Maybe Crick’s first idea is the case. And Ward and Brownlee’s Rare Earth hypothesis is the truth. Then intelligent life would be exceedingly rare or unique in the galaxy. These models seem to be better founded in the evidence. Of course this would just push back the origin of life problem, the current failure of Darwinistic hypotheses to explain that origin. I think extraterrestrial life, its existence and its nature is too speculative to have much relevance to the debate.

I considered saying “The Next Generation” but I thought I would sound like a geek. Probably too late anyway.

Collin,

Interesting thoughts. I agree.

When talking about Star Trek’s 5 television series though, for the uninitiated, you should refer to ST:TNG as opposed to simply Star Trek(:TOS).

And yet, aren’t there Orchids which are not fertilized by insects at all?

In fact, aren’t there orchids that self-fertilize?

OK, so this helps shape the confidence interval of the prediction but does not negate it. As in “Ghosts of Evolution” finding half a partnership will let you predict the other half. Not that that will help make predictions from a distance before landing on a planet…

Data, the android, asks Dr. Crusher if she thinks he is “alive.” She gives him the standard definition of what life is: basically something that consumes food, reproduces and dies. Data makes the point that by that definition fire is alive. Dr. Crusher says, “Fire is a chemical reaction.” As if that answered the question. Then they talk about other things and never resolve what life is and why fire is not alive.

When and if scientists find life on other planets, I predict that they will use ID principles like complexity and the presence of a blueprint code like DNA to determine if it is really life. Darwinism does not help with this, for natural selection variation applies to black holes and neutron stars as well as life.

An orchid that flowers in harsh conditions pollinates itself unassisted by any of the usual agents. Mating in flowering plants normally relies on animals, wind, gravity or secretion to convey pollen grains from the male (anther) to the female (stigma) organ1. Apart from that, a new type of self-pollination mechanism in the tree-living orchid Holcoglossum amesianum, is observed in which the bisexual flower turns its anther against gravity through 360° in order to insert pollen into its own stigma cavity — without the aid of any pollinating agent or medium. This mode of self-pollination, which occurs under windless, drought conditions when insects are scarce, adds to the variety of mechanisms that have evolved in angiosperms to ensure their reproductive success.

Does evolutionary theory predict this?

For example, in his book Fertilization of Orchids, Darwin predicted that since there are Orchid with very long nectary, then there must be a moth or other insect with an equally long proboscis.

And yet, aren’t there Orchids which are not fertilized by insects at all?

In fact, aren’t there orchids that self-fertilize?

Given those two facts, it should be clear that evolutionary theory makes no prediction about the existence of insects, their role in the fertilization of orchids, or the shape of their probosces.

It also shows us that this tale about a “Darwinian prediction come true” can’t instruct us about the course of life on another planet.

It should almost go without saying, that if there’s no predictable outcome, no prediction can be made.

I can’t quite bring myself to agree. I think a Darwinian, non-telic theory could make predictions, not about the sequence of forms or specific stages, but about some statistical properties of ecologies. For example, a power law distribution of biomass by species. I think this kind of thing is on the edge of evo theory vs law of form.

Another issue is that based on our own planetary experience, another world sampled at a random point in its history will only find very simple life. We don’t know today (or I don’t know, but would be happy to be told) why metazoans etc. took so long to show up. Did it take a really long time to shake down metabolic and developmental pathways before they could start to be duplicated, mutated, etc? Is that a fact of life everywhere, or are we just way out on one tail of a distribution?

I keep coming back to the idea that speciation is an inevitable consequence of evolution, when played out on a large enough canvas. Maybe Lenski’s flasks of E. coli will never contain multiple species because their environment is intentionally kept so simple, but on the scale of a planetary surface, speciation and ecological diversity are inevitable. In that vein, parasites are inevitable. Life that eats the waste and the dead is inevitable. These things can’t break down fast enough to avoid being used by some other life as a source of energy or spare parts. For a planet with any significant oxygen in its atmosphere, a Darwinian theory should predict a large and thriving ecosystem, even if the biomass is mostly stromatolites and grazers.

Sensory apparatus is inevitable, though the timing is uncertain.

This “situated Darwinism” or evo-eco would be a non-telic theory, but still make such predictions.

Your first mistake is in thinking that Darwinism is a non-telic theory. I mean, just look at the language employed by Darwin and Darwinists, it’s chock full of teleological language.

Now, any prediction that can’t be correlated with time, can’t speak of the “course of life” on this planet or any other. If there is no “course,” no prediction can be made.

Has anyone proposed that life on other planets would display a pattern of nested hierarchies? If not, I find that hugely interesting.

I suppose that one could predict that the course of life on another planet would show no course. I don’t know what theory would predict that, though.

It seems to me, that in order to predict a particular outcome, or ranges of outcomes (say, sentient conscious organic creatures), one must have some “end” in mind.

It should almost go without saying, that if there’s no predictable outcome, no prediction can be made.