What do you think?
Rate this book
The Origins of Life and the Universe
The Origins of Life and the Universe is the culmination of a university science professor's search for understanding and is based on his experiences teaching the fundamental issues of physics, chemistry, and biology in the classroom. What is life? Where did it come from? How can understanding the origins of life on Earth help us understand the origins of the universe, and vice versa? These are questions that have occupied us all. This is a book, then, about the beginning of things―of the universe, matter, stars, and planetary systems, and finally, of life itself―topics of profound interest that are rarely considered together.
After surveying prescientific accounts of the origins of life, the book examines the concepts of modern physics and cosmology, in particular the two pillars of modern physics, relativity and quantum theory, and how they can be applied to the Big Bang model of the creation of the universe. The author then considers molecular genetics and DNA, the famed building block of life. In addition to assessing various hypotheses concerning the appearance of the first bacterial cells and their evolution into more complex eukaryotic cells, this section explains how "protocells" may have started a kind of integrated metabolism and how horizontal gene transfer may have speeded up evolution. Finally, the book discusses the possibility that life did not originate on planet Earth but first appeared on other solar planets, or perhaps in other star systems. How would such a possibility affect our understanding of the meaning of life, or of its ultimate fate in the universe? The book ends as it begins, with profound questions and penetrating answers, a state-of-the-art guide to unlocking the scientific mysteries of life and matter.
After surveying prescientific accounts of the origins of life, the book examines the concepts of modern physics and cosmology, in particular the two pillars of modern physics, relativity and quantum theory, and how they can be applied to the Big Bang model of the creation of the universe. The author then considers molecular genetics and DNA, the famed building block of life. In addition to assessing various hypotheses concerning the appearance of the first bacterial cells and their evolution into more complex eukaryotic cells, this section explains how "protocells" may have started a kind of integrated metabolism and how horizontal gene transfer may have speeded up evolution. Finally, the book discusses the possibility that life did not originate on planet Earth but first appeared on other solar planets, or perhaps in other star systems. How would such a possibility affect our understanding of the meaning of life, or of its ultimate fate in the universe? The book ends as it begins, with profound questions and penetrating answers, a state-of-the-art guide to unlocking the scientific mysteries of life and matter.
- GenresScience
248 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2003
1 person is currently reading
23 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 1, 2024
A GENETICIST TAKES A “NATURALISTIC” PERSPECTIVE ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE, ETC.
Author (and professor of Genetics at Washington State University) Paul F. Lurquin wrote in the Preface of this 2003 book, “Student interest in my [undergrad course] Origins of Life suggests that the general public… would be interested in a synopsis and synthesis of all these discoveries---hence this book. Since older professors, nearing the end of their careers, have the liberty … I decided to organize my course notes into this book and have fun writing it… My main objective while writing this book was to show that the logic of science can be used to make deep sense of the world, from the creation of the universe can be used to make deep sense of the world, from the creation of the universe to the creation of life and its diversification.” (Pg. xi)
In the first chapter, he says, “These two great scientists, [Steven] Weinberg the physicist… and [Jacques] Monod the biologist… seem to speak in concert; there is no imperative for the universe to exist, or is there one for the existence of life, including that of humans… These two men lay bare the stupefying yet exhilarating recognition that there is no design in the universe. At the same time, there is a great sense of freedom and responsibility that this thrusts upon us. There IS a human imperative, but it does not originate outside of us; we have created this imperative ourselves. We must no complete our own destiny: our self-imposed search for the origin of the universe and that of life. These are the two deepest questions that science can ask and perhaps answer.” (Pg. 13)
He notes, “the standard model for the creation of the universe is very solid. Quantum physics and relativity provide consistent explanations regarding the creation of space-time, matter, forces, and radiation. Inflation seems to explain the properties of the universe as we know it today. However, most people want to know what happened at the Big Bang and what caused it… Unfortunately, no simple explanation can be provided yet. What happened at time zero and how it happened are two questions at the ultimate frontiers for science… the following are some propositions [theorists] have devised: First, the universe at the Big Bang may not have had a size of zero…. Next, the uncertainty principle allows the universe to have been created from nothing!... theorists are speculating on the properties of the universe around the Planck time and have some up with models describing ‘bubble universes’ (or ‘multiverse’) in which our own universe is but a corner of a total cosmos containing multiple, isolated universes. These bubble universes could be seen as tunneling out of preexisting universes.” (Pg. 49-50)
He says of the Miller/Urey experiment, “There are indeed difficulties… First, most scientists now concur that Earth’s atmosphere did not contain significant amounts of hydrogen, methane, and ammonia for the length of time sufficient to allow the formation or a primordial broth based on these compounds… No ammonia and methane are emitted by modern volcanoes. Therefore Earth’s primitive atmosphere may have been much less reducing than imagined by Miller.” (Pg. 97)
He summarizes, “We do not know how the building blocks of life appeared on Earth. They may have originated from organic material present in interstellar clouds, from meteorites and comets, from hydrothermal vents, from a reducing atmosphere, from all four, or form sources we have not yet imagined… We have several scenarios but we do not know which one or ones prevailed.” (Pg. 116)
He states, “The evolution of life on Earth clearly proceeded well beyond the appearance of eukaryotic cells. We are here to prove it!... in many ways, what happened after the first eukaryotic cells appeared I relatively easy to explain. In a nutshell, multicellularity was achieved, then cell differentiation into different organs burst into existence, followed by the evolution of sex, animals, plants, and humans. This took only about 1 billion years…” (Pg. 152-153)
He suggests, “life could have originated elsewhere in the solar system and could have been imported to Earth. In fact, the 6 years spent in orbit by the Long Duration Exposure Facility correspond to a trip from Saturn to Earth. The interstellar panspermia concept seems more far-fetched but not totally impossible. It has bene calculated that extrasolar meteorites could make the trip to the solar system in… a long time to spend in deep space, but a time still compatible with spore survival, provided they are well shielded by rocky material.” (Pg. 117)
He goes on, “Thus the idea of panspermia has not been abandoned, even though the experiments just described can never prove that it happened… some distinguished scientists think that it is still a valid hypothesis, in particular in light of all the great difficulties associated with the production of organic molecules on prebiotic Earth and the relatively short duration of an RNA world. Panspermia does not, however, answer the basic question, if life did not appear from nothing here on Earth, how did it happen elsewhere?... The fact that the interior of a Martian meteorite remained relatively cool upon entering Earth’s atmosphere has given some the idea that microorganisms could have traveled from Mars to Earth and perhaps seeded it… But then, the seeding of Earth by Mars depends on the presence of past or present life on that planet. Is there, or was there, life on Mars and perhaps elsewhere in our star system?” (Pg. 158)
He adds in Appendix 5, “In this book I have used a fully materialistic standpoint to explain what science knows about the origin of the cosmos and of life. This approach stems not only from my own philosophical bent but also from my belief that science and religion should not mix. I think this is an attitude espoused by an enormous majority of scientists. In this view, whether the cosmos and life have a purpose becomes largely irrelevant to the scientist searching for knowledge; we are here to study nature with our brains and scientific tools, not to decide whether God exists. Once in a while, however, some scientists and other thinkers have crossed the science-religion barrier, usually to defend the notion that nature itself suggests the presence of a deity.” (Pg. 183)
He continues, “Many … examples exist to show that cellular functions are far from perfect and must have developed from ancestral forms. However… modern science cannot prove any better than before the existence of a divine designer. As the famous theoretical physicist---and devout Christian---Freeman Dyson has written in relation to the inflamed debates between Thomas Huxley… and bishop Wilberforce… ‘Looking back on the battle a century later, we can see that Darwin and Huxley were right.’ … Interestingly, Dyson is one of the few scientists I know of who explicitly states that the cosmos of life do not make sense without the existence of God. However… Dyson does not espouse the idea that God is some type of engineer who mapped out the details of the Big Bang and designed living organisms to make them perfect… For Dyson, the universe cannot be an accident---that is, a chance event… However, Dyson makes it very clear that this is as far as science can go. For him the existence of a world soul (God) is a question that belongs to religion and not to science. Dyson the Christian does believe in a world soul, however, and has thus gone beyond the threshold that Dyson the physicist could not cross.” (Pg. 185)
He adds, “In contrast… the late French biologists Jacques Monod takes a strict materialist position… Note that Monod POSTULATES that nature is objective, whereas, in a sense, Dyson POSTULATES that the laws of physics are not accidental. These positions are irreconcilable, and … in the realm of science, a Dysonian postulate cannot be maintained, as he himself has recognized… This is not to say that such deep and difficult questions should not be raised… Some will think they know the answers, and others will disagree. Forever.” (Pg. 186)
This book will be of keen interest to those looking for naturalistic reviews of such topics.
Author (and professor of Genetics at Washington State University) Paul F. Lurquin wrote in the Preface of this 2003 book, “Student interest in my [undergrad course] Origins of Life suggests that the general public… would be interested in a synopsis and synthesis of all these discoveries---hence this book. Since older professors, nearing the end of their careers, have the liberty … I decided to organize my course notes into this book and have fun writing it… My main objective while writing this book was to show that the logic of science can be used to make deep sense of the world, from the creation of the universe can be used to make deep sense of the world, from the creation of the universe to the creation of life and its diversification.” (Pg. xi)
In the first chapter, he says, “These two great scientists, [Steven] Weinberg the physicist… and [Jacques] Monod the biologist… seem to speak in concert; there is no imperative for the universe to exist, or is there one for the existence of life, including that of humans… These two men lay bare the stupefying yet exhilarating recognition that there is no design in the universe. At the same time, there is a great sense of freedom and responsibility that this thrusts upon us. There IS a human imperative, but it does not originate outside of us; we have created this imperative ourselves. We must no complete our own destiny: our self-imposed search for the origin of the universe and that of life. These are the two deepest questions that science can ask and perhaps answer.” (Pg. 13)
He notes, “the standard model for the creation of the universe is very solid. Quantum physics and relativity provide consistent explanations regarding the creation of space-time, matter, forces, and radiation. Inflation seems to explain the properties of the universe as we know it today. However, most people want to know what happened at the Big Bang and what caused it… Unfortunately, no simple explanation can be provided yet. What happened at time zero and how it happened are two questions at the ultimate frontiers for science… the following are some propositions [theorists] have devised: First, the universe at the Big Bang may not have had a size of zero…. Next, the uncertainty principle allows the universe to have been created from nothing!... theorists are speculating on the properties of the universe around the Planck time and have some up with models describing ‘bubble universes’ (or ‘multiverse’) in which our own universe is but a corner of a total cosmos containing multiple, isolated universes. These bubble universes could be seen as tunneling out of preexisting universes.” (Pg. 49-50)
He says of the Miller/Urey experiment, “There are indeed difficulties… First, most scientists now concur that Earth’s atmosphere did not contain significant amounts of hydrogen, methane, and ammonia for the length of time sufficient to allow the formation or a primordial broth based on these compounds… No ammonia and methane are emitted by modern volcanoes. Therefore Earth’s primitive atmosphere may have been much less reducing than imagined by Miller.” (Pg. 97)
He summarizes, “We do not know how the building blocks of life appeared on Earth. They may have originated from organic material present in interstellar clouds, from meteorites and comets, from hydrothermal vents, from a reducing atmosphere, from all four, or form sources we have not yet imagined… We have several scenarios but we do not know which one or ones prevailed.” (Pg. 116)
He states, “The evolution of life on Earth clearly proceeded well beyond the appearance of eukaryotic cells. We are here to prove it!... in many ways, what happened after the first eukaryotic cells appeared I relatively easy to explain. In a nutshell, multicellularity was achieved, then cell differentiation into different organs burst into existence, followed by the evolution of sex, animals, plants, and humans. This took only about 1 billion years…” (Pg. 152-153)
He suggests, “life could have originated elsewhere in the solar system and could have been imported to Earth. In fact, the 6 years spent in orbit by the Long Duration Exposure Facility correspond to a trip from Saturn to Earth. The interstellar panspermia concept seems more far-fetched but not totally impossible. It has bene calculated that extrasolar meteorites could make the trip to the solar system in… a long time to spend in deep space, but a time still compatible with spore survival, provided they are well shielded by rocky material.” (Pg. 117)
He goes on, “Thus the idea of panspermia has not been abandoned, even though the experiments just described can never prove that it happened… some distinguished scientists think that it is still a valid hypothesis, in particular in light of all the great difficulties associated with the production of organic molecules on prebiotic Earth and the relatively short duration of an RNA world. Panspermia does not, however, answer the basic question, if life did not appear from nothing here on Earth, how did it happen elsewhere?... The fact that the interior of a Martian meteorite remained relatively cool upon entering Earth’s atmosphere has given some the idea that microorganisms could have traveled from Mars to Earth and perhaps seeded it… But then, the seeding of Earth by Mars depends on the presence of past or present life on that planet. Is there, or was there, life on Mars and perhaps elsewhere in our star system?” (Pg. 158)
He adds in Appendix 5, “In this book I have used a fully materialistic standpoint to explain what science knows about the origin of the cosmos and of life. This approach stems not only from my own philosophical bent but also from my belief that science and religion should not mix. I think this is an attitude espoused by an enormous majority of scientists. In this view, whether the cosmos and life have a purpose becomes largely irrelevant to the scientist searching for knowledge; we are here to study nature with our brains and scientific tools, not to decide whether God exists. Once in a while, however, some scientists and other thinkers have crossed the science-religion barrier, usually to defend the notion that nature itself suggests the presence of a deity.” (Pg. 183)
He continues, “Many … examples exist to show that cellular functions are far from perfect and must have developed from ancestral forms. However… modern science cannot prove any better than before the existence of a divine designer. As the famous theoretical physicist---and devout Christian---Freeman Dyson has written in relation to the inflamed debates between Thomas Huxley… and bishop Wilberforce… ‘Looking back on the battle a century later, we can see that Darwin and Huxley were right.’ … Interestingly, Dyson is one of the few scientists I know of who explicitly states that the cosmos of life do not make sense without the existence of God. However… Dyson does not espouse the idea that God is some type of engineer who mapped out the details of the Big Bang and designed living organisms to make them perfect… For Dyson, the universe cannot be an accident---that is, a chance event… However, Dyson makes it very clear that this is as far as science can go. For him the existence of a world soul (God) is a question that belongs to religion and not to science. Dyson the Christian does believe in a world soul, however, and has thus gone beyond the threshold that Dyson the physicist could not cross.” (Pg. 185)
He adds, “In contrast… the late French biologists Jacques Monod takes a strict materialist position… Note that Monod POSTULATES that nature is objective, whereas, in a sense, Dyson POSTULATES that the laws of physics are not accidental. These positions are irreconcilable, and … in the realm of science, a Dysonian postulate cannot be maintained, as he himself has recognized… This is not to say that such deep and difficult questions should not be raised… Some will think they know the answers, and others will disagree. Forever.” (Pg. 186)
This book will be of keen interest to those looking for naturalistic reviews of such topics.
February 25, 2018
The Origins of Life and the Universe was a pretty good book. It was dry at parts and a little unfocused overall, and I think it could've used more tying together. But I like Lurquin's motivation and intent and it was still a good read.
March 25, 2024
It's a textbook but very knowledgeable.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews