DISCOVER Magazine. Science, Technology and The Future
Current Issue
Subscribe Today »
  • Renew
  • Give a Gift
  • Archives
  • Customer Service
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Newsletter
  • Health & Medicine
  • Mind & Brain
  • Technology
  • Space
  • Human Origins
  • Living World
  • Environment
  • Physics & Math
  • Video
  • Photos
  • Podcast
  • RSS
Discoblog
« World Science Festival: The High-Tech Side of the Sporting Life
Sunscreen: Healthy Habit for You, Bringer of Death for Coral Reefs »

World Science Festival: “Laws of Life” Is the New “Tape of Life”

“If I could rerun the tape of life from the origin of unicellular organisms… would terrestrial life originate at all? Would we get mobile creatures that we could call animals?”
–Stephen Jay Gould, “Fungal Forgery” in Natural History, 1993

“Are there universal laws of life, much like the fundamental laws of physics, which govern or limit the characteristics that make it–in any form–possible?”
–Blurb for “Looking for the Laws of Life” panel discussion at the World Science Festival

* * * * *

Back in the tail end of the 20th century, evolutionary theory went through a dirty, pugnacious little period sometimes known as the Darwin Wars. There were a few different fronts, but they mainly centered around one Big Question: Is history governed by a series of accidents, or is it pulled along by powerful, perhaps fundamental, forces that will override the little blips that are chance occurences? Stephen Jay Gould was the strongest proponent (or at least the most visible) for the first group: He said that evolution generated “spandrels,” happenstance structures that had nothing to do with survival; that many special aspects of the human mind were incidental to natural selection; that many mental qualities attributed to evolutionary psychology were instead the product of arbitrary human cultural history; and that the evolution of life as we know it was not inevitable—was not even likely—and that if we created the Earth again and “reran the tape of life,” we probably wouldn’t end up with complex organisms—least of all, us intelligent, (self-)conscious humans.With the search for life on other planets having gained so much steam recently, researchers are asking another iteration of that Big Question: Are there fundamental laws of life that apply to every planet, or is the evolution of life vastly different on every planet, determined mainly by the local conditions and chance twists of fate?

Yesterday John Hockenberry moderated a World Science Festival panel where he posed this question to astrobiologists Steven Benner, Maggie Turnbull, and Paul Davies. Davies said there are some earthly biological facts that certainly seem to be stochastic, or incidental (he calls the five-fingered hand a “frozen accident”) but that we really have no idea yet whether some aspects of life here are more universal—whether there are fundamentals in biology like there are in math, physics, and chemistry. He says it’s conceivable that we’d find ribosomes—the protein-manufacturing part of cells—in alien organisms.

Davies mentions three ways we could get the kind of cross-comparison data we’d need to find out if there are biological fundamentals:

  1. Build something like Magrathea, the planet-constructing planet from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. (He did really suggest this. But I think he was kidding.) That way we could build new planets, “rerun the tape of life,” and take notes on it all. Kind of like The Truman Show.
  2. Develop computers and software powerful enough to model life accurately. Then press go and take notes.
  3. Find some friggin’ aliens, already! Add “finding biological fundamentals” to the long, long list of reasons that we need to locate ET and his buddies.
Share

June 2nd, 2008 3:16 PM Tags: extraterrestrial life, Mars, new planets, stars
by Amos Zeeberg (Discover Web Editor) in Space & Aliens Therefrom, The Wide (& Strange) World of Animals | 2 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >

  • borek123456

    …that many mental qualities attributed to evolutionary psychology were instead the product of arbitrary human cultural history…

    This sentence really shocked me. What does that mean “instead”? The source of change in this respect is not important, evolutionary psychology means, that whatever signals came to humans, they got imprinted if repeated many times for a long time, and through this long time repetition some of our traits, i.e. chemicals in our bodies got changed.

    IT IS EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY

    Do not use terms you do not fully understand. Many do that and it is the disaster of this world.

  • http://discovermagazine.com Amos Kenigsberg

    Hi, borek. Not exactly sure what you mean here. There is a pretty big difference between attributing a factor to evolutionary psychology and attributing it to the specific history of a culture.

    For instance, Harvard President Larry Summers argued (quite controversially) that part of the reason that there weren’t more women among the top rank of scientists was due to biology. Some people instead argued that the reason was entirely cultural because women are pushed away from science, encouraged to spend time with their families, etc.





    • About the Blog

      Discoblog is DISCOVER's compendium of quirky, funny, and surprising science news from the edge of the known universe. It's written by Veronique Greenwood and Valerie Ross. Email tips and suggestions to vgreenwood [at] discovermagazine [dot] com.

      Discoblog also includes the daily feature NCBI ROFL, in which two prone-to-distraction grad students post real scientific articles with funny subjects. Email your tips to ncbirofl [at] gmail.com. Follow the ROFL feed here.

    • Twitter

      Follow @discovermag
    • Facebook

    • Twidget

      Add Tweets
    • Archives

      Archives

      • February 2012
      • January 2012
      • December 2011
      • November 2011
      • October 2011
      • September 2011
      • August 2011
      • July 2011
      • June 2011
      • May 2011
      • April 2011
      • March 2011
      • February 2011
      • January 2011
      • December 2010
      • November 2010
      • October 2010
      • September 2010
      • August 2010
      • July 2010
      • June 2010
      • May 2010
      • April 2010
      • March 2010
      • February 2010
      • January 2010
      • December 2009
      • November 2009
      • October 2009
      • September 2009
      • August 2009
      • July 2009
      • June 2009
      • May 2009
      • April 2009
      • March 2009
      • February 2009
      • January 2009
      • December 2008
      • November 2008
      • October 2008
      • September 2008
      • August 2008
      • July 2008
      • June 2008
      • May 2008
      • April 2008
      • March 2008
      • February 2008
      • January 2008
      • December 2007
      • November 2007
      • October 2007
      • September 2007
      • August 2007
      • July 2007
      • June 2007
      • May 2007
      • April 2007
      • February 2007
      • January 2007
      • December 2006
      • November 2006
      • October 2006
      • September 2006


  • Kalmbach Publishing Co.

    Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.

    Privacy - Terms - Reader Services - Subscribe Today - Advertise - About Us