which includes surviving long enough to do so....which is exactly what evolution has produced. The analogy sets off from a flawed analogy, so I think it works within that premise.

Other Comments by Dog Boots

4. Comment #51626 by Spinoza on June 23, 2007 at 9:17 pm

Steve didn't understand it I think...

Even among us atheists, one needs to learn to separate the contingent from the necessary in an analogy... He wasn't showing how evolution in the natural world works, he was showing how it might work among a very specific population of pre-established entities...

In any case I thought this was quite well done.

Other Comments by Spinoza

5. Comment #51629 by neander on June 23, 2007 at 9:39 pm

Well done. As an analogy it is great. It clearly explains the reasons for the lack of transitional fossil forms, and the "sudden" jumps of the fossil record. So much for punctuated equilibria being anything more than an observation. I will be using it in my classes.
Age of pendulums..LOL.

Other Comments by neander

6. Comment #51631 by Crazymalc on June 23, 2007 at 9:53 pm

I think Steve missed the point also. Clocks are not alive and do not mate. Therefore they can't evolve. There is no concept of the most fit surviving.

So some twists need to be put in.

Here "Fitness" is replaced by "Accuracy to tell time".

Nice work.

Loved the humping clocks

Other Comments by Crazymalc

7. Comment #51632 by Alastor on June 23, 2007 at 9:59 pm

Steve, evolution can act only where there is reproduction with mutation. So it seems to me that the origin of the first replicating molecule could not have been a Darwinian process. Abiogenesis is the investigation of how a simple replicating molecule could arise from non-replicating ones via chemical interactions. This is a much more difficult field because it involves dealing with the chemistry and physics of complex chemical systems. The elegence of evolution is that, in a way, it transcends its physical context. Once you have replicators with mutation and selection effects, you have evolution, whether your replicators are chemical compounds or matricies in computer memory.

I don't see why you think this artificial life program has a "long-term objective". There is simply a clockiness selection pressure on each generation. It is possible that there is an ideal clock genome which a population in this program would never evolve into. In order to demonstrate foresight, you would have to see the watches traversing the genome space in such a way that they might decrease there fitness in some generations in order to finally get to the best genome. The program simply selects the most fit at each generation, with no foresight into future generations. This is in analogy to natural selection. If you think equating the ability to tell time with survival fitness is artificial, then imagine that the watches eat insects that come out of their hives at very specific times, so the watches that can tell time better get more food and are more likely to survive.

In any case, I think the intent of the program is to point out that Paley's watchmaker analogy as an argument for design is a poor one because watches don't replicate with mutation, like people do. If you can convince someone that living things reproduce, and that they pass on their genes, and that genes can mutate, then these artificial life programs should show them how living things can evolve into more complex living things. As pointed out in the video, artificial life programs do not model abiogenesis - that would require highly computationally expensive molecular dynamics simulations. Such simulations are not possible with today's technology, but it would be interesting to see if someone could do simulations of some sort of simplified entities corresponding to chemical compounds, interacting through a simplified analogy to chemistry/physics. Maybe one could simulate an analogy to abiogenesis by finding a case where the simplified compounds interact to produce a self-replicating composite object. In the end though, that might not tell us much about how abiogenesis happened on Earth, because we may be talking about a rare chemical event that is highly specific to the particular chemical compounds and laws of chemistry/physics. In contrast, natural selection is so simple and robust that it happens in any situation with mutating replicators under selection pressure, so artificial life (like in the video) is a good analogy to how life really evolves.

Other Comments by Alastor

8. Comment #51656 by boxmonkey on June 24, 2007 at 1:24 am

I'd really like to see the code used for this, anyone know where/if it's available?

Other Comments by boxmonkey

9. Comment #51663 by wilberforce.parry on June 24, 2007 at 2:37 am

I thought this was brilliant. It (or something very similar) would make a great school project (obviously depending on the complexity of it). MatLab is widely used in schools and universities. I wonder if it is possible to see the code in detail? I also wonder if it would be possible to programme something similar in VBA?

Other Comments by wilberforce.parry

10. Comment #51665 by ShellShock on June 24, 2007 at 2:56 am

Does any one know the name of the music track that is playing in the background?

Other Comments by ShellShock

11. Comment #51667 by Donald on June 24, 2007 at 3:12 am

I like the evolving-clock video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0. It only addresses one part of the evolution versus god argument, but one can only do so much in a short video. I wonder if someone could make that program into an entertaining downloadable program that kids could run on their PC and see visual representations of representative clocks during the evolution in some visual way?

Also, I notice that the watchmaker video http://www.kids4truth.com/watchmaker/watch.html shows considerable progress compared with a century ago.

It describes living cells as complex machines. Great. No vital force. No continual intervention by a spirit.

The watchmaker video is much closer to Deism than Theism. (Of course, the creators of of that video don't see it that way. They see it as the best defensive position they can hold to claim the existence of their version of "God". But I see it as an intermediate form between Theism and Deism. And Deism is a major major improvement over the Abrahamic nonsense.)

So, scientific knowledge is gradually winning the battle over ancient myths.

But the progress does not look fast enough to avert global disasters for human civilisation. I see the problem as not so much the billions of people who believe nonsense. Most of them would change their "beliefs" if fed the right information diet. The problem is that religions are not merely personal belief systems. They are all, to some degree, political systems. By that I mean that they provide a hierarchy of power and control for the individuals who climb within, and aspire to control as large a slice of humanity as possible. I am appalled at the extent religions have gained control of western politicians, and particularly appalled at the depths of religious domination in the Islamic world. (Islam is an overtly political system, and the main forms explicitly desire world domination.)

I hope every clear-thinking reader, especially those recovered from delusional propaganda, can find some way, whether small or large, to spread enlightenment and counter religious propaganda.

Other Comments by Donald

12. Comment #51668 by chbg21808 on June 24, 2007 at 3:19 am

Yes SHELLSHOCK:

It's a British band called Coldplay and the song is "Clocks". ...Not my kind of music really, but they are popular. Actually the musics not that bad... it's just ruined when he starts singing.

Great video... But if you think it's going to convince a hard core creationist... As Judas Priest's Rob Halford once sang... "You've got another thing coming"

Other Comments by chbg21808

13. Comment #51669 by steve99 on June 24, 2007 at 3:27 am

Steve, evolution can act only where there is reproduction with mutation. So it seems to me that the origin of the first replicating molecule could not have been a Darwinian process.

It is simplistic to think only of a first replicating molecule. These days there are many ideas about the start of life which involve things such as simple chemical cycles, possibly involving quite trivial molecules. Such cycles are certainly subject to mutation (substituting one molecule for another) and selection (competing for the source of energy).

I feel that this attitute to abiogenesis .. that suddenly a relatively complex and unlikely replicating molecule appears and then instantly natural selection starts up has a nasty flavour of vitalism - drawing a line between life and non-life. Selection is a general principle in non-equilibrium system - it can be as simple as a certain pattern of vortices being the most stable in a fast-moving stream, or it could as complex as a rich set of interacting chemical systems.

If you think equating the ability to tell time with survival fitness is artificial, then imagine that the watches eat insects that come out of their hives at very specific times, so the watches that can tell time better get more food and are more likely to survive.

But that is not the way most things are selected - it is far too simple a view. It is rare of anything as complex and analogous to 'watch-ness' to be selected very long term for a single function. For example, our ear bones were initially selected (if I remember right) as gill supports. Some eyes may have started out as heat sensors. A nice example of how things change is the plumage of some birds. Feathers probably started off as thermal insulation. Then some moved to help with flight (while retaining an insulating function). Some have lost their flight function (or at least, aren't good at it any more) and have come used for display. That is far more typical of the messy and unpredictable way evolution works.

That is why I disliked the constant selection for watch-ness - it plays into the hands of IDers - that someone is watching evolution long-term and picking out what they want.

I don't think a video like this is going to change any minds unless it presents a far more realistic simulation, where functionality just appears by itself, with selection coming from within the model, and not from the programmer/user.

Other Comments by steve99

14. Comment #51672 by deviljelly on June 24, 2007 at 3:37 am

Chuck,
Stunning work. I liked your first simulation, I loved this one.

I wonder if RD will have time to see it and comment, if I remember correctly he was a very early user of computer simulations in is work.

I guess the next step would to port it to a Java applet and put it on the rd.net home page. Or grid it?... "Watchmaking@home" :-) This may yield a perfectly accurate clock, the schematic of which may be a candidate for the "Atheist Logo/Badge/Pin" people are looking for.

...need help with the Java?

Other Comments by deviljelly

15. Comment #51675 by Donald on June 24, 2007 at 3:44 am

Steve99 wrote: "I don't think a video like this is going to change any minds unless it presents a far more realistic simulation, where functionality just appears by itself, with selection coming from within the model, and not from the programmer/user."

It might be possible to find a better simulation demonstration. But someone has to come up with a better scenario.

Steve, do you have any well-thought-out suggestion for a simulation scenario that is:
(a) simple enough for a present-day desktop PC to run
(b) does not require external selection towards a predetermined goal
(c) has scope for ever increasing complexity
(d) will develop some complex function that humans will recognise as analogous to something in real evolution.

It might be possible. Can you find such a scenario?

Other Comments by Donald

16. Comment #51676 by steve99 on June 24, 2007 at 3:49 am

I wonder if RD will have time to see it and comment, if I remember correctly he was a very early user of computer simulations in is work.

And some of RD's work in this area, fascinating though it was (remember the biomorphs?), was subject to precisely the same criticism that I have described. He was the selector of 'fitness', not anything intrinsic in the model. I know he recognised that, and it would be interesting to know if he has done further, more realistic work in this area. I think I remember him mentioning somewhere the idea of trying to evolve insect-like shapes using garden birds to choose the biomorph that looked most tasty! Now that is more like it!

Other Comments by steve99

17. Comment #51678 by steve99 on June 24, 2007 at 3:56 am

Steve didn't understand it I think...

I understood it very well. I have nearly 30 years experience in numerical work and simulation, and I have been following evolution simulations for a long time.

Even among us atheists, one needs to learn to separate the contingent from the necessary in an analogy... He wasn't showing how evolution in the natural world works, he was showing how it might work among a very specific population of pre-established entities...

I know. And it was interesting. But it is not an analogy that is going to convince any creationist or IDer. The only way you might have a hope of convincing such people is by showing complexity arising from simpler systems without the intervention of a programmer or user to do the selection. I have seen all this kind of argument before. All they will say is that you have substituted one intelligent designer (their God) for the intelligent human doing the selection. They will even go so far as to say that this simulation proves their point!

This is why analogies have to be very carefully chosen, and this model is not that useful an analogy of natural selection.

Other Comments by steve99

18. Comment #51679 by steve99 on June 24, 2007 at 4:05 am

It might be possible. Can you find such a scenario?

Yes. First of all, I have above mentioned Dawkins' delightful suggestion of allowing animals to select what is produced on a computer. But anyway, many people are already doing what I suggest. A simple google search reveals:

Evolution lab:
http://biologyinmotion.com/evol/

and

Evolution Simulator
http://www.truthtree.com/evolve.shtml

Please don't get me wrong - I think that this video presents a useful and clever piece of work. Where I am sure it will succeed is in showing many who believe in evolution how it can work. It would be a great educational video for schools, for example. However, I think it fails in its objective as a refutation of Creationism and ID.

Other Comments by steve99

19. Comment #51684 by Donald on June 24, 2007 at 5:01 am

Donald wrote:

do you have any well-thought-out suggestion for a simulation scenario that is:
(a) simple enough for a present-day desktop PC to run
(b) does not require external selection towards a predetermined goal
(c) has scope for ever increasing complexity
(d) will develop some complex function that humans will recognise as analogous to something in real evolution.

Steve quickly suggested:

Evolution lab: http://biologyinmotion.com/evol/
Evolution Simulator: http://www.truthtree.com/evolve.shtml

I have looked at both. I don't think either meet my criterion (c) above. Evolution lab also fails the "complex function" of my criterion (d). The swimming motions of Evolution Simulator qualify on (d), but I don't see scope for ever-increasing complexity.

[ Incidentally, Evolution Lab also fails badly on user interface. The control functions are harder to learn and understand than the very simple educational point it is trying to make! ]

Also, they lack qualities that will draw people to them (I thought the watchmaker video was more engaging).

Worthy, but no cigar. Good scenario still sought.

Other Comments by Donald

20. Comment #51699 by MorituriMax on June 24, 2007 at 7:15 am

steve99

Secondly, I think this gives a false impression of how evolution works. There are no long-term objectives in evolution, which is suggested by the selection only for clock-functionality. More realistic would be a period of selection for some other behaviour, which eventually resulted in structures which could also function as clocks.

That was his point, clocks are not alive, so the whole argument about clocks and evolution is a straw man.

Other Comments by MorituriMax

21. Comment #51704 by steve99 on June 24, 2007 at 7:31 am

That was his point, clocks are not alive, so the whole argument about clocks and evolution is a straw man.

If the argument about clocks and evolution was a straw man, then why is he simulating the evolution of clocks?

Other Comments by steve99

22. Comment #51737 by Lee Christie on June 24, 2007 at 12:27 pm

Interesting video, but if the idea is to attack creationists, it's a bit of a waste since they wont watch it past the first 5 seconds.

Nice though :)

Other Comments by Lee Christie

23. Comment #51741 by Alastor on June 24, 2007 at 2:26 pm

Steve, the arguments advanced by you are absurd to the highest degree. Drawing a line between life and non-life in terms of which collections of atoms are subject to evolution and which aren't is not vitalism. This division lays out the purview of the subject of biology. It is false to suggest that simple chemical compounds or vortices in a stream are subject to evolution, or that these compounds or vortices "compete" in any meaningful sense for energy. You must recognize that not all physical systems are subject to evolution. There are prerequisite conditions that must be fulfilled before evolution can even begin: replication, mutation, and selection pressure.

The emergence of the first replicating molecules was not steered by evolution. It is generally observed that life does not come from non-life, and this is almost a tautology if we define life in terms of what evolution can act on. You should not be afraid to admit that the beginnings of simple self-replicating molecules would have been unlikely if not for the vastness of chemical events in the universe.

Regarding your other point, "I don't think a video like this is going to change any minds unless it presents a far more realistic simulation, where functionality just appears by itself, with selection coming from within the model, and not from the programmer/user." In the real world, selection does not originate within an organism, it is imosed by the environmental conditions the organism is exposed to. Analogously, in this computer program the environment is more likely to eliminate watches that don't tell time as well. Although it is true that selection pressures change over time, remember this is a simplified model, but the correspondence to evolution is clear.

Other Comments by Alastor

24. Comment #51742 by Greg23 on June 24, 2007 at 3:28 pm

There was a guy during the Sunday paper presentation session at T.A.M. 5 who wrote a similar program for his university thesis. Instead of a clock, it produced a maze and a route through the maze. He used it to show how "irreducably complex" features can be produced through simple evolutionary process.

Other Comments by Greg23

25. Comment #51744 by steve99 on June 24, 2007 at 4:11 pm

Steve, the arguments advanced by you are absurd to the highest degree.

Well, I appreciate debate. However, 'the highest degree' sounds somewhat harsh.

Drawing a line between life and non-life in terms of which collections of atoms are subject to evolution and which aren't is not vitalism. This division lays out the purview of the subject of biology. It is false to suggest that simple chemical compounds or vortices in a stream are subject to evolution, or that pothese compounds or vortices "compete" in any meaningful sense for energy.

No, this is not false at all. Such systems are certainly subject to selection. You should study the Cairns-Smith model of how selection can happen even in simple minerals.

You must recognize that not all physical systems are subject to evolution. There are prerequisite conditions that must be fulfilled before evolution can even begin: replication, mutation, and selection pressure.

Of course they aren't. I am talking about physical and chemical systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium.

The emergence of the first replicating molecules was not steered by evolution.

That is simply something you are stating, and does not fit with many current theories.

You should not be afraid to admit that the beginnings of simple self-replicating molecules would have been unlikely if not for the vastness of chemical events in the universe.

I won't admit that. I think that most theories I have heard about the origin of self-replicating
molecules are unconvincing. The argument about probability has never been satisfying. I believe life is far more probable than that argument suggests.

Although it is true that selection pressures change over time, remember this is a simplified model, but the correspondence to evolution is clear.

Yes, the correspondence is clear. I don't disagree. The problem is that the correspondence isn't enough to convince many doubters.

Other Comments by steve99

26. Comment #51758 by foxfire on June 24, 2007 at 5:56 pm

That is clever and very well done - kudos! Evolving clocks with survival based on accuracy and with "junk"(DNA)gears. Totally cool!

I don't think you are going to catch many Creationist types with this and it's really brilliantly done from my layman's perspective.

Other Comments by foxfire

27. Comment #51815 by godisanidiot on June 25, 2007 at 5:33 am

How did he implement the selection criterion:
"the ability to tell time".
He should spend more time on that in the video.

Other Comments by godisanidiot

28. Comment #51825 by MorituriMax on June 25, 2007 at 6:35 am

steve99 opined

If the argument about clocks and evolution was a straw man, then why is he simulating the evolution of clocks?

Because, some people out there buy into the theory that this IS how evolution works. The same way, the very same people, think that evolution is about how the universe formed from the Big Bang.

He is trying to show them that that IS NOT how Evolution works, and humor tends to be a good medium to use for that.

Just imagine the Kent Hovind faithful who also think that the Flintstones cartoon was a series of documentaries...

Other Comments by MorituriMax

29. Comment #51837 by somersetsimon on June 25, 2007 at 9:02 am

The externally specified fitness criteria for Genetic Algorthim-style evolutions could be seen as a reason to discount it as an true analogy for real biological evolution. In real evolution, the fitness goals are basically eat, mate, survive.

Allowing the user to specify a measure of fitness makes these techniques great for solving all sorts of problems. My PhD supervisor organized conference back in 1995 to discuss the use of GA's in science and engineering (GALESIA). Guest speaker - Richard Dawkins (small world).

I moved on from GA's to Artificial Life (ALife). One of the first things I looked into was the work of Karl Sims (http://www.biota.org/ksims/). His simulations simply set up a world and gave his evolving creatures the goal of surviving. If you have a look at the mass of Alife stuff out there, there are loads of examples of simulated evolution. It really is astounding how efficient the method of reproduction and random mutation and survival of the fittest is at producing very complex solutions very quickly.

Other Comments by somersetsimon

30. Comment #51842 by konquererz on June 25, 2007 at 10:06 am

Steve,

I appreciate your putting forth your best argument on this subject. But you represent what has happened and what will always happen in these types of arguments. You already pinned it, this video won't change the minds of ID'rs and Creationists. Well of course it won't.

These types of videos are for people who are looking for knowledge and basic understanding of evolution. People who can bring themselves to believe in a literal interpretation of genesis and can be happy with a theory of our beginning that simply feeds on unknown parts of the existing theory are never going to be convinced.

The problem is they have a strong baseless faith that allows people who believe that way to ignore any and all fact no matter how its put. I know all to many believers that will never change their mind no matter how much evidence they see. They will continue to buy into obviously ridiculous theories and ideas as long as their believed reality doesn't change.

Other Comments by konquererz

31. Comment #51849 by steve99 on June 25, 2007 at 10:35 am

You already pinned it, this video won't change the minds of ID'rs and Creationists. Well of course it won't.

But that is just how the video appears to be positioned. The first thing it mentions is Intelligent Design.

Other Comments by steve99

32. Comment #52129 by MorituriMax on June 26, 2007 at 8:44 am

steve99 opined

But that is just how the video appears to be positioned. The first thing it mentions is Intelligent Design.

So? Should he have mentioned Flat Earthers? Perhaps you can do your own video and set us all straight as to how it should be done?

There are plenty of people here who get what he is trying to say. If you don't then make a video and set all straight. all straight. all straight.. sorry, got stuck flogging the dead horse..

heh heh.. I'm half kidding, have a good one.

Other Comments by MorituriMax

33. Comment #52139 by Ev3nt H0riz0n on June 26, 2007 at 9:39 am

On abiogenisis. I think that life here first started out there. When we see microbes that can survive the vacuum of space or on the cooling rods of nuclear reactors as well as reentry it is obvious they can be dispersed in the dust and gas of space. Through the process of accretion they became deposited on planets. They would only survive on a sufficiently cooled planet where a surface has formed. Since life on Earth appeared so early I say this is more likely than the creation of replicating molecules here.

Other Comments by Ev3nt H0riz0n

34. Comment #53396 by Elentar on July 1, 2007 at 8:23 am

'Clockiness' here is just a simple analogy for the real world requirements to eat, mate, and reproduce, standing in for the complex requirements of the environment. In this case, clockiness stands in for real world adaptive fitness, which would be a monster to model on a computer, and which would give rise to an entire host of misunderstandings, questions about assumptions, etc. Simplicity is clarity here. The complexity that some of you are asking for would obscure the result.

Other Comments by Elentar

35. Comment #53439 by Nails on July 1, 2007 at 1:29 pm

34. Comment #52139 by Ev3nt H0riz0n on June 26, 2007 at 9:39 am

On abiogenisis. I think that life here first started out there. When we see microbes that can survive the vacuum of space or on the cooling rods of nuclear reactors as well as reentry it is obvious they can be dispersed in the dust and gas of space. Through the process of accretion they became deposited on planets. They would only survive on a sufficiently cooled planet where a surface has formed. Since life on Earth appeared so early I say this is more likely than the creation of replicating molecules here.

I think that such properties of some bacteria are an evolutionary clue to their struggle for existance - thermal vents etc. Spores are very hardy and survive even bleaching.
As for the origins of life, it is a little more complex than looking at how bacteria are now and extrapolating back 3.5 billion years.
The raw materials for life can be found throughout our galaxy, that is certain. I find it a much more logical step that life could potentially start anywhere these building blocks are present in sufficient quantities with limiting factors reduced far enough.
Oh, and a lot of time and luck.
So while a panspermian start is possible, I find it more probable that life on earth started on earth as we have the conditions and the ingredients.
Space is so vast that travel between solar systems is not really viable, the times involved would be prohibitive.
But that's my opinion.

Other Comments by Nails

36. Comment #56824 by sammehaffy on July 17, 2007 at 12:19 pm

Would IDist be better than IDer, and certainly better than ID'rs. Just a thought.

Other Comments by sammehaffy

Reload Comments | Back to Top