394
E. J. Brändas
1 Introduction
The mystery of the origin of life and the physical basis of evolution has always been
a profound theme in the history of science. Yet, from Darwin’s “warm little pond”
1
to the famous Miller-Urey experiments [1–3], the scientific deliberations about the
plausibility of abiogenesis, i.e. life arising from non-living matter, and habitually
contemplated by leading authorities on the subject, has in a deeper sense been peculiarly disguised in the public debate. Granting that the conceivable possibility of a
prebiotic reducing atmosphere and its impact on the spontaneous emergence of life
supporting molecular complexes, have repeatedly been discussed at length, see e.g.
[4] for a recent update, there is nonetheless a befalling lack of critical discussions
between leading scientific thinkers regarding the key issue whether a complex enough
system would be considered alive or not and furthermore that organic compounds
could without mediation lead to live organisms.
Now, Charles Darwin himself was reluctant to discuss this issue, since he insisted
that the question of spontaneous generation was not manageable by the existing scientific understanding of the day. Nevertheless, he seems to have accepted the concurrent
Victorian archebiosis-view of life, originating from non-living materials, writing in
his notebook [1]: The intimate relation of Life with laws of chemical combination,
& the universality of latter render spontaneous generation not improbable.
Retrospectively the application of the second law of thermodynamics, although
not preventing the emergence of modern biology as a genuine discipline, did impart
further stumbling blocks since it revealed that spontaneous generation of biological
life processes turns out to be highly improbable. The illustrious sage of science, John
Desmond Bernal,
2 when asked by Sir William Bragg, whether viruses were alive or
not, replied that he would rather not say [5], then quoting a colleague Life is the
mode of action of proteins, a credo reflecting many research programmes before
the appearance of the double helix. The puzzle of life’s origin nevertheless stuck
with him for the rest of his life, and he devoted considerable time and writings to
it [6], settling more or less for the plausibility of the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis
[7–9] while advancing alongside his clay-life idea later refined in the Cairns-Smith
hypothesis [10].
Since the conclusions from the vital experiments of Pasteur, that life can only
originate from life, a position also held by the prominent physicist W. Thomson, as
mentioned by Oparin [8], paved the way for the theory of Panspermia and later work
on cosmic intelligence, see in particular the criticism of Darwinism as expressed in
the controversial work Evolution from Space [11]. The ensuing polemic that followed
and the rumoured bad manners of the senior author is said to have contributed to the
exclusion of Sir Fred Hoyle from a deserved share of the 1983 Nobel Prize for his
leading role in developing the theory of nucleo-synthesis in the stars.
1 See e.g. an interesting discussion of Darwin’s stance on spontaneous generation in [1].
2 The story is quoted in Brown’s Bernal biography, see Ref. [5].
E. J. Brändas
1 Introduction
The mystery of the origin of life and the physical basis of evolution has always been
a profound theme in the history of science. Yet, from Darwin’s “warm little pond”
1
to the famous Miller-Urey experiments [1–3], the scientific deliberations about the
plausibility of abiogenesis, i.e. life arising from non-living matter, and habitually
contemplated by leading authorities on the subject, has in a deeper sense been peculiarly disguised in the public debate. Granting that the conceivable possibility of a
prebiotic reducing atmosphere and its impact on the spontaneous emergence of life
supporting molecular complexes, have repeatedly been discussed at length, see e.g.
[4] for a recent update, there is nonetheless a befalling lack of critical discussions
between leading scientific thinkers regarding the key issue whether a complex enough
system would be considered alive or not and furthermore that organic compounds
could without mediation lead to live organisms.
Now, Charles Darwin himself was reluctant to discuss this issue, since he insisted
that the question of spontaneous generation was not manageable by the existing scientific understanding of the day. Nevertheless, he seems to have accepted the concurrent
Victorian archebiosis-view of life, originating from non-living materials, writing in
his notebook [1]: The intimate relation of Life with laws of chemical combination,
& the universality of latter render spontaneous generation not improbable.
Retrospectively the application of the second law of thermodynamics, although
not preventing the emergence of modern biology as a genuine discipline, did impart
further stumbling blocks since it revealed that spontaneous generation of biological
life processes turns out to be highly improbable. The illustrious sage of science, John
Desmond Bernal,
2 when asked by Sir William Bragg, whether viruses were alive or
not, replied that he would rather not say [5], then quoting a colleague Life is the
mode of action of proteins, a credo reflecting many research programmes before
the appearance of the double helix. The puzzle of life’s origin nevertheless stuck
with him for the rest of his life, and he devoted considerable time and writings to
it [6], settling more or less for the plausibility of the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis
[7–9] while advancing alongside his clay-life idea later refined in the Cairns-Smith
hypothesis [10].
Since the conclusions from the vital experiments of Pasteur, that life can only
originate from life, a position also held by the prominent physicist W. Thomson, as
mentioned by Oparin [8], paved the way for the theory of Panspermia and later work
on cosmic intelligence, see in particular the criticism of Darwinism as expressed in
the controversial work Evolution from Space [11]. The ensuing polemic that followed
and the rumoured bad manners of the senior author is said to have contributed to the
exclusion of Sir Fred Hoyle from a deserved share of the 1983 Nobel Prize for his
leading role in developing the theory of nucleo-synthesis in the stars.
1 See e.g. an interesting discussion of Darwin’s stance on spontaneous generation in [1].
2 The story is quoted in Brown’s Bernal biography, see Ref. [5].