Conflicting Models For The Origin of Life 1St Edition Stoyan K Smoukov Full Chapter

Conflicting Models for the Origin of Life
1st Edition Stoyan K. Smoukov

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/conflicting-models-for-the-origin-of-life-1st-edition-sto
yan-k-smoukov/
Conflicting Models
for the Origin of Life
Scrivener Publishing
100 Cummings Center, Suite 541J
Beverly, MA 01915-6106
Astrobiology Perspectives on Life of the Universe
Series Editor: Richard Gordon and Joseph Seckbach
In his 1687 book Principia, Isaac Newton showed how a body launched atop a tall mountain
parallel to the ground would circle the Earth. Many of us are old enough to have witnessed the
realization of this dream in the launch of Sputnik in 1957. Since then our ability to enter, view
and understand the Universe has increased dramatically. A great race is on to discover real
extraterrestrial life, and to understand our origins, whether on Earth or elsewhere. We take part
of the title for this new series of books from the pioneering thoughts of Svante Arrhenius, who
reviewed this quest in his 1909 book The Life of the Universe as Conceived by Man from the
Earliest Ages to the Present Time. The volumes in Astrobiology Perspectives on Life of the
Universe will each delve into an aspect of this adventure, with chapters by those who are
involved in it, as well as careful observers and assessors of our progress. Guest editors are
invited from time to time, and all chapters are peer-reviewed.
Publishers at Scrivener
Martin Scrivener (martin@scrivenerpublishing.com)
Phillip Carmical (pcarmical@scrivenerpublishing.com)
Conflicting Models
Edited by
Stoyan K. Smoukov
School of Engineering and Materials Science, Queen Mary University of London, UK
Joseph Seckbach
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
and
Richard Gordon
Gulf Specimen Marine Laboratory & Aquarium, Panacea, FL., USA and C.S. Mott Center
for Human Growth & Development, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Wayne State
University, Detroit, MI, USA
This edition first published 2023 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA and Scrivener
Publishing LLC, 100 Cummings Center, Suite 541J, Beverly, MA 01915, USA
© 2023 Scrivener Publishing LLC
For more information about Scrivener publications please visit www.scrivenerpublishing.com.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or
by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to
obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
Wiley Global Headquarters

111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.
wiley.com.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty

While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warran-
ties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including
without limitation any implied warranties of merchant-ability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created
or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials, or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an orga-
nization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not
mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or
recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering pro-
fessional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with
a specialist where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial
damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Further, readers should be aware
that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
ISBN 978-1-119-55552-0
Cover image: Mashes Sands, Panacea, Florida, credit Kyle P. Miller Photography
Cover design by Russell Richardson
Set in size of 11pt and Minion Pro by Manila Typesetting Company, Makati, Philippines
Printed in the USA
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Contents
Foreword, “Are There Men on the Moon?” by Winston S. Churchill xiii

Preface xix
Appendix to Preface by Richard Gordon and George Mikhailovsky xxv
Part I: Introduction to the Origin of Life Puzzle 1

1 Origin of Life: Conflicting Models for the Origin of Life 3
Sohan Jheeta and Elias Chatzitheodoridis
1.1 Introduction 3
1.2 Top-Down Approach—The Phylogenetic Tree of Life 6
1.3 Bottom-Up Approach—The Hypotheses 11
1.4 The Emergence of Chemolithoautotrophs and Photolithoautotrophs? 19
1.5 Viruses: The Fourth Domain of Life? 22
1.6 Where are We with the Origin of Life on Earth? 25
References 25
2 Characterizing Life: Four Dimensions and their Relevance to Origin
of Life Research 33
Emily C. Parke
2.1 Introduction 33
2.2 The Debate About (Defining) Life 35
2.2.1 The Debate and the Meta-Debate 35
2.2.2 Defining Life is Only One Way to Address the Question
“What is Life?” 37
2.3 Does Origin of Life Research Need a Characterization of Life? 39
2.4 Dimensions of Characterizing Life 41
2.4.1 Dimension 1: Dichotomy or Matter of Degree? 41
2.4.2 Dimension 2: Material or Functional? 43
2.4.3 Dimension 3: Individual or Collective? 44
2.4.4 Dimension 4: Minimal or Inclusive 46
2.4.5 Summary Discussion of the Dimensions 47
2.5 Conclusion 48
Acknowledgments 48
References 48
v
vi Contents
3 Emergence, Construction, or Unlikely? Navigating the Space of Questions

Regarding Life’s Origins 53
Stuart Bartlett and Michael L. Wong
3.1 How Can We Approach the Origins Quest(ion)? 53
3.2 Avian Circularities 54
3.3 Assuming That... 56
3.4 Unlikely 56
3.5 Construction 58
3.6 Emergence 60
References 63
Part II: Chemistry Approaches 65

4 The Origin of Metabolism and GADV Hypothesis on the Origin of Life 67
Kenji Ikehara
4.1 Introduction 68
4.2 [GADV]-Amino Acids and Protein 0th-Order Structure 70
4.3 Exploration of the Initial Metabolism: The Origin of Metabolism 71
4.3.1 From What Kind of Enzymatic Reactions Did the Metabolic
System Originate? 71
4.3.2 What Kind of Organic Compounds Accumulated
on the Primitive Earth 72
4.3.3 What Organic Compounds were Required for the First
Life to Emerge? 74
4.4 From Reactions Using What Kind of Organic Compounds Did
the Metabolism Originate? 75
4.4.1 Catalytic Reactions with What Kind of Organic Compounds Were
Incorporated Into the Initial Metabolism? 76
4.4.2 Search for Metabolic Reactions Incorporated Into the Initial
Metabolism 76
4.4.3 Syntheses of [GADV]-Amino Acids Leading to Produce
[GADV]-Proteins/Peptides Were One of the Most Important
Matters for the First Life 76
4.4.4 Nucleotide Synthetic Pathways were Integrated at the Second
Phase in the Initial Metabolism 78
4.5 Discussion 80
4.5.1 Protein 0th-Order Structure Was the Key for Solving the Origin
of Metabolism 80
4.5.2 Validity of GPG-Three Compounds Hypothesis on the Origin
of Metabolism 82
4.5.3 Establishment of the Metabolic System and the Emergence of Life 83
4.5.4 The Emergence of Life Viewed from the Origin
of Metabolism 84
Acknowledgments 85
References 86
Contents vii
5 Chemical Automata at the Origins of Life 89

André Brack
5.1 Introduction 89
5.2 Theoretical Models 90
5.2.1 The Chemoton Model 90
5.2.2 Autopoiesis 90
5.2.3 Biotic Abstract Dual Automata 91
5.2.4 Automata and Diffusion-Controlled Reactions 91
5.2.5 Quasi-Species and Hypercycle 91
5.2.6 Computer Modeling 91
5.2.7 Two-Dimensional Automata 92
5.3 Experimental Approach 92
5.3.1 The Ingredients for Life 92
5.3.2 Capabilities Required for the Chemical Automata 93
5.3.2.1 Autonomy 93
5.3.2.2 Self-Ordering and Self-Organization 93
5.3.2.3 About Discriminating Aggregation 94
5.3.2.4 Autocatalysis and Competition 95
5.4 Conclusion 95
References 96
6 A Universal Chemical Constructor to Explore the Nature
and Origin of Life 101
Geoffrey J. T. Cooper, Sara I. Walker and Leroy Cronin
6.1 Introduction 102
6.2 Digitization of Chemistry 109
6.3 Environmental Programming, Recursive Cycles, and Protocells 117
6.4 Measuring Complexity and Chemical Selection Engines 122
6.5 Constructing a Chemical Selection Engine 125
Acknowledgements 126
References 126
7 How to Make a Transmembrane Domain at the Origin of Life:
A Possible Origin of Proteins 131
Richard Gordon and Natalie K. Gordon
7.2 The Initial “Core” Amino Acids 132
7.3 The Thickness of Membranes of the First Vesicles 142
7.4 Carbon–Carbon Distances Perpendicular to a Membrane 144
7.5 The Thickness of Modern Membranes 144
7.6 A Prebiotic Model for the Coordinated Growth of Membrane
Thickness and Transmembrane Peptides 145
7.7 A Model for the Coordinated Growth of Membrane Thickness
and Transmembrane Peptides 148
7.8 RNA World with the Protein World 150
7.9 Conclusion 153
viii Contents
References 155
Part III: Physics Approaches 175

8 Patterns that Persist: Heritable Information in Stochastic Dynamics 177
Peter M. Tzelios and Kyle J. M. Bishop
8.2 Markov Processes 181
8.2.1 Simple Examples of Markov Processes 181
8.2.2 Stochastic Dynamics 183
8.2.3 Master Equation 185
8.2.4 Dynamic Persistence 186
8.2.5 Coarse Graining 187
8.2.6 Entropy Production 188
8.3 Results 189
8.3.1 The Persistence Filter 189
8.4 Mechanisms of Persistence 190
8.5 Effects of Size N and Disequilibrium γ 192
8.6 Probability of Persistence 194
8.6.1 Continuity Constraint 195
8.6.2 Locality Constraint 196
8.6.3 New Strategies for Persistence 197
8.7 Measuring Persistence in Practice 198
8.7.1 Computable Information Density (CID) 198
8.7.2 Quantifying Persistence in Dynamic Assemblies of Colloidal Rollers 200
8.8 Conclusions 203
8.9 Methods 205
8.9.1 Coarse-Graining 205
8.10 Monte Carlo Optimization 206
8.11 Experiments on Ferromagnetic Rollers 206
8.12 A Persistence in Equilibrium Systems 207
References 209
9 When We Were Triangles: Shape in the Origin of Life via Abiotic, Shaped
Droplets to Living, Polygonal Archaea During the Abiocene 213
Richard Gordon
9.1.1 What Correlates with Archaea Shape? Nothing! 214
9.1.2 Archaea’s Place in the Tree of Life 219
9.1.3 The Discovery and Exploration of Shaped Droplets 222
9.1.4 Shaped Droplets as Protocells 223
9.1.5 Comparison of Shaped Droplets with Archaea 223
9.1.6 The S-Layer 224
9.1.7 The S-Layer as a Two-Dimensional Liquid with Fault Lines 224
9.1.8 The Analogy of the S-Layer to Bubble Rafts 229
Contents ix
9.1.9 Energy Minimization Model for the S-Layer in Polygonal Archaea 229
9.2 Discussion 236
9.3 Conclusion 240
References 240
10 Challenges and Perspectives of Robot Inventors that Autonomously
Design, Build, and Test Physical Robots 263
Fumiya Iida, Toby Howison, Simon Hauser and Josie Hughes
10.2 Physical Evolutionary-Developmental Robotics 264
10.2.1 Robotic Invention 265
10.2.2 Physical Morphology Adaptation 266
10.3 Falling Paper Design Experiments 269
10.3.1 Design–Behavior Mapping 270
10.3.2 More Variations of Paper Falling Patterns 272
10.3.3 Characterizing Falling Paper Behaviors 274
10.4 Evolutionary Dynamics of Collective Bernoulli Balloons 274
10.5 Discussions and Conclusions 276
Acknowledgments 277
References 277
Part IV: The Approach of Creating Life 279

11 Synthetic Cells: A Route Toward Assembling Life 281
Antoni Llopis-Lorente, N. Amy Yewdall, Alexander F. Mason,
Loai K. E. A. Abdelmohsen and Jan C. M. van Hest
11.1 Compartmentalization: Putting Life in a Box 282
11.2 The Making of Cell-Sized Giant Liposomes 283
11.3 Coacervate-Based Synthetic Cells 285
11.4 Adaptivity and Functionality in Synthetic Cells 288
11.5 Synthetic Cell Information Processing and Communication 291
11.6 Intracellular Information Processing: Making Decisions with All the Noise 292
11.7 Extracellular Communication: the Art of Talking and Selective Listening 294
11.8 Conclusions 296
Acknowledgments 296
References 297
12 Origin of Life from a Maker’s Perspective–Focus on Protocellular
Compartments in Bottom-Up Synthetic Biology 303
Ivan Ivanov, Stoyan K. Smoukov, Ehsan Nourafkan, Katharina Landfester
and Petra Schwille
12.2 Unifying the Plausible Protocells in Line with the Crowded Cell 309
12.3 Self-Sustained Cycles of Growth and Division 311
12.4 Transport and Energy Generation at the Interface 314
12.4.1 Energy and Complexity 315
x Contents
12.4.2 Energy Compartmentation 316

12.5 Synergistic Effects Towards the Origin of Life 319
References 320
Part V: When and Where Did Life Start? 327

13 A Nuclear Geyser Origin of Life: Life Assembly Plant – Three-Step
Model for the Emergence of the First Life on Earth and Cell Dynamics
for the Coevolution of Life’s Functions 329
Shigenori Maruyama and Toshikazu Ebisuzaki
13.2 Natural Nuclear Reactor 331
13.2.1 Principle of a Natural Nuclear Reactor 331
13.2.2 Natural Nuclear Reactor in Gabon 332
13.2.3 Radiation Chemistry to Produce Organics 333
13.2.4 Hadean Natural Nuclear Reactor 334
13.3 Nuclear Geyser Model as a Birthplace of Life on the Hadean Earth 336
13.4 Nine Requirements for the Birthplace of Life 338
13.5 Three-Step Model for the Emergence of the First Life on Hadean Earth 340
13.5.1 The Emergence of the First Proto-Life 341
13.5.1.1 Domain I: Inorganics 342
13.5.1.2 Domain II: From Inorganic to Organic 342
13.5.1.3 Domain III: Production of More Advanced BBL 343
13.5.1.4 Domain IV: Passage Connecting Geyser Main Room
with the Surface and Fountain Flow 343
13.5.1.5 Domain V: Production of BBL in an Oxidizing
Wet–Dry Surface Environment 345
13.5.1.6 Domain VI: Birthplace of the First Proto-Life 346
13.5.1.7 Utilization of Metallic Proteins 347
13.5.2 The Emergence of the Second Proto-Life 348
13.5.2.1 Drastic Environmental Change from Step 1 to Step 2 348
13.5.2.2 Biological Response from Step 1 to Step 2 349
13.5.3 The Emergence of the Third Proto-Life, Prokaryote 350
13.5.3.1 Drastic Environmental Changes from Step 2 to Step 3 350
13.5.3.2 Biological Response from Step 2 to Step 3 351
13.6 Concept of the Cell Dynamics: Life Assembly Plant 353
Acknowledgments 356
References 356
14 Comments on the Nuclear Geyser Origin of Life Proposal of the
Authors S. Maruyama and T. Ebisuzaki and Interstellar Medium
as a Possible Birthplace of Life 361
Jaroslav Jiřík
References 366
Contents xi
15 Nucleotide Photochemistry on the Early Earth 369

Whitaker, D. E., Colville, B.W.F. and Powner, M. W.
15.2 Pyrimidine Photochemistry 372
15.2.1 Photohydrates 372
15.2.2 Photodimers 374
15.2.3 Glycosidic Bond Cleavage 376
15.2.4 Addition of Nucleophiles to C2 378
15.3 Purine Photochemistry 380
15.4 Photochemistry of Noncanonical Nucleosides 382
15.4.1 Photochemical Anomerization of Cytidine Nucleosides 383
15.4.2 Thiobase Irradiation Products 387
15.4.3 Photochemical Decarboxylation of Orotidine 390
15.4.4 Photochemical Synthesis of AICN, a Possible Synthetic
Precursor to the Purines 391
15.5 Considering More Complex Photochemical Systems 392
15.6 Concluding Remarks 395
References 395
16 Origins of Life on Exoplanets 407
Paul B. Rimmer
16.2 How to Test Origins Hypotheses 408
16.3 Exoplanets as Laboratories 410
16.4 The Scenario 412
16.5 Initial Conditions 414
16.5.1 Chemical Initial Conditions 414
16.5.1.1 Hydrogen Cyanide 414
16.5.1.2 Sulfite and Sulfide 415
16.5.2 Physical Initial Conditions 415
16.6 Chances of Success 417
16.7 Relevance of the Outcome 420
16.8 Conclusions 420
References 421
17 The Fish Ladder Toy Model for a Thermodynamically at Equilibrium
Origin of Life in a Lipid World in an Endoreic Lake 425
Richard Gordon, Shruti Raj Vansh Singh, Krishna Katyal
and Natalie K. Gordon
17.1 The Fish Ladder Model for the Origin of Life 426
17.2 Could the Late Heavy Bombardment have Supplied Enough
Amphiphiles? 435
17.3 How Many Uphill Steps to LUCA? 438
17.4 How Long Would the Origin of Life Take After the CVC is Achieved? 440
xii Contents
17.5 Conclusion 440

Appendix (Discussion with David Deamer) 443
References 447
Index 459
Foreword
https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/men-moon-churchill-alien-life-1942/
“Are There Men on the Moon?”

by Winston S. Churchill
Text from Michael Wolff, ed., The Collected Essays of Sir Winston Churchill, vol. 4, Churchill
at Large (London: Library of Imperial History, 1975), IV 493-98. Reproduced courtesy of
the Estate of Winston S. Churchill by permission of Curtis Brown Group Ltd.
Does life exist elsewhere in the Universe? Indeed a fascinating question. All living things of
the type we know require water, not only because some of them want it to drink or, in the
case of marine animals, to live and swim in, but because every living unit, animal or vege-
table, consists to a very considerable extent of this fluid.
Now one cannot altogether rule out the possibility of a totally different world with
oceans of some other liquid, such as petrol or, as some might perhaps prefer, alcohol, in
which a weird and complex organic synthesis has brought into being units which one might
call “living creatures.” But nothing in our present knowledge entitles us to make such an
assumption. Of one thing, however, we can be certain, and that is that any entities formed
in such surroundings would be totally unlike anything we know under the guise of living
creatures or plants.
Now, if we confine ourselves to the sorts of things we know and admit that water is a
necessary ingredient of their life and being, we are restricted within comparatively narrow
limits in the conditions in which such entities can exist. As we all know, if it is too hot, water
boils. Even the most meagre acquaintance with hygiene tells us that the best way to sterilize
anything is to dip it in boiling water. On the other hand, if the surroundings are too cold,
water freezes, and it is difficult to imagine that life could ever be formed in a world of ice
and snow, even though creatures, developed from types which were produced in kinder
surroundings, have managed to survive in arctic regions.
Briefly, then, if life in the form we know it is to exist anywhere, it can only be in regions
of comparatively moderate temperature, say between a few degrees of frost and the boiling
point of water. Obviously, the stars are completely ruled out for this reason. For these con-
sist of gigantic masses of incandescent gas in which every chemical compound is split up in
its simplest components and in which the mere idea of life is an absurdity.
But the sun, which is a comparatively insignificant star in the Milky Way—which is the
name we give to our galaxy—is surrounded, as we know, by planets of which our world is
xiii
xiv Foreword
one. On our earth life has developed. It has been able to do this because the temperature is
neither too high nor too low. It is very easy to see what fixes the temperature of our earth. It
is the temperature at which the heat falling upon it from the sun is equal to the heat which
it radiates away into outer space. If it gained more than it lost it would get hotter, until the
export of heat equaled the import, and vice versa. Mathematicians have an exact way of
calculating this. But even without mathematics, it is clear that if the earth were further away
from the sun it would receive less heat and therefore that its temperature would be lower.
From these considerations alone it is safe to rule out what are known as the outer
planets—Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and the recently discovered Pluto—as possible
abodes of life. There remain Mars, Venus, and Mercury. The mean temperature of Mars is
well below the freezing point of water. It is a cold, arid planet with a climate somewhat like
the top of Mount Everest would be if the sun were partly obscured, but with much less ice
owing to a shortage of water. Life may exist there; indeed, the changes of color in its spring
and winter seem to indicate that some form of vegetation—be it only lichen—enlivens the
faintly sunlit landscape. But the circumstances are harsh and forbidding, the atmosphere is
thin and dry and short of oxygen, and there is little reason to suppose that any very highly
organized forms are likely to have arisen.
Venus, on the other hand, being nearer to the sun, is considerably warmer than we are.
Apparently, there is moisture in plenty, indeed, from our point of view, too much. For it
is covered with a perpetual layer of cloud which prevents us seeing what the surface may
be like. Though there does not seem to be much evidence of oxygen, it may be that in this
hothouse atmosphere an elaborate flora and fauna exist, perhaps even intelligent beings.
But unless they have developed some form of aeroplane which enables them to rise above
the clouds, it is quite possible that if such intellectual creatures live there, they are quite
unaware of the existence of an immense and complex universe of stars and nebulae outside
their own world, and that they are living in the egocentric belief that they are the one and
only habitation fit for reasoning beings.
On Mercury, the innermost planet, it seems unlikely that life has arisen. Water would
boil on the sunny side, while the face remote from the sun is so cold that most of the planet’s
surface would be intolerable for any living entity we know.
But what, it may be asked, of the moon? Our own satellite approximately the same dis-
tance from the sun as we are, and whose temperature therefore must be about the same as
our own. This brings us to another condition which must be fulfilled if water and any sort
of atmosphere are to persist. Any form of gas or vapor, as we know, consists of a lot of small
particles, so-called molecules, flying about at high speeds, bumping into one another and
against any solid or liquid with which they are in contact. The hotter the gas, the faster they
move; indeed, when we say that it is a hot day, what we really mean is that the molecules in
the air are moving faster than usual. Now, it may seem strange that these molecules flying
about in the outmost layers of the atmosphere do not simply shoot away into space; for,
after all, there is no lid on the top of the atmosphere to stop them. The reason they do not is
simply what we call the force of gravity. If you throw a stone into the air, the reason it falls
down and does not go straight on is because it is pulled back by the earth. In the same way,
a molecule at the top of the atmosphere does not fly away because the earth attracts it, and
it falls back again.
Now, the moon is very much smaller than the earth, and the force with which it attracts
anything is therefore less. A man who could throw a cricket ball a hundred yards on the
Foreword xv
earth could throw it six hundred on the moon. The molecules in the atmosphere, which
find it impossible to escape from the earth, would readily fly away from the moon’s surface;
indeed, such atmosphere as it may have had in the beginning has almost completely van-
ished. Thus the moon is an arid desert, almost entirely bereft of air or water, on which only
the lowest forms of life can possibly exist.
This argument applies, of course, even more strictly to the small fragmentary planets
called the asteroids, a group of hundreds of little units ranging from about four hundred
miles in diameter downwards which circle round the sun in orbits between that of the earth
and Mars. Even the largest, with an area of some hundreds of millions of acres—which
might at first sight appear to be an agreeable refuge in these unpleasant times, if only one
could get there—is completely ruled out for any normal form of life by the smallness of the
gravitational force which exists on its surface. On the smaller ones it would be possible to
drive a golf ball right away into space; indeed, a man would run some risk if he jumped
over an obstacle of flying away from his world altogether and himself becoming a planetoid
circling round the sun.
But, of course, nobody could live on such a tiny world, as no air or water could possibly
remain on its surface, where the pull of gravity is so minute. In our own solar system, there-
fore, we can say fairly definitely that life of any complexity can exist outside our own earth
only on Venus or Mars.
But what about planets surrounding the other stars? The sun is merely one star in our
galaxy, which contains several thousand millions of others. At first sight it might appear
obvious that these others may be presumed to possess planets, which, if they happen to be
at an appropriate distance and of the proper size, may be surrounded by atmospheres and
be watered by rain as we are. This is probably true of a large number, though doubt has been
cast upon it for a rather interesting reason. Astronomers for over a hundred years have been
trying to account for the fact that there are all these planets surrounding the sun. They are
all of them moving in much the same plane and in the same direction. Surely this should
provide a clue.
Now one of the explanations which has found great favor is that they were formed by the
close approach to our sun of some vagrant star. This would attract gas on the surface and
form a huge tidal wave which, if the star were sufficiently large and sufficiently close, might
be dragged out of the sun and form a splutter of gas which would condense ultimately into
a series of planets. Now, if this was the origin of the planets, it is possible to work out how
near the vagrant star must have come, and it is found that the approach must have been very
close indeed.
But we know how many stars there are, how far they are apart, and how fast they move.
One can work out, therefore, what the chances are of a close approach of this nature.
Roughly speaking, if we made a model in which our world was the size of a grain of sand,
the sun would be about the size of a golf ball, and its nearest neighbor would be represented
by another golf ball about three hundred miles away. It is obvious that in such circum-
stances the chance of a clash is very small—so small, in fact, that it has been computed that
only one such clash was likely to occur even amidst all our thousands of millions of stars
in a thousand million years. If this is so, our sun may be indeed exceptional and possibly
unique; no other star, or very few, would possess a family of planets, and a fortiori, no other
planet would be the home of life.
xvi Foreword
But this speculation depends upon the hypothesis that planets were formed in this way.
Perhaps they were not. We know there are millions of double stars, and if they could be
formed, why not planetary systems? Anyhow, many astronomers believe that all the stars
were much closer together some few thousand million years ago, so that these close encoun-
ters would be more likely.
In any event, I am not sufficiently conceited to think that my sun is the only one with a
family of planets and, therefore, that our little earth is unique. Once we admit that the other
stars probably also have planets, at any rate a goodly proportion of them, it is more than
likely that a large fraction of these will be the right size to keep on their surface water and,
possibly, an atmosphere of some sort; and, furthermore, at the proper distance from their
parent sun, to maintain a suitable temperature.
Do they house living creatures, or even plants? The answer to this question may never be
known. It is conceivable that one day, possibly even in the not very distant future, it may be
possible to travel to the moon, or even to Venus or Mars. The moon is only some 200,000
miles away, so that at a speed of 300 miles an hour it would only take three or four weeks to
reach it; in interplanetary travel, if it comes at all, we must certainly reckon with far higher
speeds than this, so that the time to reach the moon might be a matter of days rather than
weeks.
Venus and Mars are, of course, much farther away—some hundreds of times in fact—so
that to reach them will probably be a matter of months at the very least, even if interplane-
tary travel proceeds at the rate of many thousands of miles an hour. Still, the possibility of
one day exploring these planets cannot be excluded.
It is rash to set limits to the progress of science. A man who had maintained at Queen
Victoria’s Jubilee that within fifty years one would fly the Atlantic in a matter of hours would
have risked being certified and locked up; yet we have seen this happen, and in the cir-
cumstances I am not prepared to rule out with any confidence the possibility one day of
journeys through space in vessels carrying supplies of food and oxygen to the moon and
the nearer planets.
But even so, our chance of exploring the hypothetical planets surrounding other stars is
so remote as to be negligible. The nearest star is so far away that even light, which travels at a
speed of 186,000 miles a second, would take some five years to get there and back. Whatever
one may think about the prospects of interplanetary travel, any speed of this order is quite
out of the question. Even at a million miles a minute it would take some sixty years to visit
merely our immediate neighbor. A young man starting off, if all went well, would return an
octogenarian, and the odds are that our nearest neighbor might well lack suitable planets to
support any flora or fauna of interest.
The next stars are about twice as far away, the majority of the stars in our systems some
thousands of times farther, so that any prospect of exploring them can be ruled out. But the
Milky Way, our own private system of stars, enormous though it seems to us, containing as
it does thousands of millions of suns, is but one unit among hundreds of thousands of other
smaller so-called spiral nebulae rushing about in space. The nearest is several hundred
thousand times as far away as the nearest star; the farthest which one has observed a thou-
sand times farther. These distances are so gigantic that the possibility of ever discovering
any detail about entities so far away need not be considered. Never will it be possible to ask a
question and get a reply. If we could communicate by wireless, it would take a million years
for the answer to come back. Even if the Pharaohs had been able to send out a message, we
Foreword xvii
would by now only be able to receive an answer from the stars quite near the center of our
own galaxy. To get a reply from one of the distant nebulae, the message would have to have
been sent before the first man walked upon the surface of our globe.
When we see them, we only know what they were like hundreds of thousands, indeed
millions, of years ago, but the answer to the question whether they contain numerous suns
possessing planets, and whether any of these support life, will always remain an enigma.
All we can say is that with hundreds of thousands of nebulae, each containing thousands
of millions of suns, the odds are enormous that there must be immense numbers which
possess planets whose circumstances would not render life impossible. If we are sufficiently
self-centered and choose to deny that any of these support life, no one can prove we are
wrong. But I, for one, am not so immensely impressed by the success we are making of our
civilization here that I am prepared to think we are the only spot in this immense universe
which contains living, thinking creatures, or that we are the highest type of mental and
physical development which has ever appeared in the vast compass of space and time.
Preface
He established the Earth upon its foundations, that it falters not forever and ever.
Psalm 104:5.
What is life? This matter is under argument and there are many proposed solutions for
it. Most organisms live today in so called “normal” conditions that we consider ambient
habitats. Others, mainly certain microorganisms, are extremophilic creatures and thrive
in severe conditions (from our anthropological point of view) [0.111]. The cradle of Earth
during primordial life is presumed to have been hellish for those first organisms exposed
to the Hadean atmosphere then on Earth. Extant extremophiles include, for example, ther-
mophilic Archaea and Bacteria that can live up to 115oC [0.109]. Some can live in various
ranges of pH from 0, very acidic, to pH 14, very alkaline. Or consider the microbes living
at the bottom of the deep ocean under very high pressures [0.92]. Microbial extremophilic
representatives (prokaryotes and eukaryotes) have been found in hypersaline bodies (as in
the Dead Sea, Israel and in the Great Salt Lake in Utah, USA) with up to a saturated con-
centration of salt [0.52]. There are other factors of stress and they can appear together in
habitats containing “polyextremophiles” [0.110].
There are several theories about the origin of life in the Universe, but the source of ini-
tial life is still enigmatic. We have no real solution. Among the origin suggestions there are
the prebiotic soup, warm or hot, and on the ocean floor where hyper-thermophiles living
at hydrothermal vents [0.41] could have survived. The source for the origin of life has also
been suggested from fumaroles, geysers, tides and hot springs [0.13] [0.29] [0.31] [0.32]
[0.33] [0.118] [0.30]. There is also a theory that life began from gases and lightning [0.46]
[0.95] and that then the amino acids that formed joined to become proteins and then a live
protocell. There is an idea that the origin started from aerosol bubbles [0.78] [0.79]. Many
presume that chemical evolution came before the first protocells, a key idea of the “RNA
World”. There is also the ancient hypothesis of panspermia [0.120] where life arrived at
Earth from another celestial body. It is an open question: what is the source of life, extra-
terrestrial or on Earth? If life fills our Universe, it must have started independently many
times [0.55].
Other opinions suggest a cold origin of life [0.44], as on comets [0.62]. Microbial life
occurs in deep frozen areas such as permafrost or under the glaciers in Siberia, Arctic zones
and Antarctica.
The literature on origin of life is huge, perhaps embarrassingly so for an unsolved prob-
lem. For instance, a Web of Science search on “origin of life” OR abiogenesis OR prebi-
otic (all fields) yields over 17,500 publications, and a corresponding Google Books search
shows over 200 books with these words in their titles. Google Scholar shows over 380,000
xix
xx Preface
publications. The discoveries of over 5000 exoplanets in the Milky Way [0.14] and one in
another galaxy [0.39], the Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence (SETI) [0.119], the pos-
sibility of life on Mars [0.7], and the plethora of organic matter [0.96] and water [0.100] in
space, suggest we might not be alone, but we don’t know yet.
Given the vastness of the effort, and the lack of a decisive theory of where, when [0.59],
and how life originated, the best we can do is sample some of the recent ideas on the origin
of life.
We have divided our authors’ contributions into 5 parts.
1. Introduction to the Origin of Life Puzzle

We start with an historical document by Winston Churchill as a Forward, written before
the great rush into the origin-of-life question [0.19] (for more history see [0.43]), and we
commend his scientifically informed writing. It would perhaps benefit society if politicians
worldwide had similar interest in and respect for science. Then in Chapter 1 we proceed
with an up-to-date historical overview of origin of life research [0.68]. The question with
100 answers [0.121], “What is life?” is then raised and thoughtfully answered in Chapter 2
[0.102]. As no one has created life from scratch, it is necessary to wend one’s way through
the philosophical sides of the question and partial answers, and Chapter 3 covers circulari-
ties, paradoxes, and anthropic bias in current thinking [0.6].
The vesicle approach [0.13] [0.29] [0.31] [0.32] [0.33] [0.118] [0.30] illustrates some
ambiguities in terminology, as in terms of geometry it may be considered as starting more
top-down, providing containers for the origin of life, also top down historically rather than
assuming that the protocell membranes came towards the end of the process, but depend-
ing on the process whether they are made, one by one in a microfluidic device they would
be top-down, whereas if self-assembled – they would be bottom-up. For complex systems,
there is the additional dilemma of which of many features came first, similar to the chicken
or the egg? Chemistry first, or physics first? As the consensus is that the historical ques-
tion of the origin of life is not unambiguously solvable, we use processes to distinguish
bottom-up approaches starting from a small number of non-biological components, [0.66]
[0.82], rather than top-down approaches starting with a living cell and engineering its genes
and proteins down to a minimal cell [0.130].
2. Chemistry Approaches
The predominant view is that the origin of life is a problem in chemistry. This view is rep-
resented here by Chapter 4 tackling the origin of metabolism and the (protein-first) GADV
hypothesis, based on 4 amino acids [0.65]. One approach of modelling by chemical autom-
ata in Chapter 5 presumes that a form of evolution could occur en route to life [0.12]. A
chemical assembly theory of emergent information approach is taken in Chapter 6, and
simultaneously applied in practice by a “chemputer” which makes experimental reactions
automatically reproducible – a key ingredient to systematic experiments of chemical net-
works – that could potentially lead to life [0.23]. Considering early vesicles that could have
formed from early amphiphiles from carbonaceous chondrite meteorites, research cham-
pioned by David Deamer [0.13] [0.29] [0.31] [0.32] [0.33] [0.118] [0.30], their membranes
were likely about half as thick as modern membranes. The transition to the latter is postu-
lated in Chapter 7 to be in positive feedback via hydrophobic interactions with the PCR-like
growth of peptides [0.53], possibly providing a model for one origin of proteins. Chapters
Preface xxi
15 and 16 cover detailed experimental approaches to UV-driven chemistry that could have
occurred both on the early Earth and on exoplanets. These cross-disciplinary questions are
placed below with a set of chapters that ask when and where life started.
3. Physics Approaches
Physics approaches are rare [0.4] [0.22] [0.35] [0.47] [0.63] [0.72] [0.80] [0.88] [0.122], and
usually involve phenomena at the cell size, such as bubbles [0.78] [0.79] or vesicles [0.13]
[0.29] [0.30] [0.31] [0.32] [0.33] [0.118]. Here we provide valuable theoretical contribu-
tions and experimental attempts to tie previous information theories of life into potential
theory-experimental approaches of minimal system requirements for chemical engineering
of abiogenesis. The interdisciplinary approach of Chapter 6 above carries into physics by
introducing metrics that try to quantify the complexity of single molecules, without need-
ing the knowledge of how they were created. The persistence of mesoscopic states is related
to the thermodynamics of life and its emergence in Chapter 8 [0.114] by describing the
potential for developing system memory by memory-less processes. With the discovery of
shaped droplets [0.36] [0.37], flat, polygonal oil droplets formed during slow cooling, rather
than the expected spherical droplets, the exciting prospect was envisioned that these were
an early step on the way to flat, polygonal Archaea, enhancing the Archaea First hypothesis
[0.54]. This possible connection has been summarized here in Chapter 9 [0.49]. Again,
crossing the boundaries of our parts, the plausibility of constructing non-biological devices
that replicate themselves, imitating one characteristic of all life, is considered in Chapter 10
[0.64].
4. The Approach of Creating Life

Without a time reversal ability [0.107], we may never learn exactly how life formed. We can
but guess and attempt to create life. If we are successful, then we will know at least one way
life could have formed. The spectrum of de novo life approaches could be attempted both
computationally [0.25] and by laboratory synthesis, [0.60] or as we’ve seen in Chapter 10,
by artificial, evolving “robot-designers” as a step to self-reproducing robots, [0.64]. Thus
we look into the possibility of synthesizing life bottom-up [0.66] [0.82], an approach that
blurs at least some of the properties of nonliving and living systems (in Chapters 11 and
12) both for the creation of artificial organelles and on the road to artificial cells. The cre-
ation of viruses “from scratch” is yet to be achieved, as enzymes were used in synthesizing
viruses [0.18], i.e., not “from scratch”. Still, it is clear that a second origin of life, or even the
creation of artificial viruses may prove to be dangerous to our life and demands forecasting
their negative as well as positive consequences. Technological, ethical, and philosophical
contributions are needed. Given the Viroid First [0.97] or Virus First [0.98] hypotheses, this
might be a good place to start.
5. When and Where Did Life Start?

A recent fossil discovery [0.41] [0.67] may [0.125] extend our evidence for when life was
established on Earth to just 237 million years after formation of the Moon via collision of
Earth with another planet [0.5] [0.26] [0.48] [0.90] [0.103] (but cf. [0.3] [0.17] [0.38] [0.83]
[0.91] [0.108] [0.115] [0.117]), as estimated in the Appendix to this Preface. While these
fossils were found in a preserved sea vent, the number of day/night cycles from when the
Earth cooled to allow water to condense to that time may be estimated as at least 305 billion
xxii Preface
day/night cycles during those 237 million years (Preface Appendix, cf. [0.57]). In that time,
living organisms could well have arisen elsewhere and been transported there by wind and/
or currents (mixing time of the present, and presumable past ocean is at most between
1,100 and 1,500 years [0.94]) and adapted, as is probable with most extant organisms that
thrive now at hydrothermal vents [0.40]. This problem of “local panspermia” (as compared
to those from space [0.120]), usually called “invasive organisms”, may always be with us. For
example, after glaciation, most organisms in an area are invasive [0.113]. Here we can only
add to the many plausible initial environments the sources of energy that is dissipated and
that sustains life. Chapter 13 extends a new hypothesis of origin in nuclear geysers which is
then commented on and presented with moderating viewpoints in Chapter 14 [0.69] [0.87].
The popular notion of life starting under sunlight, particularly high in UV due to lack of O₂
and O3, is explored in much greater detail as to what exact chemistry could have happened.
Chapter 15 connects recent computational and analytical advances on reactivity [0.124]
under UV to decipher the possible precursor molecules to nucleosides and nucleotides on
Early Earth. Chapter 16 in turn tests prebiotic chemical reaction networks that may arise on
some of the thousands of known exoplanets, and proceeds to predict reaction intermediates
and products given available UV conditions and rock minerals [0.105]. It is able to falsify
several popularly assumed scenarios. Chapter 17 considers endoreic lakes (without out-
flows) [0.58], where moderate temperatures and hydrating/drying cycles drive abiogenesis -
giving an alternative location to hot springs [0.13] [0.29] [0.30] [0.31] [0.32] [0.33] [0.118].
A challenge to the notion that the origin of life required concentrated energy sources is
made in Chapter 17 [0.58].
Given the plethora of excellent ideas, we are faced with a dilemma [0.51]. Let us suppose
there were N steps to the origin of life. Lacking a time machine, while we will never know N
nor the order of the steps. The best we can do for now is to carry out those steps we reason
happened, and try to create life from scratch. Suppose that for each step i, there are Ti theo-
ries that we have communally thought of. If only one theory were right, then the probability
of choosing the right theory for that step is pi = 1/ Ti, unless we decide that some are more
probable than others [0.15]. The probability P of choosing the correct sequence of theories
is then the product of the pi. The vast literature of tens of thousands of papers purporting to
bear on the origin of life sometimes argue for some step being “First”. If we think we know
N, there could be up to N! ways of ordering the steps. We thus arrive at a worst-case analysis
that:
N
1
P (1/N !)
1
Ti
which could be a very small number.

For example, let us take just N = 3 as follows:
These have been deliberately alphabetized to not suggest favorites. To exemplify a meta-
theory for abiogenesis, consider each idea for an event as a priori of equal probability, i.e.,
p1=1/T1=1/25, p2=1/T2 =1/14, p3=1/T3=1/15. Their product is P=p1p2p3 = 0.000190. But they
might have occurred in 3! = 6 ways, reducing the a priori probability P of picking the right
Preface xxiii
1. Who’s on First? [0.1]

1.1. Amyloid World 1.13. Nucleoprotein World
1.2. Archaea First 1.14. Oligomer World
1.3. Aromatic World 1.15. Protein/Metabolism First
1.4. Autocatalytic Anabolism 1.16. Protein/Peptide World
1.5. Bacteria First 1.17. Proto-tRNA Minihelix World
1.6. Clay World 1.18. Ribonucleopeptide World
1.7. Coenzyme World 1.19. RNA World
1.8. DNA World 1.20. RNA-Peptide/Protein World
1.9. Iron-Sulfur World 1.21. Thiol-rich Peptide (TRP) World
1.10. Lipid World 1.22. Viroids-First
1.11. Mica/Biotite World 1.23. Virus World
1.12. Nanoparticle-based World 1.24. World of Minerals
1.25. Zinc World
2. Where life started

2.1. Alkaline Vents 2.9. Nuclear Geyser
2.2. Endoreic Lakes 2.10. Ocean World
2.3. Hot Springs 2.11. Panspermia
2.4. Hot Volcanic Organic Streams 2.12. Salterns
2.5. Hydrothermal Vents 2.13. Volcanic Aquifers
2.6. Icy World 2.14. Volcanic Eruptions
2.7. Interstellar Ices
2.8. Lava World
xxiv Preface
3. Sources of chirality
3.1. Chiral Plasmas 3.9. Liquid–liquid phase separation
3.2. C
ircularly polarized 3.10. Magnetic fields
synchrotron radiation
3.11. Microvortices
3.3. Crystallisation 3.12. Molecular Clouds
3.4. D
-L-differences in some 3.13. Neutrino Interactions with
amino acids 14
N in Crossed Electric and
3.5. Electron asymmetries Magnetic Fields
3.6. Far UV 3.14. Self-replication
3.7. Hypercycles 3.15. Weak interactions
3.8. Interstellar dust
theories in the right order to 0.0000317. Note that we have not used pi=1/Pi, where Pi = the
number of papers on an idea, eschewing consensus. We presume that N>>3. Given that
the probability of getting back to the origin for a random walk in an N-dimensional space
decreases rapidly with N > 3 [0.123], we likely need some good ideas on how to get from no
life to life, or at least increase P for permutations of theories.
In memoriam, we would like to recognize the unique work on molecular imprinting
of the late Paul Lauterbur, which we were unfortunately unable to include. RG met Paul
Lauterbur (1928-2007) and visited his lab when he built the prototype MRI (Magnetic
Resonance Imaging) scanner [0.74]. Paul was inspired by making an analogy between MRI
signals and X-rays transmitted in what was then called “reconstruction from projections”,
now known as CT (computed tomography), using the ART (Algebraic Reconstruction
Technique) algorithm [0.50]. At the time RG did not know of his other interest: origin of
life, nor that after retirement RG would renew his interest in exobiology, now called astrobi-
ology. Together they organized a session of a medical imaging workshop [0.56] and RG fig-
ured in his Paul’s wife’s biography of Paul [0.27] written after Paul shared a 2003 Nobel Prize
for MRI [0.71] [0.77] and his death at 77 [0.101]. David Deamer recognized the importance
of Paul’s insights into the origin of life [0.34], as did Eric Drexler [0.42]. Paul had four pub-
lications on molecular imprinting [0.45] [0.70] [0.76] [0.75].
References in this Preface are indicated by [0.1] etc.
We thank the authors and reviewers for their imaginative work and efforts.
Stoyan K. Smoukov, s.smoukov@qmul.ac.uk

Joseph Seckbach, Joseph.Seckbach@mail.huji.ac.il
Richard Gordon, DickGordonCan@protonmail.com
January 2023
Preface xxv
Appendix to Preface
Richard Gordon, DickGordonCan@protonmail.com
George Mikhailovsky, gmikhai@yahoo.com
We have compiled various estimates for key events in the tables below, up to the earliest
hints of appearance of life, in order to bound the time interval it took for a presumed origin
of life on Earth.
The formula used in Table 7 calculates the duration of abiogenesis (g) as the difference
between the emergence of life billions of years ago (f in Table 6) and the cooling of the
Earth’s surface sufficiently to produce liquid water (e in Table 5): g = f -e. Note that we
have ignored the debated Late Heavy Bombardment [0.10] [0.84] which or may not have
restricted the origin of life [0.20] [0.85] [0.106]. As most estimates tend to be refined over
time, we emphasize more recent publications and reviews. Many astronomical events not
mentioned here are discussed in [0.99]. Bold indicates the value or range we have chosen
for calculation of the duration of abiogenesis.
We thus see that a huge number of PCR-like cycles were possible. (Cf. 3 cycles in [0.61]).
Table 1 a = when Solar System formed (here, as in

the following tables, Ga means “giga years ago” and
Gy means “giga years after formation of the Earth” if
referring to a date and “giga years” if a period). Where
the values in the cited references were in Ga, they
have been converted to Gy for better comparison.
Solar System formed Reference Year
4.567.30 Ga = a [0.21] 2012
4.567.94 Ga [0.71] 2014
Table 2 b = Age of Earth.

Age of Earth Reference Year
4.55 ± 0.01 Ga [0.86] 1980
4.404-4.567 Ga = b [0.2] 2002
4.54-4.6 Ga [0.93] 2018
xxvi Preface
Table 3 c = when Moon formed after Earth formed,

presumed to be a sterilizing event [0.8] [0.48].
Formation of Moon Reference Year
0.05 Gy = c [0.73] 2021
0.03-0.1 Gy [0.93] 2018
0.097 Gy [0.3] 2014
0.067 Gy [0.116] 2014
0.05-0.06 Gy [0.104] 2007
Table 4 d = Initial day/night cycle after Moon formed.

Initial day/night cycle after Moon formed Reference Year
2-6.1 hrs = d [0.57] 2021
2.5-6 hrs [0.93] 2018
2.3-5 hrs [0.3] 2014
3-5.8 hrs [0.28] 2013
2-6 hrs [0.24] 2012
2.0-2.7 hrs [0.16] 2012
Table 5 e = when Earth’s surface cooled to retain liquid water

after Earth formed.
Time to cool Earth’s surface Reference Year
0.052-0.06 Gy [0.129] 2015
0.167 Gy [0.81] 2014
0.076 Gy [0.128] 2010
< 0.567 Gy [0.89] 2010
0.06 Gy = e [0.112] 2010
0.167-0.367 Gy [0.11] 2008
0.05-0.06 Gy [0.127] 2007
0.05-0.095 Gy [0.126] 2005
Preface xxvii
Table 6 f = estimate of when life first appeared.

Earliest possible life Reference Year
< 0667 Gy [0.9] 2018
0.867 – 0.267- Gy [0.93] 2018
0.287 Gy = f [0.41] 2017
Table 7 g = f -e = 0.287 - 0.06 = number of day/night cycles available to abiogenesis h =

g/d = number of day/night cycles available to abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis duration Day/night after cooling # day/night cycles*
0.227 Gy = g 2 hrs h = 787 × 109
“ 6.1 hrs h = 305 × 109
*Corrected for slowing down assumed linearly until present.
References
[0.1] Abbott, B. and Costello, L., Who’s on first?, in: The Naughty Nineties [Movie], J. Yarbrough
(Ed.), Universal Pictures Company, Inc., Hollywood, CA, USA, 1945, https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=sYOUFGfK4bU. Accessed on 28.12.2022
[0.2] Amelin, Y., Krot, A.N., Hutcheon, I.D., Ulyanov, A.A., Lead isotopic ages of chondrules and
calcium-aluminum-rich inclusions. Science, 297, 5587, 1678–1683, 2002.
[0.3] Asphaug, E., Impact origin of the moon? Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci., 42, 551–578, 2014.
[0.4] Balázs, A., On the physics of the symbol-matter problem in biological systems and the origin
of life: Affine Hilbert spaces model of the robustness of the internal quantum dynamics of
biological systems. BioSystems, 70, 1, 43–54, 2003.
[0.5] Barr, A.C., On the origin of Earth’s Moon. J. Geophys. Res.: Planets, 121, 9, 1573–1601, 2016.
[0.6] Bartlett, S. and Wong, M.L., Emergence, construction, or unlikely? Navigating the space
of questions regarding life’s origins (Chapter 3), in: Conflicting Models for the Origin of Life
[COLF, Volume in the Series: Astrobiology Perspectives on Life of the Universe, Series Editors:
Richard Gordon & Joseph Seckbach, Wiley-Scrivener], S. K. Smoukov, J. Seckbach, R. Gordon
(Eds.), pp. 53–64, Wiley-Scrivener, Beverly, Massachusetts, USA, 2023.
[0.7] Beech, M., Gordon, R., Seckbach, J. (Eds.), Terraforming mars [TMRS, volume in the series
astrobiology perspectives on life of the Universe, Eds. Richard Gordon & Joseph Seckbach],
Wiley-Scrivener, Beverly, Massachusetts, USA, 2021.
[0.8] Benner, S.A., Bell, E.A., Biondi, E., Brasser, R., Carell, T., Kim, H.-J., Mojzsis, S.J., Omran,
A., Pasek, M.A., Trail, D., When did life likely emerge on Earth in an RNA-first process?
ChemSystemsChem, 2, 2, #e1900035, 2020.
[0.9] Betts, H.C., Puttick, M.N., Clark, J.W., Williams, T.A., Donoghue, P.C.J., Pisani, D., Integrated
genomic and fossil evidence illuminates life’s early evolution and eukaryote origin. Nat. Ecol.
Evol., 2, 10, 1556–1562, 2018.
xxviii Preface
[0.10] Boehnke, P. and Harrison, T.M., Illusory late heavy bombardments. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.
S. A., 113, 39, 10802–10806, 2016.
[0.11] Bogatikov, O. and Sharkov, E., Irreversible evolution of tectono-magmatic processes at the
Earth and Moon: Petrological data. Petrology, 16, 7, 629–651, 2008.
[0.12] Brack, A., Chemical automata at the origins of life (Chapter 5), in: Conflicting Models for the
Origin of Life [COLF, Volume in the Series: Astrobiology Perspectives on Life of the Universe,
Series Editors: Richard Gordon & Joseph Seckbach, Wiley-Scrivener], S.K. Smoukov, J. Seckbach,
R. Gordon (Eds.), pp. 89–100, Wiley-Scrivener, Beverly, Massachusetts, USA, 2023.
[0.13] Branton, D. and Deamer, D.W., Membrane structure, Springer, Vienna, Austria, 2012.
[0.14] Brennan, P., Cosmic milestone: NASA confirms 5,000 exoplanets, 2022. https://www.jpl.
nasa.gov/news/cosmic-milestone-nasa-confirms-5000-exoplanets. Accessed 29.12.2022.
[0.15] Brunk, C.F. and Marshall, C.R., ‘Whole organism’, systems biology, and top-down criteria for
evaluating scenarios for the origin of life. Life-Basel, 11, 7, #690, 2021.
[0.16] Canup, R.M., Forming a moon with an Earth-like composition via a giant impact. Science,
338, 6110, 1052–1055, 2012.
[0.17] Canup, R.M., Lunar-forming impacts: Processes and alternatives. Philos. Trans. Royal Soc.
A-Math. Phys. Eng. Sci., 372, 2024, 14, #20130175, 2014.
[0.18] Cello, J., Paul, A.V., Wimmer, E., Chemical synthesis of poliovirus cDNA: Generation of
infectious virus in the absence of natural template. Science, 297, 5583, 1016–1018, 2002.
[0.19] Churchill, W.S., Foreword: Are there men on the moon? (1942), in: Conflicting Models for the
Series Editors: Richard Gordon & Joseph Seckbach, Wiley-Scrivener], S.K. Smoukov, J. Seckbach,
R. Gordon (Eds.), pp. xiii–xviii, Wiley-Scrivener, Beverly, Massachusetts, USA, 2023.
[0.20] Cockell, C.S., The origin and emergence of life under impact bombardment. Philos. Trans. R.
Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci., 361, 1474, 1845–1855, 2006, discussion 1856.
[0.21] Connelly, J.N., Bizzarro, M., Krot, A.N., Nordlund, Å., Wielandt, D., Ivanova, M.A., The
absolute chronology and thermal processing of solids in the solar protoplanetary disk.
Science, 338, 6107, 651–655, 2012.
[0.22] Conrad, M., Origin of life and the underlying physics of the universe. BioSystems, 42, 2–3,
177–190, 1997.
[0.23] Cooper, G.J.T., Walker, S.I., Cronin, L., A universal chemical constructor to explore the
nature and origin of life (Chapter 6), in: Conflicting Models for the Origin of Life [COLF,
Volume in the Series: Astrobiology Perspectives on Life of the Universe, Series Editors: Richard
Gordon & Joseph Seckbach, Wiley-Scrivener], S.K. Smoukov, J. Seckbach, R. Gordon (Eds.),
pp. 101–130, Wiley-Scrivener, Beverly, Massachusetts, USA, 2023.
[0.24] Ćuk, M. and Stewart, S.T., Making the Moon from a fast-spinning Earth: A giant impact
followed by resonant despinning. Science, 338, 6110, 1047–1052, 2012.
[0.25] Damer, B., Newman, P., Gordon, R., Barbalet, T., Deamer, D.W., Norkus, R., The EvoGrid:
A framework for distributed artificial chemistry cameo simulations supporting origins of
life endeavors, in: Artificial Life XII. Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on
the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems. H. Fellermann, M. Dorr, M. Hanczyc, L.L.
Laursen, S. Maurer, D. Merkle, P.-A. Monnard, K. Sty and S. Rasmussen (eds.), pp. 73–79,
MIT Press, Cambridge, 2010.
[0.26] Dauphas, N., Burkhardt, C., Warren, P.H., Teng, F.Z., Geochemical arguments for an Earth-
like Moon-forming impactor. Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. A-Math. Phys. Eng. Sci., 372, 2024, 31,
#20130244, 2014.
[0.27] Dawson, M.J., Paul Lauterbur and the invention of MRI, MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, USA, 2013.
Preface xxix
[0.28] de Meijer, R.J., Anisichkin, V.F., van Westrenen, W., Forming the Moon from terrestrial
silicate-rich material. Chem. Geol., 345, 40–49, 2013.
[0.29] Deamer, D., First life: Discovering the connections between stars, cells, and how life began,
Univ California Press, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2011.
[0.30] Deamer, D., Cary, F., Damer, B., Urability: A property of planetary bodies that can support
an origin of life. Astrobiology, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1089/ast.2021.0173.
[0.31] Deamer, D.W., The effect of alkaline earth ions on fatty acid and phospholipid monolayers
[thesis], Ohio State University, 1965.
[0.32] Deamer, D.W., Assembling life: How can life begin on Earth and other habitable planets?,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2019.
[0.33] Deamer, D.W., Origin of life: What everyone needs to know, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
UK, 2020.
[0.34] Deamer, D.W. and Dawson, M.J., Tribute to Paul C. Lauterbur. Astrobiology, 8, 1, 1–2, 2008.
[0.35] Delaye, L. and Lazcano, A., Prebiological evolution and the physics of the origin of life. Phys.
Life Rev., 2, 1, 47–64, 2005.
[0.36] Denkov, N., Cholakova, D., Tcholakova, S., Smoukov, S.K., On the mechanism of drop
self-shaping in cooled emulsions. Langmuir, 32, 31, 7985–7991, 2016.
[0.37] Denkov, N., Tcholakova, S., Lesov, I., Cholakova, D., Smoukov, S.K., Self-shaping of oil
droplets via the formation of intermediate rotator phases upon cooling. Nature, 528, 7582,
392–395, 2015.
[0.38] Desch, S.J. and Robinson, K.L., A unified model for hydrogen in the Earth and Moon: No
one expects the Theia contribution. Geochemistry, 79, 4, 16, #125546, 2019.
[0.39] Di Stefano, R., Berndtsson, J., Urquhart, R., Soria, R., Kashyap, V.L., Carmichael, T.W.,
Imara, N., A possible planet candidate in an external galaxy detected through X-ray transit.
Nat. Astron., 5, 1297–1307, 2021.
[0.40] Dick, G.J., The microbiomes of deep-sea hydrothermal vents: Distributed globally, shaped
locally. Nat. Rev. Microbiol., 17, 5, 271–283, 2019.
[0.41] Dodd, M.S., Papineau, D., Grenne, T., Slack, J.F., Rittner, M., Pirajno, F., O’Neil, J., Little,
C.T.S., Evidence for early life in Earth’s oldest hydrothermal vent precipitates. Nature, 543,
7643, 60–64, 2017.
[0.42] Drexler, K.E., Molecular imprinting: The missing piece in the puzzle of abiogenesis? , https://
arxiv.org/abs/1807.07065, 2018.
[0.43] England, P.C., Molnar, P., Richter, F.M., Kelvin, Perry and the age of the Earth. Am. Sci., 95,
4, 342–349, 2007.
[0.44] Feller, G., Cryosphere and psychrophiles: Insights into a cold origin of life? Life-Basel, 7, 2,
#25, 2017.
[0.45] Feng, L., Pamidighantam, B., Lauterbur, P.C., Microwave-assisted sol-gel synthesis for
molecular imprinting. Anal. Bioanal. Chem., 396, 4, 1607–1612, 2010.
[0.46] Fox, S.W. and Dose, K., Molecular evolution and the origin of life, W. H. Freeman & Co., San
Francisco, California, USA, 1972.
[0.47] Goodman, G. and Gershwin, M.E., Physics, biology and the origin of life: The physicians’
view. Isr. Med. Assoc. J., 13, 12, 719–724, 2011.
[0.48] Gordon, N.K. and Gordon, R., Embryogenesis explained, World Scientific Publishing,
Singapore, 2016.
[0.49] Gordon, R., When we were all triangles: Shape in the origin of life via abiotic-shaped droplets
to living, polygonal Archaea during the Abiocene (Chapter 9), in: Conflicting Models for the
Series editors: Richard Gordon & Joseph Seckbach, Wiley-Scrivener], S.K. Smoukov, J. Seckbach,
R. Gordon (Eds.), pp. 213–262, Wiley-Scrivener, Beverly, Massachusetts, USA, 2023.
xxx Preface
[0.50] Gordon, R., Bender, R., Herman, G.T., Algebraic Reconstruction Techniques (ART) for
three-dimensional electron microscopy and x-ray photography. J. Theor. Biol., 29, 3, 471–
481, 1970.
[0.51] Gordon, R. and Deb, M., On the improbability of discovering the origin of life, in: 6th
NoRCEL Hybrid Conference, The Chemical Informational Universe, 9, 10, 11 August, 2022,
University of St Andrews, UK, Abstracts, St Andrews, Fife, Scotland, UK, 2022.
[0.52] Gordon, R., Deb, M., Gordon, N.K., Origin of life via archaea: Shaped droplets to archaea
first, with a compendium of archaea micrographs [OOLA, volume in the series astrobiology
perspectives on life of the universe, Eds. Richard Gordon & Joseph Seckbach, in preparation],
[0.53] Gordon, R. and Gordon, N.K., How to make a transmembrane domain at the origin of life:
A possible origin of proteins (Chapter 7), in: Conflicting Models for the Origin of Life [COLF,
Volume in the Series Astrobiology Perspectives on Life of the Universe, Eds. Richard Gordon
& Joseph Seckbach], S.K. Smoukov, J. Seckbach, R. Gordon (Eds.), pp. 131–174, Wiley-
Scrivener, Beverly, Massachusetts, USA, 2023.
[0.54] Gordon, R., Hanczyc, M.M., Denkov, N.D., Tiffany, M.A., Smoukov, S.K., Chapter 18:
Emergence of polygonal shapes in oil droplets and living cells: The potential role of tenseg-
rity in the origin of life, in: Habitability of the Universe Before Earth [Volume 1 in Series:
Astrobiology: Exploring Life on Earth and Beyond, eds. Pabulo Henrique Rampelotto, Joseph
Seckbach & Richard Gordon], R. Gordon and A.A. Sharov (Eds.), pp. 427–490, Elsevier B.V.,
Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2018.
[0.55] Gordon, R. and Hoover, R.B., Could there have been a single origin of life in a big bang uni-
verse? Proc. SPIE, 6694, #669404, 2007.
[0.56] Gordon, R. and Lauterbur, P.C., Introduction to the session on experimental aspects of recon-
struction from projections, in: Techniques of Three-Dimensional Reconstruction, Proceedings
of an International Workshop, R.B. Marr (Ed.), pp. 17–19, Brookhaven National Laboratory,
Upton, New York, 1974.
[0.57] Gordon, R. and Mikhailovsky, G., There were plenty of day/night cycles that could have
accelerated an origin of life on Earth, without requiring panspermia, in: Planet Formation
and Panspermia: New Prospects for the Movement of Life through Space [PNSP, Volume in
the Series Astrobiology Perspectives on Life of the Universe, Series Editors: Richard Gordon &
Joseph Seckbach], B. Vukotić, J. Seckbach, R. Gordon (Eds.), pp. 195–206, Wiley-Scrivener,
Beverly, Massachusetts, USA, 2021.
[0.58] Gordon, R., Raj Vansh Singh, S., Katyal, K., Gordon, N.K., The fish ladder toy model for a
thermodynamically at equilibrium origin of life in a lipid world in an endoreic lake (Chapter
17), in: Conflicting Models for the Origin of Life [COLF, Volume in the series Astrobiology
Perspectives on Life of the Universe, Eds. Richard Gordon & Joseph Seckbach], S.K. Smoukov,
J. Seckbach, R. Gordon (Eds.), pp. 425–458, Wiley-Scrivener, Beverly, Massachusetts, USA,
2023.
[0.59] Gordon, R. and Sharov, A.A. (Eds.), Habitability of the Universe before Earth [HUBE, vol-
ume 1 in the series: Astrobiology: Exploring life on Earth and beyond, series editors: Pabulo
Henrique Rampelotto, Joseph Seckbach & Richard Gordon], Elsevier B.V., Amsterdam, 2018.
[0.60] Hanczyc, M.M., Droplets: Unconventional protocell model with life-like dynamics and
room to grow. Life-Basel, 4, 4, Sp. Iss. SI, 1038–1049, 2014.
[0.61] Hassenkam, T. and Deamer, D., Visualizing RNA polymers produced by hot wet-dry cycling.
Sci. Rep., 12, 1, #10098, 2022.
[0.62] Hoover, R.B., Comets, carbonaceous meteorites, and the origin of the biosphere. Biogeosci.
Discuss., 3, 23–70, 2006.
[0.63] Iberall, A.S., The physics, chemical physics, and biological physics of the origin of life on
Earth. Ecol. Psychol., 13, 4, 315–327, 2001.
Preface xxxi
[0.64] Iida, F., Howison, T., Hauser, S., Hughes, J., Challenges and perspectives of robot inventors
that autonomously design, build and test physical robots (Chapter 10), in: Conflicting Models
for the Origin of Life [COLF, Volume in the Series: Astrobiology Perspectives on Life of the
Universe, Series editors: Richard Gordon & Joseph Seckbach, Wiley-Scrivener], S.K. Smoukov,
2023.
[0.65] Ikehara, K., The origin of metabolism and GADV hypothesis on the origin of life (Chapter
4), in: Conflicting Models for the Origin of Life [COLF, Volume in the Series: Astrobiology
Perspectives on Life of the Universe, Series Editors: Richard Gordon & Joseph Seckbach, Wiley-
Scrivener], S.K. Smoukov, J. Seckbach, R. Gordon (Eds.), pp. 67–88, Wiley-Scrivener, Beverly,
[0.66] Ivanov, I., Smoukov, S.K., Nourafkan, E., Landfester, K., Schwille, P., Origin of life from a
maker’s perspective - Focus on protocellular compartments in bottom-up synthetic biol-
ogy (Chapter 12), in: Conflicting Models for the Origin of Life [COLF, Volume in the Series:
Astrobiology Perspectives on Life of the Universe, Series Editors: Richard Gordon & Joseph
Seckbach, Wiley-Scrivener], S.K. Smoukov, J. Seckbach, R. Gordon (Eds.), pp. 303–326,
[0.67] Javaux, E.J., Challenges in evidencing the earliest traces of life. Nature, 572, 7770, 451–460,
2019.
[0.68] Jheeta, S. and Chatzitheodoridis, E., Origin of life: Conflicting models for the origin of
life (Chapter 1), in: Conflicting Models for the Origin of Life [COLF, Volume in the Series:
Seckbach, Wiley-Scrivener], S.K. Smoukov, J. Seckbach, R. Gordon (Eds.), pp. 3–31, Wiley-
[0.69] Jiřík, J., Comments on the nuclear geyser origin of life proposal of the authors S. Maruyama
and T. Ebisuzaki and interstellar medium as a possible birthplace of life (Chapter 14), in:
Conflicting Models for the Origin of Life [COLF, Volume in the Series: Astrobiology Perspectives
on Life of the Universe, Series Editors: Richard Gordon & Joseph Seckbach, Wiley-Scrivener],
S.K. Smoukov, J. Seckbach, R. Gordon (Eds.), pp. 361–368, Wiley-Scrivener, Beverly,
[0.70] Kinsinger, L.A., Lauterbur, P.C., Baudry, J., Modeling the interactions of a silica surface
embedded with a dipeptide imprint. Abstr. Pap. Am. Chem. Soc., 231, 1084–CHED, 2006.
[0.71] Kruijer, T.S., Kleine, T., Fischer-Gödde, M., Burkhardt, C., Wieler, R., Nucleosynthetic W
isotope anomalies and the Hf–W chronometry of Ca–Al-rich inclusions. Earth Planet. Sci.
Lett., 403, 317–327, 2014.
[0.72] Kuhn, H., Origin of life and physics: Diversified microstructure - inducement to form infor-
mation-carrying and knowledge-accumulating systems. IBM J. Res. Dev., 32, 1, 37–46, 1988.
[0.73] Lammer, H., Brasser, R., Johansen, A., Scherf, M., Leitzinger, M., Formation of Venus, Earth
and Mars: Constrained by isotopes. Space Sci. Rev., 217, 1, 35, #7, 2021.
[0.74] Lauterbur, P.C., Image formation by induced interactions: Examples employing nuclear
magnetic resonance. Nature, 242, 191–192, 1973.
[0.75] Lauterbur, P.C., Demystifying biology: Did life begin as a complex system? Complexity, 11,
1, 30–35, 2005.
[0.76] Lauterbur, P.C., Dawson, M.J., Girolami, G., The spontaneous development of biology from
chemistry. Astrobiology, 8, 1, 3–8, 2008.
[0.77] Lauterbur, P.C., Mansfield, P., Plein, S., Paul Lauterbur and Sir Peter Mansfield for MRI: In
our series focusing on nobel prize winners that have contributed to cardiovascular medi-
cine, Mark Nicholls looks at the work of two scientists recognized for their discoveries con-
cerning magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Eur. Heart J., 40, 24, 1898–1899, 2019.
xxxii Preface
[0.78] Lerman, L., Potential role of bubbles and droplets in primordial and planetary chemistry:
Exploration of the liquid-gas interface as a reaction zone for condensation process. Orig. Life
Evol. Biosph., 16, 3-4, 201–202, 1986.
[0.79] Lerman, L., The primordial bubble water, symmetry breaking, and the origin of life, CRC
Press-Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, Florida, 2010.
[0.80] Lingam, M. and Loeb, A., Role of stellar physics in regulating the critical steps for life. Int. J.
Astrobiology, 18, 6, 527–546, 2019. #Pii s1473550419000016.
[0.81] Liu, L.-g., Origin and early evolution of the atmospheres and oceans on the terrestrial plan-
ets, in: Space Exploration Research, J.H. Denis (Ed.), pp. 385–400, Nova Science Publishers,
Incorporated, NY, USA, 2014.
[0.82] Llopis-Lorente, A., Yewdall, N.A., Mason, A.F., Abdelmohsen, L.K.E.A., van Hest, J.C.M.,
Synthetic cells: A route towards assembling life (Chapter 11), in: Conflicting Models
for the Origin of Life [COLF, Volume in the Series: Astrobiology Perspectives on Life of the
Universe, Series Editors: Richard Gordon & Joseph Seckbach, Wiley-Scrivener], S.K. Smoukov,
2023.
[0.83] Lock, S.J., Bermingham, K.R., Parai, R., Boyet, M., Geochemical constraints on the origin of
the Moon and preservation of ancient terrestrial heterogeneities. Space Sci. Rev., 216, 6, 46,
#109, 2020.
[0.84] Lowe, D.R. and Byerly, G.R., The terrestrial record of late heavy bombardment. New Astron.
Rev., 81, 39–61, 2018.
[0.85] Maher, K.A. and Stevenson, D.J., Impact frustration of the origin of life. Nature, 331, 6157,
612–614, 1988.
[0.86] Manhes, G., Allègre, C.J., Dupré, B., Hamelin, B., Lead isotope study of basic-ultrabasic lay-
ered complexes: Speculations about the age of the earth and primitive mantle characteristics.
Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 47, 3, 370–382, 1980.
[0.87] Maruyama, S. and Ebisuzaki, T., A nuclear geyser origin of life: Life assembly plant – Three-
step model for the emergence of the first life on Earth and cell dynamics for the coevolution
of life’s functions (Chapter 13), in: Conflicting Models for the Origin of Life [COLF, Volume
in the Series: Astrobiology Perspectives on Life of the Universe, Series Editors: Richard Gordon
& Joseph Seckbach, Wiley-Scrivener], S.K. Smoukov, J. Seckbach, R. Gordon (Eds.), pp. 329–
360, Wiley-Scrivener, Beverly, Massachusetts, USA, 2023.
[0.88] Matveev, V.V., Cell theory, intrinsically disordered proteins, and the physics of the origin of
life. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol., 149, 114–130, 2019.
[0.89] McCall, G.J.H., New paradigm for the early Earth: Did plate tectonics as we know it not
operate until the end of the Archean? Aust. J. Earth Sci., 57, 3, 349–355, 2010.
[0.90] Meier, M.M.M., Reuter, A., Wieler, R., On the origin and composition of Theia: Constraints
from new models of the giant impact. Icarus, 242, 316–328, 2014.
[0.91] Melosh, H.J., New approaches to the Moon’s isotopic crisis. Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. A-Math.
Phys. Eng. Sci., 372, 2024, 12, #20130168, 2014.
[0.92] Meyer-Dombard, D.A.R., Malaska, M., Kenig, F.P.H., Life at high pressure: The astrobiology
of deep subsurface environments, 2022. https://agu.confex.com/agu/abscicon21/prelim.cgi/
Session/141181.
[0.93] Mikhailovsky, G.E. and Gordon, R., Chapter 16: Symbiosis: Why was the transition from
microbial prokaryotes to eukaryotic organisms a cosmic gigayear event?, in: Habitability
of the Universe Before Earth [In Series: Astrobiology: Exploring Life on Earth and Beyond,
Eds. Pabulo Henrique Rampelotto, Joseph Seckbach & Richard Gordon], R. Gordon and A.A.
Sharov (Eds.), pp. 355–405, Elsevier B.V., Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2018.
[0.94] Mikhailovsky, G.E. and Gordon, R., LUCA to LECA, the Lucacene: A model for the giga-
year delay from the first prokaryote to eukaryogenesis. BioSystems, 205(Symbiogenesis
Preface xxxiii
and Progressive Evolution, Editors: George Mikhailovsky, Richard Gordon & Abir U.
Igamberdiev), #104415, 2020.
[0.95] Miller, S.L. and Urey, H., Organic compound synthesis on the primitive earth. Science, 130,
3370, 245–251, 1959.
[0.96] Mitra, S., Percolation clusters of organics in interstellar ice grains as the incubators of life.
Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol., 149, 33–38, 2019.
[0.97] Moelling, K. and Broecker, F., Viroids-first - A model for life on Earth, Mars and exoplanets.
Geosciences, 9, 5, #241, 2019.
[0.98] Moelling, K. and Broecker, F., Viruses and evolution – Viruses first? A personal perspective.
Front. Microbiol., 10, #523, 2019.
[0.99] Montmerle, T., Augereau, J.C., Chaussidon, M., Gounelle, M., Marty, B., Morbidelli, A.,
Solar system formation and early evolution: The first 100 million years. Earth Moon Planets,
98, 1–4, 39–95, 2006.
[0.100] Mosher, D. and Gould, S., These ocean worlds reveal just how little water we have on Earth.
https://www.businessinsider.com/liquid-water-space-volume-planets-moons-2016-10,
2019. Accessed 29.12.2022.
[0.101] Nobel Foundation, Paul C. Lauterbur: Facts. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2003/
lauterbur/facts/ accessed December 29, 2022.
[0.102] Parke, E.C., Characterizing life: Four dimensions and their relevance to origin of life
research (Chapter 2), in: Conflicting Models for the Origin of Life [COLF, Volume in the Series:
Seckbach, Wiley-Scrivener], S.K. Smoukov, J. Seckbach, R. Gordon (Eds.), pp. 33–52, Wiley-
[0.103] Reufer, A., Meier, M.M.M., Benz, W., Wieler, R., A hit-and-run giant impact scenario. Icarus,
221, 1, 296–299, 2012.
[0.104] Righter, K., Not so rare Earth? New developments in understanding the origin of the Earth
and Moon. Chem. Erde-Geochem., 67, 3, 179–200, 2007.
[0.105] Rimmer, P.B., Origins of life on exoplanets (Chapter 16), in: Conflicting Models for the Origin
of Life [COLF, Volume in the Series: Astrobiology Perspectives on Life of the Universe, Series
Editors: Richard Gordon & Joseph Seckbach, Wiley-Scrivener], S.K. Smoukov, J. Seckbach, R.
Gordon (Eds.), pp. 407–424, Wiley-Scrivener, Beverly, Massachusetts, USA, 2023.
[0.106] Ryder, G., Bombardment of the Hadean Earth: Wholesome or deleterious? Astrobiology, 3,
1, 3–6, 2003.
[0.107] Sachs, R.G., The physics of time reversal, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA,
1987.
[0.108] Schiller, M., Bizzarro, M., Fernandes, V.A., Isotopic evolution of the protoplanetary disk and
the building blocks of Earth and the Moon. Nature, 555, 7697, 507–510, 2018.
[0.109] Seckbach, J. and Chela-Flores, J., Habitable environments by extremophiles on Earth, the
solar system and elsewhwere, in: Genesis - In the Beginning: Precursors of Life, Chemical
Models and Early Biological Evolution, J. Seckbach (Ed.), pp. 859–870, Springer, Dordrecht,
Netherlands, 2012.
[0.110] Seckbach, J., Oren, A., Stan-Lotter, H. (Eds.), Polyextremophiles: Life Under Multiple Forms
of Stress, Springer Science+Business Media, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2013.
[0.111] Seckbach, J. and Stan-Lotter, H. (Eds.), Extremophiles as astrobiological models [EXAM, vol-
ume in the series astrobiology perspectives on Life of the Universe, Eds. Richard Gordon &
Joseph Seckbach], Wiley-Scrivener, Beverly, Massachusetts, USA, 2021.
[0.112] Sleep, N.H., The Hadean-Archaean environment. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol., 2, 6,
#a002527, 2010.
xxxiv Preface
[0.113] Stewart, K.W. and Watkinson, D.A., The freshwater fishes of Manitoba, University of Manitoba
Press, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, 2004.
[0.114] Tzelios, P.M. and Bishop, K.J.M., Patterns that persist: Heritable information in stochastic
dynamics (Chapter 8), in: Conflicting Models for the Origin of Life [COLF, Volume in the
Series: Astrobiology Perspectives on Life of the Universe, Series Editors: Richard Gordon &
Joseph Seckbach, Wiley-Scrivener], S.K. Smoukov, J. Seckbach, R. Gordon (Eds.), pp. 177–
212, Wiley-Scrivener, Beverly, Massachusetts, USA, 2023.
[0.115] Valley, J.W., A cool early Earth? Sci. Am., 293, 4, 58–65, 2005.
[0.116] Valley, J.W., Cavosie, A.J., Ushikubo, T., Reinhard, D.A., Lawrence, D.F., Larson, D.J.,
Clifton, P.H., Kelly, T.F., Wilde, S.A., Moser, D.E., Spicuzza, M.J., Hadean age for a post-
magma-ocean zircon confirmed by atom-probe tomography. Nat. Geosci., 7, 3, 219–223,
2014.
[0.117] Valley, J.W., Peck, W.H., King, E.M., Wilde, S.A., A cool early Earth. Geology, 30, 4, 351–354,
2002.
[0.118] Volkov, A.G., Deamer, D.W., Tanelian, D.L., Markin, V.S., Markin, V.S., Liquid interfaces in
chemistry and biology, Wiley, New York, NY, USA, 1998.
[0.119] Vukotić, B. and Ćirković, M.M., Multimessenger SETI and techniques, in: Multimessenger
Astronomy in Practice, M.D. Filipovic and N.F.H. Tothill (Eds.), pp. 1–28, IOP Publishing
Ltd, Bristol, UK, 2022.
[0.120] Vukotić, B., Seckbach, J., Gordon, R. (Eds.), Planet formation and panspermia: New prospects
for the movement of life through space [PNSP, volume in the series astrobiology perspectives
on life of the Universe, series editors: Richard Gordon & Joseph Seckbach], Wiley-Scrivener,
Beverly, Massachusetts, USA, 2021.
[0.121] Walker, S.I., 100 definitions of “What is life?” [lecture], Carnegie Institution, Washington,
DC, USA, 2015.
[0.122] Walker, S.I., Origins of life: A problem for physics, a key issues review. Rep. Prog. Phys., 80,
9, #092601, 2017.
[0.123] Weisstein, E.W., Pólya’s random walk constants. https://mathworld.wolfram.com/
PolyasRandomWalkConstants.html, 2022.
[0.124] Whitaker, D.E., Colville, B.W.F., Powner, M.W., Nucleotide photochemistry on the early
Earth (Chapter 15), in: Conflicting Models for the Origin of Life [COLF, Volume in the Series:
Seckbach, Wiley-Scrivener], S.K. Smoukov, J. Seckbach, R. Gordon (Eds.), pp. 369–406,
[0.125] Whitehouse, M.J., Dunkley, D.J., Kusiak, M.A., Wilde, S.A., On the true antiquity of
Eoarchean chemofossils - assessing the claim for Earth’s oldest biogenic graphite in the
Saglek Block of Labrador. Precambrian Res., 323, 70–81, 2019.
[0.126] Wood, B.J. and Halliday, A.N., Cooling of the Earth and core formation after the giant
impact. Nature, 437, 7063, 1345–1348, 2005.
[0.127] Zahnle, K., Arndt, N., Cockell, C.S., Halliday, A., Nisbet, E., Selsis, F., Sleep, N.H., Emergence
of a habitable planet. Space Sci. Rev., 129, 1-3, 35–78, 2007.
[0.128] Zahnle, K., Schaefer, L., Fegley, B., Earth’s earliest atmospheres. Cold Spring Harbor Perspect.
Biol., 2, 10, #a004895, 2010.
[0.129] Zahnle, K.J., Lupu, R., Dobrovolskis, A., Sleep, N.H., The tethered Moon. Earth Planet. Sci.
Lett., 427, 74–82, 2015.
[0.130] Hutchison, C.A. et al., Design and synthesis of a minimal bacterial genome. Science, 351,
aad6253, 2016.
Part I
INTRODUCTION TO THE ORIGIN
OF LIFE PUZZLE
1
Origin of Life: Conflicting Models
Sohan Jheeta1* and Elias Chatzitheodoridis2
NoRCEL, Leeds, United Kingdom

1
National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece

2
Abstract
Life’s origin is an enigma. Mankind has been pondering as to how it all began for millennia, yet are
we any closer to uncovering the answer to this enigma? It would seem not, but we are slowly and
surely edging towards discovery of the processes and mechanics by which life emerged on Earth.
There are more than a couple of dozen hypotheses which claim to have the answer, but in reality,
there is no absolute front runner. We have categorised these hypotheses under the following four
banners: metabolism, genetic, proteins and vesicles first. In this chapter we strive to demonstrate
how they conflict with one another and to this effect we have brought into focus both the top-down
and bottom-up approaches to the question of the origin of life in general, as well as answering the
question as to which came first, chemolithoautotrophs and photolithoautotrophs? In addition, the
part played by viruses (in particular the RNA ones) during the origin of life is addressed.
Keywords: LUCA, metabolism first, genetics first, protein first, vesicle first, RNA viruses,
phylogenetic tree
1.1 Introduction
It may well be that life emerged due to a step-by-step “complexification” of chemistry, known
as chemical evolution. Without chemical evolution: no life, period; alluding to the fact that
“miraculous events” are even less of an explanatory mechanism. The delivery mechanism pro-
mulgated by panspermia hypothesis, by which life is distributed across the Universe is also
an unlikely event to have had occurred, primarily due to the distances involved and the harsh
conditions of space—UV light, cosmic rays, low temperatures and often ultra-low pressures
as well as ultra-high vacuums (cf. intergalactic spaces which contain one dihydrogen per m3).
*Corresponding author: sohan@sohanjheeta.com

Sohan Jheeta: sohan@sohanjheeta.com, https://www.sohanjheeta.com/; https://www.researchgate.net/profile/
Sohan_Jheeta; https://norcel.net/; https://www.linkedin.com/in/sohan-jheeta-5a083894/; https://www.facebook.
com/sohan.jheeta/
Elias Chatzitheodoridis: eliasch@metal.ntua.gr, https://www.eliasch.gr, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/
Elias_Chatzitheodoridis; https://www.linkedin.com/in/eliasch
Stoyan K. Smoukov, Joseph Seckbach, and Richard Gordon (eds.) Conflicting Models for the Origin of Life, (3–32) © 2023
Scrivener Publishing LLC
3
4 Conflicting Models for the Origin of Life
Moreover, panspermia evades the question of the chemical origins of life on Earth by just
assuming that life somehow emerged elsewhere in the Universe without any explanation of
its chemical origin. It is a fact that chemical evolution is a pre-requisite for the emergence
and evolution of life. The notion of chemical evolution could be viewed either as a whole
spectrum or as a series of chemical reactions leading from small, simpler molecules (e.g.,
formaldehyde, H2CO; hydrogen cyanide, HCN; cyanate, OCN-) to long and highly complex
semantides, namely polyribonucleotides (RNAs), polydeoxyribonucleotides (DNAs), and
polypeptides. All these semantides are interconnected, as will be touched upon later in the
chapter. Presently, the routes to the formation of these initial polymers on the early Earth
have not been fully elucidated and therefore, there is no universally accepted front runner
hypothesis for the exact chemistry by which life emerged. In fact, there are at least two dozen
chemical evolution hypotheses (see Table 1.1) which purport to explain the possible ways for-
ward, but the exact definition of “way forward” is somewhat blurred. None of the hypotheses
shows a series of reactions occurring one after another in a single test tube; it is always defined
(e.g., in terms of molarities, temperatures and pressures etc.,) reactants “A” and “B” reacting
to give rise to products “C” and “D” in one test tube; product “C” along with new reactant “E”
is placed in the next tube to generate products “F” and “G” as depicted in Equation 1.1 and
Equation 1.2. These reactions could be construed as a sort of school bench type of chemistry,
as it is reminiscent of some types of acid-base reactions (i.e., Brønsted–Lowry) [1.61].
Test tube 1: A + B → C + D (1.1)
Test tube 2: C + E → F + G (1.2)
It should be remembered that nature is as it is: raw and that its chemistry could be taken
to be “messy”; there is very little purifying and concentrating of reactants taking place in
nature; there are no measured molar solutions or defined temperatures and pressures; there
is no washing of clay or preparing of this or that crystal [1.11] [1.61] [1.63]. Moreover, reac-
tions may be taking place on an uphill gradient, requiring greater amounts of energy of acti-
vation (cf. exothermic reactions, which require a smaller amount of energy). For example,
two amino acids reacting together to form a dimer requires an energy of activation because
the two reactants are at lower energy levels (Figure 1.1) compared to the generated dimer
product—i.e., the reaction is an endothermic one.
Table 1.1 Shows the list of hypotheses for the emergence of life (with permission from
Professor Richard Gordon).
1. Amyloid world 13. Oligomer world
2. Archaea first 14. Protein/peptide first
3. Aromatic world 15. Protein/metabolism first
4. Autocatalytic anabolism 16. Proto-tRNA minihelix world
5. Bacteria first 17. Ribonucleotide world
6. Coenzyme world 18. RNA world
7. DNA world 19. RNA—peptide world
8. Iron—sulfur world 20. Thiol-rich peptide (TRP) world
9. Lipid world 21. Viroids first
10. Mica/biotite world 22. Virus world
11. Nanoparticle-based world 23. World of minerals
12. Nucleoprotein world 24. Zinc world
Origin of Life: Conflicting Models for the Origin of Life 5
Energy Products formed

of aa-aa (dimer)
activation +
Energy water
absorbed
Energy
Reactants
aa + aa
Direction of reaction
Figure 1.1 Shows that life’s semantide reactions are energy requiring reactions. In addition, these reactions
yield a water molecule. The latter point will be problematic if life emerged in a watery environment as
exemplified by the watery alkaline hydrothermal vent hypothesis [1.116] [1.127].
The critics would claim these assertions (acid-base reactions and messy chemistry etc.) to
be heretical and over simplified because, by and large, dry and wet cycles during the to-and-
fro of tides, for example, can lead to concentration and purification of chemicals; quartzes
and stalagmites are routinely formed; distilled rain water may wash clays; and that given
ambient temperatures and pressures will allow reactions to take place naturally. The conclu-
sion being that there is no such thing as messy chemistry for instance. Such conclusions are
possible because, as pointed out earlier, nature did find a way forward in order to overcome
the issue of energy of activation, as typified by endothermic condensation of two amino acids
to form a dimer (Figure 1.1). However, we take this opportunity to elaborate on our assertion
that there is a major difference between what occurs in nature and what takes place in labo-
ratory settings, especially the complex organic reactions which are deliberately manipulated
(implicit bias), for example as in the formation of D-2′-deoxyribose sugar [1.78] used in
DNA nucleotides. These authors believe that this molecule is a biogenic one, meaning that
it is the product of biological evolution and not of an abiotic process, as D-2′-deoxyribose
sugar is conspicuously absent in the inventories of meteorites. This is because in a laboratory
setting the system is closed (i.e., in a test tube) and reactions occur in isolation as well as on
a miniscule scale in terms of both reactants and time-frame when compared to nature’s open
system, where any number of chemicals are available, any number of chemical pathways
are possible and the time-frames run into hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years.
This said, how is it possible that any chemical origin of life came to be? The authors would
like to introduce a concept of a “probable chemistry”. This term could be defined as follows:
a probable chemistry is one whereby a series of chemical reactions are more likely to have
taken place in an open system than not, which allowed the chemical evolution of life to
take place unhindered, thus resulting in the emergence of life within the time-frame of 300
million years [1.80]. Can such probable chemistry ever be identified? Yes, and it would look
like Ganti’s [1.33] idea of automata or akin to a slightly more complex version of Belousov–
Zhabotinsky oscillating reactions [1.56]. The concept of probable chemistry will not be con-
sidered further because time and space does not allow for further deliberation.
The conflicting hypotheses professing to offer an explanation as to how life emerged will
be considered under the headings top-down and bottom-up. Following on from this, the
issue as to which came first: chemolithoautotrophs or photolithoautotrophs will also be

examined. Subsequently we consider the involvement of viruses in the emergence of life
and whether there exists a fourth domain of life: the virus.
1.2 Top-Down Approach—The Phylogenetic Tree of Life

It is theoretically possible to trace back all the cellular species that ever lived and that are
living now to the last entity that ever lived from which the three domains of life emerged.
This entity, although a hypothetical construct, is known as the Last Universal Common
Ancestor (LUCA) [1.58] [1.81]. To understand the biochemistry and genetics of these
so-called LUCAs we need to comprehend what ribosomes are. These tiny little entities,
technically called organelles, are ribonucleoproteins (RNPs) which look a lot like a number
“8” when observed with an electron microscope, and they are present in all known cellular
life forms on Earth. Their relevance and function are to express phenotypes by making
specific proteins under precise genotypic instructions read off mRNA molecules and trans-
lated with help from amino acid activated tRNAs—i.e., aa~tRNAs. This means ribosomes
must be constructed from highly specific non-coding rRNA ((nc)rRNA) transcribed from a
particular region of the highly conserved DNA carrying rRNA genes; (nc)rRNA is an RNA
that does not code for any proteins as it is purely a genotypic transcription of the highly
conserved region of the DNA. It is now well established that the proteins and the (nc)rRNA
that make-up RNPs in ribosomes are, by and large, highly conserved regions too. This is
particularly true of 16S and 18S rRNA genes (where S = sedimentation constant, Svedberg
units) and they are specific to each and every species—a kind of personalised identification,
a bar-code if you will—marker for every known species. The former, 16S rRNAs, are found
in both Archaea and Bacteria, collectively referred to as prokaryotes and the latter, 18S
rRNAs, are part and parcel of eukaryotes. One specific difference between prokaryotes and
eukaryotes is that the latter are thought to be from a “straight forward” chimera of the two
different species from the domains of Archaea and Bacteria—this is at least one interpreta-
tion [1.120]. In another interpretation, Martin and Muller [1.86] put forward an idea, in the
form of “the hydrogen hypothesis”, that Eukarya was not a chimera because of the classic
union of a larger archaebacterium (the host) and a smaller eubacterium (the symbiont). The
latter resided within the former for mutual benefit—archaebacterium affording protection
to eubacterium, which in turn provided the former with a rich source of energy; this is the
essence of the endosymbiotic hypothesis. Whilst it appears to be the case of mutual benefit,
according to Martin and Muller, it has more to do with each prokaryote’s metabolism. In
this respect, archaebacterium (probably Lokiarchaeota) being a strict atrophic anaerobe,
is in desperate need of dihydrogen (H2) and eubacterium (α‑proteobacterium) generated
this molecular hydrogen during its anaerobic heterotrophic respiration and so a necessary
relationship was forged by the archaebacterium. In short, the evolutionary pressures led to
co-operation between archaebacterium and eubacterium, which in turn led to the emer-
gence of the third domain of life, namely Eukarya. The operational word is either “reliance”
or “dependence” of the former organism upon the latter for the provision of dihydrogen
rather than a straightforward mutual “protection–energy” relationship as pointed out by
Martin and Muller. Regardless of whether the Eukarya (to which eukaryotes belong) are
Tan’s [1.120] notion of chimera or Martin and Muller’s position [1.86], one thing for certain
is that in all cases Eukarya emerged after the emergence of prokaryotes. Although some
claim that eukaryotes emerged independently of Archaea and Bacteria [1.36] [1.120] [1.125],
there is ample evidence to suggest that the cell membranes and cell walls of eukaryotes are
not resilient enough to make it a credible hypothesis [1.26] [1.100] [1.113]. Prokaryotes up
to 3.5 billion years old have been routinely identified over the past 50 years [1.109] [1.110]
[1.111], but this is not the case with eukaryotes. Some of the features that differentiate the
two groups are that prokaryotes contain “naked”, double stranded, generally circular DNA,
free-floating in their cytosol, i.e., they are anucleated, whereas in eukaryotes, in general,
genomic DNAs are linear and are present as homologous and densely packed around his-
tone proteins in structures called chromosomes; although there are instances where alter-
native arrangements of genomes, as typified by circular genomes, are found in eukaryotes
[1.41] [1.92] [1.98] [1.99] [1.115]. These chromosomes are nuclear membrane bound, i.e.,
nucleated. There are other differences too—the reader may wish to consult any high school
biology book [e.g., 1.126].
Using 16S and 18S rRNA gene base pairs (bp) from the relevant DNA segment, it is pos-
sible to construct the relatedness of all known species which can be represented in the form
of a phylogenetic tree of life as shown in Figure 1.2a. To construct such a tree, the following
are essential: (a) the 16S or 18S rRNA genes within a DNA segment must be universally well
conserved so as to work out the amassed differences; (b) the isolated homologous gene bp
base pair segments are placed side by side with specimens from several other species’ con-
served genes, along with the test indicators and then compared and contrasted for amassed
differences in sequences; and finally, (c) it is an absolute requirement that mutation rates be
due to natural causes and are at tolerable levels [1.52]. During such studies an evolutionary
distance between different species can be determined and displayed in equivalent evolu-
tionary time-frames as shown in Figure 1.2a.
Various phylogenetic, metagenomic and comparative algorithms, as well as biochemical
and morphological studies revealed that there are, in fact, only two ancient domains of life
ria Archaea
cte EUKARYA Bacteria
ba
t i no ria) Slime
Animals
Ac cte n Amoeboids Molds
/
t es + Ba ree Fungi
BACTERIA icu m (g
m ra xi r ARCHAEA Stramenopiles
Proteobacteria Fir (G ofle ulfu s) Euryarchaeota Green algae/plants
r s i
lo on ter Red algae
Cyanobacteria Ch n bac Alveolates
Planctomycetes Crenarchaeota
Chlorobi Euglenoids
(Green sulfur bacteria)
Deinococcus-Thermus Trichomonads
Thermotogae Korarchaeota
Thermodesulfobacteria
Microsporidia
Aquif icae LUCA Diplomonads
Prebiotic chemistry world Prebiotic chemistry world
(a) (b)
Figure 1.2a Depicts that Archaea and Bacteria emerged from a single LUCA and so it would be termed
technically as a mono-phylogenetic tree as a single branch gave rise to two domains. Figure 1.2b shows cellular
life forms may have emerged from any number of LUCAs, but only two LUCAs made it to the “maturing
line” to give rise to Bacteria (blue lineage) and Archaea (red lineage). The olive green “cross connections”
are horizontal gene transfer and all other end-products are dead-ends. The separate origin of Archaea and
Bacteria is based on the biochemical and morphological differences between the two domains as illustrated in
Table 1.2 below. The whole scenario of the emergence of 2 domains probably happened within or during the
“tangled bush” epoch [1.23].
to emerge first. These are Archaea and Bacteria and of these two, the former (i.e., the red
line on Figure 1.2b) is believed to have emerged marginally ahead of the latter as based on
their cell boundary morphologies, biochemical and phylogenetic analysis as in Table 1.2.
Overall, archaeal attributes appear to be more primitive compared to the bacterial ones
[1.112].
Table 1.2 Compares and contrasts attributes of the Archaea and Bacteria domains. The Eukarya
domain is omitted because it is believed to be a chimera of both the Archaea and Bacteria domains
and therefore emerged later. Note: in general, ether linkages (R-O-R′) in lipids, present in Archaea,
are chemically stronger and more stable when compared to those of Bacteria’s ester linkages
(RC(O)OR′) [1.120]; this is one reason why Archaea are able to survive in extreme environments
such as high temperatures (circa 121 °C), acidic and alkaline pH as well as high salinity—the Dead
Sea has a salinity of 34.2%. Such extreme environments were widespread when hardy LUCAs
emerged into equally resilient and hardy Archaea, primarily chemolithoautotrophs.
Trait Archaea Bacteria References
Size: compared to Generally smaller Generally larger [1.120]
one another
Carbon linkage L-glycerol-ether (R-O-R′) D-glycerol-ester (RC(O)OR′)
of lipids lipids lipids
Phosphate sn-glycerol-1-phosphate sn-glycerol-3-phosphate
backbone of
lipids
Cell lipid Geranylgerylglyceryl Glycerol-3-phosphate
membrane phosphate synthase dehydrogenase
enzymes
Metabolism Especially reductive Bacterial—various strategies
acetyl-CoA pathway
(Wood–Ljungdahl
pathway) via reduction
of CO2— see Eq. 1.6
DNA replication, Similar to Eukaryotes Bacterial
transcription,
translation
mechanisms
Spore production No Yes, some–e.g., B. subtilis
Novel amino Selenocysteine Not known (?) [1.105]
acids: UAG and pyrrolysine
genetic code (M. barkeri)
Self-splicing none Rare [1.122]
group I introns
(Continued)
Table 1.2 Compares and contrasts attributes of the Archaea and Bacteria domains. The Eukarya
domain is omitted because it is believed to be a chimera of both the Archaea and Bacteria domains
and therefore emerged later. Note: in general, ether linkages (R-O-R′) in lipids, present in Archaea,
are chemically stronger and more stable when compared to those of Bacteria’s ester linkages
(RC(O)OR′) [1.120]; this is one reason why Archaea are able to survive in extreme environments
such as high temperatures (circa 121 °C), acidic and alkaline pH as well as high salinity—the Dead
Sea has a salinity of 34.2%. Such extreme environments were widespread when hardy LUCAs
emerged into equally resilient and hardy Archaea, primarily chemolithoautotrophs. (Continued)
Trait Archaea Bacteria References
Plasmids None Yes [1.48]
Genome type Circular Mostly circular but Borrelia
burgdorferi has a linear
chromosome
Cell wall S-layers composed of Peptidoglycan and even
1 or 2 proteins but Lipopolysaccharide
methanogens do
contain pseudo-
peptidoglycan chains
with the conspicuous
absence of amino acids
and N-acetylmuramic
acid
Life style: Primarily asexually, Primarily by binary fission Common
reproduction binary fission, (asexual). Bacteria do knowledge
fragmentation and exchange genetic material
budding (e.g., via conjugation);
strictly speaking this is not
a sexual reproduction but
akin to it.
Figure 1.2a intimates that both Archaea and Bacteria emerged from a single LUCA. But
what is a LUCA? And, was it really a single LUCA at the base of a phylogenetic tree of life?
Although it was pointed out earlier that LUCA is a hypothetical construct to explain the
origin of the three domains of life on Earth, it is quite plausible that such entities did exist
between 4.3 to 4.0 billion years ago [1.8] [1.22] [1.62] [1.74]. There is no direct microfossil
evidence for them because LUCAs lost out to their more ruthless newly emerging offspring,
namely Archaea and Bacteria. Their existence (or the earliest forms of life) is inferred from
13
C/12C and 36S/34S isotopic fractionation studies [1.35] [1.68]. It has been phylogenetically
estimated that LUCAs had free floating double stranded circular DNA [1.54]; they had
replicational, transcriptional and protein elongation apparatus in the form of almost fully
fledged ribosomes [1.27] [1.102]—that is to say that the all-important, fully functioning
“peptidyl transferase ribozyme” is contained in the larger 50S and 60S subunits of the pro-
karyotic and eukaryotic ribosomes respectively. LUCAs possessed sophisticated carboxylase
enzymes which could select lighter, more abundant and stable 12C isotopes over the sparse
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
stentata scema l’allettamento. Anche molti traduttori, per
l’importanza che in Italia si attribuisce allo stile, acquistaron nome a
paro cogli originali; eppure non un solo ve n’ha forse che abbia tolto
la speranza di fare meglio.
Ippolito Pindemonti veronese (1753-1828), anima pura e
inattivamente gemebonda in estri «melanconici e cari», declama ora
contro il viaggiare, or contro la caccia, or contro i rivoluzionarj; esalta
la campagna, gli amici, le pie ricordanze de’ morti; a Foscolo fece
rimprovero di non saper «trarre poetiche faville» da oggetti men
lontani che Troja; lottò con Omero nel tradurre la difficile Odissea; e
palpitò di libertà nella tragedia dell’Arminio, nobile carattere d’un
difensore della patria indipendenza. Cesare Arici (1782-1836),
secretario all’ateneo di Brescia, ottenne fama estesa per molte
liriche mediocri, per una povera epopea sulla caduta di
Gerusalemme, per migliori didascaliche sulla pastorizia e sulla
coltivazione degli ulivi. E la didascalica, che un pensiero prosastico
orna poeticamente, apriva bell’arringo alle immagini, la ginnastica
più consueta di quella poesia; la quale fermava l’attenzione sulla
frase, e colla forbitezza delle parole, col cumulo delle metafore, col
vezzo della perifrasi, la sottigliezza de’ concetti, la peregrinità delle
figure, la lambiccatura de’ sentimenti, il rimbombo de’ suoni palliava
la vulgarità del fondo. Vi ottennero lode molti, nessuno raggiunse
l’efficace parsimonia di Mascheroni e di Foscolo, alla descrizione
della natura mescolando sempre i pensieri dell’uomo.
Mentre nei più l’allettativo delle fantasie sceveravasi dalla
convinzione delle anime, altri aveano esteso lo sguardo e veduto un
intero mondo di là dal serraglio accademico, e leggiadrie e sublimità
di poesia, ed elevatezza di sentimenti, e profondità di ragione,
convincendosi che la ricerca del bello non vuol essere limitata ad un
tempo, ad un paese, ad una forma. La Spagna si presentava
coll’immensa ricchezza drammatica, e colla cristiana e incondita
originalità de’ comici e de’ romanzieri: l’Inghilterra col sentimento
profondo e la penetrazione della natura umana nel gigantesco
Shakspeare e ne’ moralisti: la Germania con una folla di cantori
ironici o passionati, religiosi o scettici, tutti vibranti all’unissono delle
idee umane, alla cui testa Schiller, Göthe, Tieck, Schlegel,
emancipavano l’arte affinchè rappresentasse l’uomo, i tempi, la
natura, cercavano il ritorno estetico verso l’antica bellezza, meglio
valutata e sotto forme nuove e potenti, non isgomentandosi della
trivialità purchè naturale; dappertutto poi una poesia popolare, qual
frutto spontaneo di ciascun paese, di ciascuna età, che ha la verità
non della storia, ma della passione, che evoca le potenze della vita,
dolore, piacere, onore, virtù, voluttà; e in tutta la società moderna un
movimento lirico coll’ardore della libertà, col disgusto del presente,
coll’inquietudine intima e la speranza tormentosa, col tumulto delle
idee nuove e il presentimento delle loro metamorfosi.
Con ciò alla critica negativa, che stitica i difetti dei grandi, o le
bellezze ne misura a tipi prestabiliti, sottentrava l’iniziatrice,
laboriosamente profonda nell’esercizio del pensiero, paziente nella
pratica, colla potenza idealista che discerne il fondo della forma, che
coglie l’unità dello spirito sotto la varietà della lettera, che indovina
bellezze originali, che getta la congettura sul mare del possibile, e da
quel che fecero i genj più diversi impara ove potrebbe arrivare un
genio nuovo, mediante l’intima cognizione d’ogni bello; che infine
colle dottrine eccita sentimenti ed azioni.
La civiltà nostra non deriva soltanto dalla greca e romana, ma anche
dalla germanica; gloriose e più dirette antecedenze abbiamo nell’età
romantica, cioè nel medioevo, e il viver nostro è conformato al
sentimento e alle dottrine cristiane. Perchè dunque rifarci sempre ad
Ilio e a Tebe, e tessellare frasi di classici, e invocare un Olimpo di cui
deridiamo le divinità, aborriamo i costumi?
Più che i Tedeschi, maestri di tali novità, qui si divulgavano i libri
francesi della baronessa di Staël, che obbligata da Napoleone ad
esulare da Parigi, avea concepito ammirazione per gli autori
tedeschi; e dai loro critici, principalmente dallo Schlegel, aveva
dedotto il sottilizzare la critica non tanto ad appuntare gli errori, come
a presentire le bellezze, non tanto a censurare un autore di ciò che
fece, come a scorgere cosa e come avrebbe dovuto fare; e
considerando l’arte per la più alta manifestazione dello spirito, non
fermarsi alle diverse forme delle varie letterature, ma penetrare la
ragione della vita e della durata [228]. La Corinna di lei, il Genio del
cristianesimo di Châteaubriand, l’entusiasmo de’ tanti che visitavano
la riaperta Italia (p. 308), venivano a modificare i criterj poetici
antichi: Stendhal, la Morgan ed altri ripudiavano il senso comune per
affettare spirito e novità: lord Byron, elegante inglese, che volontario
esule e volontaria vittima, atti e sentimenti epicurei traeva in pompa
per l’Europa, e principalmente in Italia, e dopo cominciato coll’elegia,
finì con satira amarissima, faceva stupire di tanta realtà unita a tanta
fantasia ne’ suoi poemi, dove, anatomizzando ironicamente la
società, dipingendo le attrattive del vizio e l’eroismo degli scellerati,
sostituendo l’eccezione alla regola, esistenze tempestose, situazioni
violente, paesi diversi dai poetici, uomini audacemente ribellati al
dovere, staccavasi ricisamente dall’arcadico concetto che s’avea
della poesia, per cogliere la natura sul vero, insegnando a non
permettere nessuno degli spedienti dell’arte, ad erudirsi ed ispirarsi
in quanto fu fatto, per far poi diversamente.
Ed esso e i suddetti e i loro imitatori erano epicurei; eppure
quell’ampia concezione dell’arte, il rispetto del passato, il sentimento
dell’infinito che imparavansi alle loro scuole, disponevano i cuori alla
fede. E già tra noi menti più serie aveano tolto a considerare i misteri
della vita, e capito ch’essa non trae spiegazione se non da un
primitivo mistero e da un postumo snodamento; e rinnegarono i
miserabili trionfi dell’empietà, che dichiarate ipotesi l’ordine
provvidenziale e l’immoralità, vi avea sostituito altre ipotesi, la fatalità
e il nulla, e non lasciava all’uomo se non l’orgoglio d’un bugiardo
sapere, le irrequietudini d’un’ambizione impotente. Che se la vita è
un’espiazione e un preparamento, non le converranno la bacchica
esultanza d’Anacreonte e la sibaritica spensieratezza di Flacco, ma
una melanconia rassegnata, un ravvisare dappertutto l’ordinamento
provvidenziale, un valutare le azioni dal loro fine o particolare o
complessivo.
L’ampliarsi della democrazia facea fissare gli occhi sul popolo;
esaminarne senza superbia i costumi; senza disprezzo gli errori;
ascoltarne le leggende e le canzoni; nè tutto riferire ad un tempo, ad
un luogo, ma le consuetudini e le opinioni considerare siccome
un’efflorescenza di date circostanze, gli errori siccome viste false o
imperfette della verità, sicchè al fondo la umana specie progredisce
sempre verso un perfezionamento, che non si raggiungerà mai in
questa bassa gleba.
Da tutto ciò nuovi criterj del bello: sgradite non meno le contorsioni
dell’Alfieri, che la rosea prodigalità del Monti, e quello sfumare ogni
tinta risentita, soffogare le fantasie sotto al convenzionale, la
franchezza sotto pallide circonlocuzioni e lambiccature
cortigianesche ed accademiche; rivendicavasi la semplicità adottata
dai primi nostri scrittori; affrontavasi la parola propria, la maniera più
schietta, raccolta di mezzo ai parlanti; voleasi interrogare i sentimenti
e il linguaggio del popolo; scegliere sì la natura ma non cangiarla,
portandole quell’amore rispettoso che nasce da profonda intelligenza
delle cose; proporsi conformità fra le opere e la vita; tornar la poesia
quale era in Dante, fantasia subordinata alla ragione geometrica.
Che se la letteratura degli accademici erasi guardata come incentivo
o sfogo di passione, un modo d’accattar piaceri e denaro con opere
concepite a freddo, computate con pedantesche convenienze, e
quindi astiosa, superba, gaudente; ora studiavasi surrogarne una
d’ispirazione e meditazione, che prendesse per iscopo il buono, per
soggetto il vero, per mezzo il bello. La storia non sarebbe più
raccozzo di aneddoti, o galleria dove campeggiano solo gli eroi, i re,
i fortunati, negligendo o celiando sull’umanità preda de’ forti o
balocco degli scaltri; ma dovea contemplarsi come attuazione
contingente di provvidenziali concetti, guardando il genere umano
come un uomo solo che errando procede, e gli atti e i concetti dei
personaggi conguagliando col loro tempo e colle idee correnti.
Romanzi e novelle, anzichè frastornare con avvenimenti implicati,
descrizioni sceniche, sfarzo della vita esteriore, esaminassero
l’uomo interno e l’andare delle passioni in ciò che hanno di comune
in tutti i tempi e luoghi, e di speciale a persone, a paesi, a età.
L’eloquenza valersi della spettacolosa efficacia del momento per
condurre a conoscere il vero, volere il giusto, accettare il sagrifizio.
Divenuto riflessione attiva dell’uomo sopra se stesso, il dramma
cambiavasi essenzialmente, e doveva empirsi d’azione, ritemprarsi a
passioni meno strofinate, usar fatti, costumi, caratteri, linguaggio
consoni colla storia; a tal uopo svincolarsi dalle unità precettorie,
sconosciute ai Greci, consacrate dai Francesi per amor d’ordine,
dall’Alfieri per amor del difficile. Ciò che più cale, il teatro non doveva
traviare i giudizj e ubriacare le passioni, ma consolidare il buon
senso e dirigere gli affetti, rappresentare la società e l’individuo quali
sono, misti di bene e male, e divenire istruttiva intuizione di quella
vita che non riceve spiegazione se non dalla morte.
Il pedante faccia in letteratura come il fazioso in politica, che giudica
dietro a parole, non soffre opinioni contrarie, sentenzia non dando i
motivi, arbitrario e intollerante: per noi le regole saranno una storia di
ciò che fecero i migliori, non un ceppo per chi s’arrischia al nuovo;
vera poesia non sarà se non quella che abbia alito e ispirazione
propria, e l’ideale suo non tolga a prestanza, ma lo deduca da
costumi, cognizioni, istituzioni, convenienze nazionali: s’immedesimi
con tutti gli affetti, con tutte le solenni contingenze della vita; metta
sott’occhio l’esistenza reale, ed ecciti l’esistenza più sublime del
sentimento: sia mezzo di fede, di consolazione, di benevolenza.
Insomma verità del fondo, infinita varietà delle forme, bontà di scopo
pretendeansi dal genere che fu detto romantico in opposizione a
quello che s’intitolava classico; e che è caratterizzato interiormente
da senso più profondo del presente in relazione al passato e col
presentimento dell’avvenire; esteriormente da maggior lirica in ogni
concepimento.
Io dico quel che pensavano i migliori: ma da una parte v’aveva i
trascendenti e i vulgari, zavorra di qualunque innovamento, che
voleano mostrarsi liberi col saltabellare da pazzi: dall’altra libri,
articoli, improperj erano lanciati da quei tanti che esultano per ogni
occasione di sfogare le passioni malevole all’ombra di un partito: la
polemica, secondo è consueta, approfondiva l’abisso complesso
delle cose, rinfacciavansi ai Romantici i fantasmi, le stregherie,
l’anteporre alle decorose bellezze di Virgilio le rabbuffate di
Shakspeare; e i nomi di classico e romantico fecero dimenticare
quelli di buono e cattivo, come più tardi i nomi accidentali di
repubblica e costituzione eclissarono il fondamentale d’Italia libera.
Osteggiava la novità La Biblioteca Italiana giornale milanese, che,
prodigo d’encomj alle mediocrità striscianti, non lasciava impunito
verun lampo d’ingegno, ardimento di scrittura, integrità di carattere,
elevazione di sentimento, originalità di concetto, speranza di
giovane. Ai pochi rassegnanti a vendere la penna, il Gironi, direttore,
diceva: — Eccovi questo libro da incensare, e questo da
scompisciare»; ed essi vi metteano l’impegno della viltà; oltre quelli
che per proprio zelo s’incaricavano di denunziare opinioni e pensieri
che poi sarebbero essi chiamati a processare. Vi fu chi disse: —
Mostrerò il Biava come un Ilota ubriaco, finchè gli sia tolta la
cattedra»; vi fu chi disse a proposito dell’Ugoni: — Aprirò quei sacchi
per far vedere che contengono carbone»; vi fu chi, per impedire che
l’imperatore gli mandasse un anello destinatogli, tolse a provare che
la storia di Milano di Carlo Rosmini «era pericolosa alla religione, alla
politica, al principato». Da quest’afa di sentina tolsero esempj e
scusa que’ diffamatori, la cui bassezza si ajuta di perfidia, e che
sono operosissimi dove la libertà della parola e la franchezza de’
pensanti non la condannino al giusto vilipendio.
A tali vergogne animosi giovani opposero il Conciliatore, con cui
Pellico, De Breme, Berchet, Borsieri, Ermes Visconti, Giambattista
De Cristoforis cercavano introdurre anche qui la critica iniziatrice,
che ispirandosi al sentimento e alla verità, le teoriche di gusto
traduce in consigli di dignità e coraggio. Queste novità portavano
franchezza d’esame, onde non è meraviglia se la rivoluzione
letteraria parve rivoluzione politica, e il ribellarsi alle regole fu
denunziato per ribellione alla legge; il giornale fu proibito, e i redattori
o in carcere o in esiglio, ma la controversia continuò con armi buone
o con cattive. Milano pareva il vivajo de’ novatori, mentre nel resto
d’Italia i Classicisti, intitolavano romantico tutto ciò che fosse brutto,
disordinato, pazzo, e asserendo che i novatori proscrivessero lo
studio e l’imitazione degli ottimi. Il Pagani Cesa [229] definiva i
Romantici persone intese a sovversioni e letterarie e politiche; folla
d’avventurieri fortunati, di briganti politici, di gente d’arme, di
giovinastri, non pratici che del disordine in cui sono nati. L’Anelli da
Desenzano (-1820), in certe Cronache di Pindo grossolanamente
lepide, denticchiava quella scuola, senza giungere al vivo. Gugliuffi
(-1834) diceva ch’essi emicant fortasse aliquando, sed more nocturni
fulguris; egli che sosteneva le scienze farebbero grandi progressi
qualora adoperassero la lingua latina [230].
Più s’accannì Mario Pieri corcirese, che vagò assai per Italia, bene
accolto dappertutto e come forestiero e come letterato; in gioventù
godette la domestichezza del Cesarotti e del Pindemonti, e per loro
mezzo conobbe nel Veneto il Lorenzi, il Mazza, il Barbieri, poeta
allora e futuro oratore, l’abate Tália autore di una estetica, il padre
Ilario Casarotti arguto autore di poesie bibliche e di molti opuscoli
polemici, Francesco Negri traduttore di Alcifrone, l’abate Zamboni e
Benedetto del Bene educatissimi ingegni, il Morelli, il Filiasi, lo
Zendrini, il Cesari, e quelle coltissime adunatrici della migliore
società che furono Isabella Albrizzi e Giustina Michiel in Venezia,
Silvia Curioni Verza ed Elisabetta Mosconi in Verona, e così il fiore
delle persone di Vicenza, Belluno, Padova e Treviso dove fu
professore. Altri a Milano incontrava alla conversazione del ministro
Paradisi, altri ne’ ripetuti viaggi, poi nella lunga dimora a Firenze,
dove, oltre i suoi connazionali Mustoxidi e Foscolo, usò
famigliaramente col Capponi, col Niccolini, col Pananti,
coll’eruditissimo Zanoni, col Becchi succedutogli segretario della
Crusca, col Rosini filologo di amenissima conversazione, quanto era
nojosa quella del Micali, col Del Furia bibliotecario, rinomato per
l’abbaruffata sua contro l’argutissimo Gian Paolo Courier [231],
coll’incisore Morghen, col pittore Benvenuti, col matematico Ferroni,
col numismatico Sestini, col dottor Cioni, col Benci, col Puccini
direttore della galleria, e colle amabilmente dotte Teresa Fabbroni,
Rosellini, Lenzoni. Qual piacere non darebbe a’ curiosi, quale
istruzione agli studiosi il vedersi ricondotti a conversare con questi,
che solo in parte vivranno ne’ libri! E il Pieri, oltre prose e versi, dettò
la propria vita senza elevazione nè larghi aspetti, bensì osservazione
triviale, lineamenti vacillanti, passioni piccole, idolatria di se stesso.
Questi e tutta la consorteria del Monti poneano in canzone i
Romantici, quasi gente che insorgesse pel solo piacere d’insorgere;
e sarebbero tutt’altro che condannabili se avessero avuto la mira
d’opporsi al forestierume, e non dimenticato che, isolandoci, noi
resteremmo sempre nel falso e nel meschino. Intanto l’averlo
avvertito bastava per rendere ridicolo e vergognoso quell’inneggiare
Venere ed Imeneo [232], e imprecare Atropo e il Fato, applaudire ai
Giovi e alle Cintie, pregare salute da Igia, senno da Minerva,
giustizia da Temi: il verso di mera sensualità, gli eterni ricalchi
d’Orazio o del Petrarca, insomma le forme convenzionali perivano,
più l’idea non volendo incarnarsi in esse, nè il sentimento contenersi
entro ai vincoli antichi, o la lingua limitarsi alle parole autenticate:
l’ambiziosa fraseologia abbandonavasi ai vecchi incorreggibili o ai
novizj rassegnati a non maturare più: e se il Monti chiedea, com’è
mai possibile senza mitologia lodare un principe, celebrare un
imeneo? gli si rispondeva: — È egli necessario belare le nozze e i
natalizj de’ re e dei mecenati?»
Vero è che anche nella scuola romantica affluirono astrazioni
sentimentali e mistiche, la moralità si angustiò in picciolezze di
sacristia, all’eleganza sparuta surrogaronsi fantasie dissennate;
avemmo novelle con spettri, e leggende con magie [233] e gnomi e
silfidi e ondine, ingredienti non meno convenzionali che le ninfe e le
stelle e le cetre e le tede e l’altre fracide espressioni di concetti
indeterminati; riponendo l’innovazione nella forma delle idee anzichè
nelle idee, nella verità storica anzichè nella verità morale, si credette
fare libero il dramma collo scapestrarlo; si pindareggiarono i
medesimi affetti sebbene con parole nuove. Ma nelle campali
battaglie non si contano le migliaja di gregarj, e chi decide sono i
capitani: e di eccellenti ne ebbe la scuola nuova.
Tommaso Grossi (1791-1853), anima affettuosa, mente ordinata,
vivrà come il primo o de’ primi che le idee romantiche qui applicasse
non colla polemica ma colle due novelle della Fuggitiva in vernacolo,
e dell’Ildegonda in ottave italiane di ariostesco impasto, con
semplicità colta e affettuose particolarità. Un’altra novella tesseva
intorno alla prima crociata, quando il disprezzo che i suoi amici gli
istillarono pel Tasso lo indusse a trattare come quadro di genere un
soggetto che Torquato avea trattato alla grande. Sgraziato
pensamento, che affogò nelle generalità il bell’insieme della sua
favola domestica, convertì il flauto e la mandóla in tromba di
battaglia, e l’ispirazione affettuosa in istudj d’erudizione, dove riuscì
non meno infedele che il Tasso, benchè in maniera differente.
Gl’invidiosi, che avrebbero perseguitato il Tasso, del Tasso si valsero
per opprimere il Grossi come sacrilego, istituirono assurdi confronti,
e ne derivò una capiglia villanissima, la quale in fondo riduceasi a
dispetto ch’egli avesse trovato tremila soscrittori, cioè un guadagno
insolito ai nostri letterati. Non si taccia che altrettanti difensori ebbe;
ma egli stomacato lasciò la carriera letteraria per mettersi notaro.
Cessata allora la paura di vederlo fare qualche altra cosa grande,
cessò la malevolenza; lo ascrissero fra i grandi poeti; accettarono
con indulgente simpatia altre produzioni sue di studio non di lena,
ma rialzate da qualche pagina tutta affetto; e i censori poterono
consolarsi che non diede a metà i frutti, aspettabili dal suo limpido e
coltissimo ingegno.
Altrettanta pacatezza d’armonia e maggiore intelligenza critica ebbe
Giovanni Torti 1773-1851, che togliendo ad esame i Sepolcri di
Foscolo e la debole risposta del Pindemonti, si pose a fianco loro;
poi versificò la nuova poetica mostrando come, da qualunque siasi
tempo si desuma un tema, vogliasi dargli la verità di colorito e di
affetto. Avea cominciato del medesimo passo Giovanni Berchet; poi
invelenito dall’esiglio, contro i tiranni avventò romanze, che per
forme e per modi erano nuove all’Italia, e tutti i giovani le appresero,
e molto valsero sui sentimenti non solo, ma e sui fatti successivi.
In mezzo a questi e ad alcuni minori lombardi giganteggiava
Alessandro Manzoni. I primi suoi componimenti furono di dipinture,
d’affezioni e d’ire profane, sopra un sentiero dove il Monti avea
raggiunta tal perfezione, che, chi si accontentasse alla poesia di
impasto classico, al verso armonioso, alle grazie mitologiche non
potea che rassegnarsi a rimanergli inferiore. Il genio, che ha bisogno
di vie intentate, domandava, — Non c’è un’altra poesia oltre quella
delle forme? non c’è diamanti, oltre quelli già faccettati da’ gioiellieri
precedenti? non ha l’arte un uffizio più sublime che quello di
dilettare?»
Tali pensieri furono eccitati o svolti nel Manzoni da amici di Francia,
ai quali l’opposizione al Governo napoleonico serviva di libertà;
quando poi, dalle coloro idee volteriane ricoveratosi con piena
sincerità alle credenze e alle pratiche cattoliche, sentì il dovere di
coordinare ogni atto della vita e del pensiero all’acquisto della verità,
all’attuazione del bene, al consolidamento della religione, potè dare
saggi d’una poesia sobria, che subordina la frase al concetto, che gli
abbellimenti deduce soltanto dall’essenza del soggetto, che
sovrattutto si nutre di pensieri elevati e santi, e si crede un
magistero, un apostolato. La semplice originalità degli Inni, quella
sublimità di concetti espressa colla parola più ingenua, li fece
passare inosservatissimi: il Carmagnola e l’Adelchi soffersero i
vilipendi de’ giornali e l’indifferenza del pubblico, che solo al
comparire del Cinque maggio, ode inferiore alle altre, parve
accorgersi di possedere un sommo.
Lontano dalla felicissima agevolezza del Monti, egli stenta ciascuna
strofa, incontentabilissimo; ma l’uno ha la fluidità de’ Cinquecentisti,
l’altro la concisione tanto necessaria nella lirica, e quel contesto virile
che non s’occupa de’ fioretti; l’uno dipinge più che non pensi, l’altro
pensa più che non dipinga; nell’uno predominando il dono della
fantasia, nell’altro la facoltà del riflettere, che è la coscienza
dell’ispirazione; onde quello guarda le idee sotto un aspetto solo,
questo vuol presentarle nella loro interezza di vero e di falso, l’uno
lascia meravigliati, l’altro soddisfatti, e più soddisfatti i forti, che
vedendo quelle maniere sì vive e profonde, avvertono meno al ben
detto, che al ben pensato. Monti, il più insigne fra gl’improvvisatori,
cerca il bello dovunque creda trovarlo, da Omero come da Ossian,
ma senza connessione col buono e col vero; le ipotiposi, le apostrofi,
le circonlocuzioni, le intervenzioni d’ombre o di numi ripete continuo,
perchè non costa fatica l’aleggiare colla fantasia mettendo da banda
il giudizio; la sonorità del verso e l’onda della frase surroga al
sentimento e al concetto, le reminiscenze classiche all’emozione
personale; crede che la poesia non abbia mestieri d’essere giusta,
purchè ardente e passionata, donde l’enfasi e l’alta persuasione di
sè, e la continua esagerazione, e il secondare l’impressione
istantanea, e perciò frequente mutarsi. Manzoni vuol richiamare ogni
asserto al cimento del giudizio, escludendo il declamatorio,
deponendo nel lettore il germe di idee che sviluppano l’intelligenza e
la volontà: onde l’uno è puramente poeta, e in ciò stanno la sua
vocazione, la sua gloria, la sua scusa; l’altro è considerato piuttosto
come argomentatore da quelli, che non avvertono quanto movimento
lirico esondi nella Pentecoste o nella Morte d’Ermengarda, e come la
squisita verità gli detti di quegli accenti che risvegliano un’eco in tutti
i cuori. Adunque del Monti è carattere il trascendere, sia che lodi, sia
che imprechi; del Manzoni la mansuetudine, fin quando intima allo
straniero di «strappare le tende da una terra che patria non gli è», e
che Iddio non gli disse: «Va, raccogli ove arato non hai; spiega
l’ugne, l’Italia ti do». Il Monti si erige signore dell’opinione, consigliero
di re e di nazioni; l’altro dubita sempre di se stesso: quello non ha
proposito più elevato che d’insegnare e praticare l’arte, laonde i
fortunati che se ne divisero il mantello, fecero di belle cose; i seguaci
di Manzoni cercarono piuttosto le buone: quelli l’ideale, questi il
reale. Ambidue tentarono il teatro; e Monti cogli artifizj antichi
riscosse applausi; all’altro venne meno l’abilità, che è tanto diversa
dal raziocinio. Anche Manzoni sostenne polemiche; ma invece della
critica provocatrice, più simile a schermaglia di partito che a
discussione di sistema, offerse esempio di quella che, calma nella
certezza dell’esito, richiede cuor retto, criterio sicuro e buona
coscienza. Nè egli lottò per propria difesa o per un angusto
patriotismo, ma tutte le volte ebbe l’arte di elevare il punto di vista, e
trasformare sin la disputa letteraria in lezione morale.
La servilità alla legge rigorosa quanto capricciosa delle unità di
tempo e luogo, i soliloquj, i confidenti, i lunghi racconti, la dignità
inalterabile che ripudia le famigliarità così allettanti nel dramma
greco, le espressioni altrettanto forbite nel principe come nel servo,
erano difetti della tragedia alla francese; che se i grandi li
redimevano con bellezze insigni, è natura de’ pedissequi l’esagerare
i difetti; donde una nojosa eleganza, perifrasi per aborrimento al
nome proprio, esilità di idee mal rimpolpata con fronzoli retorici, e
frasi raggiranti entro un circolo di sensazioni fittizie e prevedute, in
dialoghi tanto poetici, da non ritrarre la natura, tanto vaghi da non
rappresentare un tempo e un luogo determinato; fatte insomma
unicamente in riguardo de’ lettori o degli spettatori. A ciò richiedevasi
studio anzi che genio, chi non vi si rassegnò risalse ai Greci,
inimitabili per la naturalezza come inimitabile per la fatica era l’Alfieri:
ma in generale la tragedia perseverò ad essere un’alternativa di
parole non di azione, declamatoria non veritiera.
Ugo Foscolo accostò più di tutti il grande Astigiano per dignità e
altezza di sentenze; ma la realtà della storia nè della passione non
raggiunse mai, benchè nella Riciarda esprimesse il concetto italico e
il gemito sulle nostre divisioni. L’Arminio d’Ippolito Pindemonti
elevasi per sentimento e stile: eppure le incolte tragedie di Giovanni
suo fratello sovrastano per abilità scenica; per la quale ebbe
applausi anche il duca di Ventignano. Belle speranze destò Silvio
Pellico colla Francesca da Rimini, per quanto debole. G. B. Niccolini
di Firenze, erede dell’ira ghibellina di Dante, entrò sull’orme dei
Greci fino a ritentare i loro soggetti; dappoi ne assunse di moderni,
quali la Rosmunda, l’Antonio Foscarini [234], il Giovanni da Procida, o
allusivi a moderni, come il Nabucco e l’Arnaldo. Era un frutto della
inclinazione morale introdottasi nella letteratura; e ne ottenne
ovazioni da quella pubblica opinione, che egli mostrò sempre
disprezzare; ma quando la vide ubriacarsi nel 48, quell’austero
giudice apparve abbagliato dai vorticosi movimenti.
Per riuscire nella tragedia storica non basta la sceneggiatura e il
vestire secondo le nazioni e le età fantocci di nome eroico, non
basta conoscere qualche accidente, ma vuolsi abbracciare intera
l’età ove si collocano gli attori; nè ciò si ottiene che con
pazientissimo studio. Così fece Manzoni. I moralisti rigorosi
riprovarono sempre il teatro, giacchè lo spettacolo delle passioni
lottanti o lo svolgimento di una, incitano quelle dello spettatore; se
non ne ispirano di criminose, vi predispongono; se non danno amore
ed odio, vi aprono il cuore. Ma poichè il teatro sempre più invade la
società, alcuni studiarono se fosse possibile ridurlo tale che non
ecciti gli scrupoli d’un padre, d’un marito; che accheti e diriga,
anzichè sopreccitare e spingere le passioni. Tale scopo si prefisse
Manzoni come nel romanzo così nei drammi; presentando nel
Carmagnola l’uomo perseguitato ma non da feroci invidie, sdegnato
ma non con violenza, e consolando colle domestiche affezioni l’ora
fatale; nell’Adelchi lo spettacolo d’un popolo dominatore vinto da un
altro che alla sua volta si fa dominatore d’un vulgo innominato;
prepotenze contro prepotenze, fra cui trovano luogo l’affanno di
patimenti personali e la generosa proclamazione della giustizia, e
dove la lotta umana finisce nella conciliazione religiosa, quando
nell’anima sottentra il sentimento d’una felicità superna e inalterabile,
rassicurata che sia contro la distruzione della sua terrestre
individualità. Il secolo, avvezzo agli stimolanti e bisognoso di
cacciare la noja, domanda emozioni, e trova più poetica la procella
che non i murazzi da cui è frenata: ed è questa la sola parte dove il
nostro o non fu inteso o non seguìto.
Genere coevo delle lingue nuove, il romanzo aveva anche fra noi
trasformato le imprese di Carlo Magno e de’ suoi paladini o della
Tavola rotonda, e di Amadigi e di Guerrino Meschino e de’ Reali di
Francia, ben tosto dimentico per la carnevalesca esultanza dei
poemi romanzeschi: altri nel Seicento, sempre ad imitazione di
Francia, confezionarono romanzi scipiti: nel secolo passato furono
tradotti i tanti francesi e imitati con isguajato abbandono, e nè
tampoco scintillarono di quella luce momentanea che sembra
privilegio d’un genere, il cui principale intento è piacere, e perciò
accarezzare passioni e abitudini che passano presto, e con esse il
libro. Ma il Don Chisciotte, il Robinson, il Gil Blas, la Pamela, il Tom
Jones, il Paolo e Virginia, la Nuova Eloisa attestano che possono
farsi opere durevoli ed efficaci sulla società anche in questo genere,
atto a tutte le passioni del cuore, ai capricci dello spirito, alle
ispirazioni serie e beffarde.
Tale fu ripigliato il romanzo nell’età nostra; e del Werter di Göthe,
che ebbe la trista gloria di spingere molti al suicidio, l’imitazione fatta
da Foscolo acquistò voga quasi opera originale, e piacque il
sentimento di nazione e di libertà ch’egli intarsiò al concetto
tedesco [235]. Sulle traccie del Barthélemy, Luigi Lamberti descrisse i
viaggi d’Elena, Ambrogio e Levati i viaggi del Petrarca, aridi e
pesanti. Altri sentirono l’effetto della Corinna, del Pienato, dell’Atala;
ma viepiù i romanzi poetici di Byron avvezzarono agli affetti
smisurati, alle situazioni eccezionali, ai caratteri sforzati, alle evidenti
descrizioni, in opposizione colle stereotipie e colle languidezze degli
antichi. A quelli e ad altri inglesi e al D’Arlincourt francese s’ispirò
Davide Bertolotti, i cui romanzetti erano, verso il 1820, la più ambita
fra le letture leggiere. Intanto d’Inghilterra ci arrivavano i romanzi di
Walter Scott, dove si descrive una data età o un fatto o un carattere
storico, appagando così due passioni del nostro tempo, l’indagine
erudita e l’attività romanzesca. Non analizza egli il cuore, non si
eleva ardito sull’immaginativa, ma nell’inesauribile sua fecondità
dipinge sensibilmente, dialoga con estrema verità, interessa
artifiziosamente, e schivando le caricature troppo consuete in questo
genere, procede naturale, limpidissimo, ma alla ventura, verso uno
scioglimento che non premeditò.
Di là il Manzoni derivò evidentemente il suo romanzo, ma
applicandovi quell’arte cristiana, che medita sull’uomo interno e
segue gli andirivieni d’una passione dal nascere suo fino quando
trionfa o soccombe. Walter Scott fece cinquanta romanzi, egli uno;
l’Inglese tutto colori esterni, il nostro vita intima; quello per dipingere
e divertire, questo per far pensare e sentire. Già nelle tragedie
Manzoni avea mostrato come della storia non facesse un’occasione
o un’allusione, pigliandone a prestanza un nome o un fatto per
gittarlo in un componimento di fantasia. Ora quella indagine
scrupolosa che ridesta i tempi e i loro sentimenti spinse egli fino alle
minime particolarità, esattissimo anche quando non è vero. La
potenza sua satirica, che gli dettò il primo componimento, e che poi
fu virtuosamente temperata dalla mansuetudine, trapela grandissima
dal romanzo; e singolarmente nella dipintura de’ caratteri, ciascuno
de’ quali vive innanzi a noi come un’antica conoscenza, e diviene un
tipo; perocchè, quivi come nelle poesie, ci offre sempre un’immagine
netta e reale che più non si dimentica. Prima che l’ammirazione
diventasse culto, noi divisammo lungamente dei meriti dei Promessi
Sposi [236], e di quel fare così dabbene fino nell’ironia, così civile
nella satira, così semplice nella sublimità, per cui divenne il libro
della nazione.
Da Dante in giù la lingua nostra, se molto cambiò quanto a
immaginazione e gusto, rimase identica quanto al fondo; sicchè,
eccettuato il gergo pedantesco d’alcuni Quattrocentisti, i libri
s’intendono correntemente, a differenza del tedesco prima di
Lessing, e del francese di cui nel 1650 Pellisson diceva: Nos auteurs
les plus élégans et les plus polis deviennent barbares en peu
d’années. Eppure si continuò a disputare qual nome attribuirle, quali
regole seguire nella scelta e disposizione delle parole, a quale
canone appigliarsi ne’ dubbj. Alla lingua parlata? all’uso degli
scrittori? e de’ soli scrittori del Trecento, o anche de’ Cinquecentisti,
o fin de’ moderni? La scelta competerà a ciascuno, o bisognerà
attenersi a quella fatta dal dizionario? O dovrà la lingua essere
progressiva, ed arricchirsi di quanto le offrono l’immaginazione di
ciascun scrittore, i dialetti di ciascun paese e l’importazione
forestiera? Quest’ultima opinione era prevalsa nel secolo passato,
scrivendosi come si parlava, senza riflettere che in Italia soli i
Toscani e alquanti Romani parlano una lingua scrivibile, e che la
mancanza di un centro politico o scientifico toglie di riportarci
effettivamente all’uso di questo: laonde ciascuno si sarebbe valso o
delle voci somministrategli dal proprio dialetto ridotte a desinenza
toscana, o dalle scritture, le quali, destituite di norme fisse, e
dipendendo dall’abilità o dal capriccio individuale, mancavano
d’uniformità e durevolezza.
Per vero, qualora si tratti d’esprimere generalità di falli o di
sentimenti, la lingua letteraria può bastare, giacchè tutti i paesi
convengono in un gran numero, anzi nel massimo numero delle
parole. Ma occorrano materie famigliari o tecniche, e quella
precisione di termini che è imposta dal bisogno d’idee precise;
vogliasi non solo ripetere sentimenti e idee comuni, ma darvi
carattere e individualità, come è proprio degli intelletti originali; allora
rampollano le difficoltà e il bisogno di regole indefettibili. La vanitosa
rozzezza in cui era caduta la lingua nel Seicento, fu corretta nel
secolo seguente, ma per cadere in una leziosa ricerca di ornati
posticci, di vocaboli mozzi e peregrini emistichj, eleganzuccie,
attortigliate rinzeppature e ridondanze, bagliore di frasi, cadenze
sonore, periodo oratorio uniforme e nojoso; ammanierandosi
insomma da accademia e da collegio, come avveniva della poesia, e
pretendendo al vacillante pensiero dare per rinfianco vanità di forme.
Alcuni professavansi devoti alla lingua pura, ma per tale
considerando la sola scritta dai classici; e in tale senso lavorarono il
Corticelli, il Vannetti, il Bandiera. Quale scandalo non eccitò a Milano
un Branda col preconizzare il dialetto toscano! Di rimpallo la lingua
dei libri era proclamata dai liberali, sprezzatovi delle stitichezze
grammaticali e del vanume retorico: ma poichè i libri che correano
erano francesi di idee e di forme, queste irrompevano a pieno
sbocco, e deturparono anche i migliori, come il Verri, il Beccaria, il
Filangeri, il Denina. L’imbarbarimento della lingua non venne dunque
dalla conquista francese, bensì da accidia innazionale; volle anzi
ridurla a teoriche l’abate Cesarotti (t. xii, p. 250), pretendendo
l’italiano abbia ringalluzzarsi continuamente colle ricchezze
forestiere; alla quale dottrina consentaneo, s’imbratta di francesismi
anche dove affatto inutili. Lo combattè il Napione [237]: ma allora
l’invasione francese infistoliva questi morbi; e i giornali e gli atti e i
trattati collo stomachevole francesume esprimono l’invalsa gracilità
del pensiero.
Di sotto a questa rimbalzava il sentimento nazionale; e dacchè fu
stabilita la repubblica italiana, con Governo e magistrati nostrali, per
protesta contro il predominio francese, e perchè, avendo cose da
dire, bisognava pensare al come dirle, si favorì lo studio della lingua.
Fu allora ordinata un’edizione dei classici italiani, concepita
largamente, meschinamente eseguita; con irrazionale e imitatrice
scelta degli autori e dei testi, e inezia di prefazioni e note. Pure
l’impresa buttò in giro molti autori, peregrini dalle biblioteche; e se
non altro, all’uscire di ciascun volume, ne’ circoli e sulle gazzette
biascicavansi i nomi dimenticati del Firenzuola, del Cennino, del
Serdonati, del Varchi.
Allora fu proposto dall’Accademia italiana di «determinare lo stato
presente della lingua italiana e specialmente toscana, indicare le
cause che portare la possono a decadenza, e i mezzi per impedirla».
Toccò il premio al padre Antonio Cesari veronese (1828), che vi
combattè ad oltranza il Cesarotti, sebbene con fragili armi. Il Cesari,
innamorato de’ Trecentisti nostri, molti ne ristampò con migliorate
lezioni, e sempre intese a correggere la gonfiezza, l’affettazione, il
barbarismo, l’improprietà: ma come avviene nelle riazioni, de’
classici ne portò il culto all’idolatria, considerando oro schietto tutto
quello che apparteneva al Trecento, imitabile anche il Cinquecento
in quanto a quello si attenne; e, quasi si trattasse di testi rivelati, non
si credette in diritto di cernire fra le scritture, nè dubitò che una parte
fosse antiquata; l’aveano detto essi, dunque era buono; quanto alla
possibilità di secondare con voci e frasi loro il progresso delle
scienze moderne, egli accettava la sfida di tradurre l’Enciclopedia in
italiano pretto.
Con tali persuasioni tolse a ristampare il Vocabolario della Crusca,
aggiungendo un’infinità di termini e frasi ripescate ne’ classici. Il gran
numero di quelli che poi seguitarono quello spigolamento convince
che non richiede se non pazienza; ma il Cesari e i suoi collaboratori
vi buttarono col vaglio rancidumi, storpiamenti, errori che gli
accademici della Crusca aveano saviamente tralasciati, e non
all’intento che il Vocabolario giovasse agli scriventi attuali, ma per
impinguarlo, o al più perchè spiegasse gli autori antichi.
L’opera si prestava facilmente al riso, come chi si veste colle giubbe
dei nonni; e il Monti nel Poligrafo spassò il glorioso italo regno alle
spalle del buon prete. Eppure il Cesari in fatto di lingua potea
menare a scuola il Monti; e assai scritture lasciò di cara limpidezza,
avvicinantisi alla semplicità de’ Trecentisti, sebbene nessuna vada
netta da arcaismi e dal vezzo retorico d’incastrare una frase per
mostrare che la si sapeva [238]. Come i campi di biada dalle
gramigne, così vuolsi tenere mondata la lingua, mediante
l’intervenzione emendatrice dello scrittore; e all’arcaismo come
correttivo dell’imbarbarimento moderno ricorsero alcuni: ma questo
purismo astratto dava in fallo esagerando; e gli sbagli proprj del
Cesari o de’ suoi, dal bel mondo che ama generalizzare furono
imputati alla Crusca.
Nell’universale sovvertimento anche quest’accademia era stata
scossa e riformata [239], ed assegnato da Napoleone un annuo
premio di lire diecimila all’opera che essa dichiarerebbe più
italianamente scritta. Carlo Botta, che come piemontese mancava
dell’uso pratico, avea descritto la fondazione dell’indipendenza
americana con voci antiquate, alcune delle quali frantese egli stesso,
altre fu duopo dichiarare al fine del volume. Se prima condizione
d’un libro è l’essere intelligibile, non potea la Crusca approvare
questo musaico: ma ecco il bel mondo farle colpa di quello che era
giusta illazione dei dogmi sul progresso della lingua, da lei professati
non solo coll’aggregarsi i migliori scrittori della nazione, ma
coll’attribuire autorità di testo a sempre nuovi, ogni qualvolta
ristampò il Vocabolario.
Chi diviserà le vicende letterarie di quel tempo, avrà ad estendersi
sulle contese nate in proposito. Perocchè il premio fu diviso tra il
Micali per l’Italia avanti i Romani, il Niccolini per la Polissena, il
Rosini per le Nozze di Giove e Latona. I letterati del regno d’Italia
alzarono le grida contro il municipalismo di premiare soli toscani,
tacendo che nessun’opera lombarda si era presentata al concorso; e
cominciarono di qui le ire, che, quietato il turbine di guerra, vennero
a sfogarsi nella Proposta di aggiunte e correzioni al Vocabolario
della Crusca, intrapresa a Milano dal Monti. In questo convenivano
tutti gli elementi di felice riuscita; era cresciuto in paese ove il buon
italiano corre per le vie; avea fatto tesoro delle migliori maniere de’
classici; deliziavasi di Virgilio; cuculiando il Cesari come arcaico,
pareva dar ragione a chi la lingua scritta vuole avvicinare alla
parlata; laonde, affidatosi allo scrivere naturale, spiegò nella prosa
quella ricchezza ed eleganza che nella poesia, con capresterie tutte
vive rese ameno un trattato pedantesco, e Italia potè rallegrarsi
d’avere un altro insigne prosatore, merito assai più raro che quello di
buon poeta. Ma egli confondeva un’accademia, spesso fallibile, con
la lingua stessa; gli scrittori coi parlanti; affollava arguzie in luogo
d’argomenti; e soffiando nelle invidie municipali, resuscitava antiche
e irresolubili quistioni. Gli errori che apponeva alla Crusca, erano in
gran parte stati avvertiti dall’Ottonielli, dal Tassoni, da altri anche
membri dell’Accademia; molti risultavano da miglior lezione de’
classici e dal buon senso; non pochi riduceansi a quelle fisicherie,
che trova in qualunque libro chi si proponga unicamente di
censurarlo. Quanto alla teoria, se una può dedursene dal balzellante
raziocinio e dalle incoerenti applicazioni, esso preconizzava la lingua
cortigiana, scelta, letteraria, o comunque la denominino; che
insomma non conosce nè tempo nè luogo determinato, ma è il
meglio di quello che scrissero i buoni autori in tutta Italia.
La Proposta divenne arringo di elucubrazioni su tal proposito, molti
aspirando alla gloria d’associare il loro nome a quello del poeta più
lodato in Italia, molti a combatterlo. Giulio Perticari, genero di lui, con
una gravezza che parve maestà, e un accozzamento d’autorità che
simulava erudizione, rinfiancò le teorie del Napione, ripetè il
paradosso del Renouard che il nostro derivi dall’idioma della
Linguadoca ed entrambi da un idioma comune uscito dal
corrompersi del latino; per disgradare la Toscana sostenne che
l’italiano siasi parlato in Sicilia prima che colà, e all’uopo ne’ cumulati
esempj alterava il provenzale e l’antico siculo, per mostrarli conformi
al buon toscano; e ne conchiuse che nel Trecento scriveasi bene
dappertutto, e perciò il buon vulgare s’ha a dedurre dagli scrittori
d’ogni paese.
Ma questi scrittori si valsero forse dei dialetti natìi? o non cercarono
imitare il toscano? ed egli stesso non li considera migliori quanto più
s’avvicinano ai Toscani che scriveano come parlavano?
Quei che leggono solo per disannojarsi, e danno ragione all’ultimo
che parla o parla meglio, decretarono alla Proposta gli onori del
trionfo; trionfo che si riduceva a dichiarare spesso fallace, spesso
ignorante la Crusca. Ma alle teorie, ed ancor più alle applicazioni di
quella si opposero Niccolini, Rosini, Capponi, Biamonti, Urbano
Lampredi, Michele Colombo, il Montani, il Tommaseo; e ne originò
una guerra, dibattuta con vivacità, con passione, con pazienza, con
ingiurie, insomma con tutto fuorchè con quella filosofia che eleva le
quistioni ad un’altezza, nella cui prospettiva si smarriscono le
particolarità.
Quando il problema fu bene avviluppato, si disse risolto: ma non che
terminare, si era invelenita la quistione della lingua; e l’esempio del
Monti valse di scusa ad acrimonie inurbane e a quelle personalità da
piazza, che fanno ridere la plebaglia e velarsi il buon senso. Sul
modello del Monti ripigliò Giovanni Gherardini milanese il più vasto e
paziente esame che mai si facesse della Crusca; poi con aggiunte,
voluminose quanto il Vocabolario stesso, convinse che questo pozzo
dei testi è inesauribile. Il quale Vocabolario, quando appunto era
bersaglio a tante beffe, più volte si ristampò con variamenti,
correzioni, aggiunte; accompagnato da altri speciali d’alcun’arte, o
domestici, o di sinonimi; dove rimarranno memorabili, dopo i tentativi
del Grassi e del Romani, il Dizionario dei sinonimi del Tommaseo,
perchè contiene molto di più che mera grammatica, e il Prontuario
del Carena, perchè francamente si rivolse alla lingua parlata a
Firenze. Il Nannucci e il Galvani si affissero alle derivazioni
provenzali.
Altri intanto stillava alcune parti della grammatica; e il Puoti, il
Parenti, il Fornaciari, il Bolza, il Betti, il Mastrofini, l’epigrafista Muzzi,
lo Zaccari, l’Ambrosoli, il Franscini, il Bellisomi davano teoriche o
schieravano esempj: ma fa meraviglia l’incertezza delle loro regole,
le quali del resto non varrebbero che per una sintassi pallida e
astratta: nessuno ancora ci esibì una grammatica compiuta, nè
tampoco generalmente accettata sia per concetto filosofico, sia per
pratica applicazione. Alcuni rivolsero alle etimologie un’erudizione
più estesa, non più concludente, talchè vengono considerate nulla
meglio che esercizio e trastullo [240]. Intanto si rimane ancora indecisi
quali siano coloro che scrivono bene. L’Accademia della Crusca
sceglie i suoi membri in un modo che sembra fatto espresso per
isgarrare ogni criterio; scrittori stenti, retorici, arcaici collegando ad
altri limpidi, vivaci, toscani; badando all’impiego, alla dignità,
all’opinione; onorando della sua fraternità quegli appunto che
l’osteggiano. D’altra parte i premj suoi toccarono ad opere o di
nessun merito letterario come il Micali, o per simpatie come il Botta.

Conflicting Models For The Origin of Life 1St Edition Stoyan K Smoukov Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conflicting Models For The Origin of Life 1St Edition Stoyan K Smoukov Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conflicting Models for the Origin of Life

1st Edition Stoyan K. Smoukov

Astrobiology Perspectives on Life of the Universe

Series Editor: Richard Gordon and Joseph Seckbach

Wiley Global Headquarters

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Printed in the USA

Foreword, “Are There Men on the Moon?” by Winston S. Churchill xiii

Part I: Introduction to the Origin of Life Puzzle 1

3 Emergence, Construction, or Unlikely? Navigating the Space of Questions

Part II: Chemistry Approaches 65

5 Chemical Automata at the Origins of Life 89

Part III: Physics Approaches 175

Part IV: The Approach of Creating Life 279

12.4.2 Energy Compartmentation 316

Part V: When and Where Did Life Start? 327

15 Nucleotide Photochemistry on the Early Earth 369

17.5 Conclusion 440

“Are There Men on the Moon?”

1. Introduction to the Origin of Life Puzzle

4. The Approach of Creating Life

5. When and Where Did Life Start?

which could be a very small number.

1. Who’s on First? [0.1]

2. Where life started

Stoyan K. Smoukov, s.smoukov@qmul.ac.uk

Table 1 a = when Solar System formed (here, as in

Table 2 b = Age of Earth.

Table 3 c = when Moon formed after Earth formed,

Table 4 d = Initial day/night cycle after Moon formed.

Table 5 e = when Earth’s surface cooled to retain liquid water

Table 6 f = estimate of when life first appeared.

Table 7 g = f -e = 0.287 - 0.06 = number of day/night cycles available to abiogenesis h =

NoRCEL, Leeds, United Kingdom

National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece

*Corresponding author: sohan@sohanjheeta.com

Energy Products formed

issue as to which came first: chemolithoautotrophs or photolithoautotrophs will also be

1.2 Top-Down Approach—The Phylogenetic Tree of Life

You might also like