**Abiogenesis: The Spontaneous Emergence of Life from Chemistry**
--
>"It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.— But if (& oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, —light, heat, electricity &c present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."—Charles Darwin (Letter to J. D. Hooker, 1 February [1871])

The difference between living and non-living things is not as clearly defined as we once thought. Life is a point on a spectrum. There is a gradation between non-living and living things, and the lines are sometimes blurred. A living thing has a body, metabolism (the ability to consume things and use chemical processes to grow, heal, etc.), the ability to replicate or reproduce and pass on inheritable traits. All of these features of living things are possessed by some non-living chemical compounds. Certain non-living molecules behave almost as if they were living things.

*Chemical evolution* is the process whereby molecules that are left alone with an energy source interact with each other and spontaneously form more complex molecules. Certain molecules have the capacity to self-assemble into more complex molecules. Some molecules will self-assemble into hollow spheres, resembling the membrane of a living cell. Others will self-assembly into long columns that resemble DNA. Imagine these self-assembling molecules as Lego pieces that accidentally stick together when the Lego box is under pressure. Some of these molecules will naturally self-assemble into organic molecules. This is not biological evolution. This is not biology at all. This is chemistry.

*Universal selection theory* holds that natural selection via survival of the fittest can explain more than just biological evolution. Theorists in this field attempt to expand Darwinian theory into realms other than biology. When subatomic particles interact, the most stable interactions and combinations will survive. Unstable elements tend to fall apart or degrade. There are different types of chemical elements. Hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon are stable elements, but there are also unstable or *synthetic* elements. These unstable elements have a tendency to break down into more stable elements. Unstable elements tend to be subject to quick (at least, relatively quick) radioactive decay. Some elements will break down almost instantly, whereas others will break down over the course of millennia. The process through which stable elements tend to survive and thrive and unstable elements tend to "die off" is analogous to the process of natural selection that we see in living creatures. Molecules that are better fitted to survive are able to survive and less stable molecules "die off" or decay (i.e. break down into their more basic components). 

The *Miller-Urey experiment* recreated the conditions of the early Earth under laboratory conditions. Starting with water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen, and using electrical sparks to simulate lightning and a heat source to recreate early Earth conditions, basic chemical reactions spontaneously produced over 20 different amino acids in the lab, proving that the basic components that make up living things would have spontaneously emerged from chemistry under early Earth conditions. The experiment proved that organic matter does spontaneously occur in nature apart from living organisms.

In 1963, Krishna Bahadur synthesized a protocell in a laboratory. The protocell that spontaneously emerged in the lab is called *jeewanu*. Through photochemical reactions acting on simple organic and inorganic matter, Bahadur and his team of scientists, produced cell-like spheres that contained RNA-like molecules, amino acids, and carbohydrates. They also exhibited some basic metabolic capabilities (i.e. they consumed things and interacted with their environment). Other scientists have done experiments that proved that basic chemistry can spontaneously generate organic compounds with the ability to self-organize. (Cf. Jason P. Dworkin, David W. Deamer, Scott A. Sandford, and Louis J. Allamandola: [*Self-Assembling Amphiphilic Molecules: Synthesis in Simulated Interstellar/Precometary Ices*](https://www.jstor.org/stable/3054778?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) [in *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America*, Vol. 98, No. 3 (Jan. 30, 2001), pp. 815-819]) Rachel Armstrong and Martin Hanczyc were also able to spontaneously generate protocells in the lab using just five basic chemicals. The protocells that they produced had bodies, metabolism, and exhibited “behavior” (i.e. they interacted with each other in lifelike ways). Two of the molecules would “run away from” or “chase” each other, while other molecules would “dance” together. All of these varieties of protocells exhibit some of the key characteristics of life. They are not properly living organism because they do not reproduce or have any inheritable traits. Nevertheless, these proto-biological quasi-living compounds do suggest that life likely emerged from basic physics and chemistry.

<center><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dySwrhMQdX4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></center>

In the lab, scientists have been able to induce RNA enzymes to self-replicate and spontaneously synthesize other RNA molecules. Enzymes can also cross-replicate with partner enzymes, creating a spontaneous replication system bordering on a genetic system. An RNA molecules is a molecule that resemble half of a strand of DNA, without the other side. Picture a ladder that has been sawed in half right down the middle, with half of each step remaining. Each half step of the ladder is a T-shaped nucleotide. The backbone of the nucleotide molecules (the top bar of the T) bond to the backbones of other nucleotides, forming a half-ladder structure. The vertical axis of the nucleotide is called the base. The base of the nucleotides will form a loose bond with the bases of other nucleotides, but they “selectively” pair only with appropriate matches. Imagine the end of the nucleotide base as having a certain curve or shape to it. It will only pair up with another nucleotide if the shapes correlate right, the same way that a key must be shaped right to work a lock or a puzzle piece will only fit into the spot that matches its shape. If early Earth's chemistry was randomly producing organic molecules, as the Miller-Urey experiment suggests, then it is conceivable that puddles of random nucleotides would have been present on early Earth. If nucleotides happened to spontaneously arrange into RNA molecules and other nucleotides loosely bonded to the corresponding nucleotides on the RNA molecules (this is called base pairing), this would form a double strand of nucleotides in a ladder-structure. If the backbones of the second strand of nucleotides were to bond together and the loose bonds between the nucleotide bases are broken apart, you would be left with two strands of RNA or two half-ladder structures. Thus, RNA can, theoretically, spontaneously reproduce. Since the nucleotides on the RNA can only base pair with their corresponding type, there would be an analogue to heredity here. The new strand of RNA would have the exact inverse sequence of nucleotides from the original. Every other strand produced is, therefore, an exact copy of the original.

Researchers decided to put this hypothesis to the test and have actually been able to get RNA to self-replicate like this and evolve in the lab. If you place a strand of RNA in nucleotide-rich water, the free nucleotides will base pair with the nucleotides on the RNA. Reproduction, then, can occur entirely as a product of basic chemistry. If strands of RNA are left in water that lacks nucleotides, the RNA strand may fold over onto itself and some of its nucleotides may base pair with other nucleotides within the same strand of RNA. These folded RNA strands are called ribozymes. Ribozymes are molecules that can produce unique chemical reactions by interacting with their environment. The chemical reactions that they produce depend on their particular shape. Moreover, “errors” or *mutations* do occur in RNA replication, meaning that there is grounds for some sort of natural selection to occur here. For instance, a ribozyme that is shaped in a way that allows it to serve as a catalyst for chemical reactions that produce more nucleotides, would be able to create a nucleotides-rich environment for itself and would be able to reproduce more often, giving it a survival function. The spontaneous emergence and evolution of nucleotide-producing ribozymes has been observed in the lab. RNA molecules can be randomly produced through chemistry. These molecules can also be induced to self-replicate and evolve under laboratory conditions. The *RNA world hypothesis* suggests that life may have evolved from RNA molecules that self-replicated and developed survival functions due to basic chemistry and physics.

<center><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/K1xnYFCZ9Yg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></center>

The discovery of protocells and self-replicating molecules blurs the line between living and non-living things. Another grey area is viruses. Viruses are non-living organisms that lack metabolism and the ability to reproduce on their own, but they can behave like living organism when they come into contact with a living cell to use as a host. A virus is like a creepy non-living entity that spontaneously “comes to life” when it comes into contact with a living thing. Some viruses have the ability to insert their own genetic code into the DNA of their host cell. This means that viruses could potentially be a source of new genetic information and a catalyst for evolution, assuming they infect the right cell. Within a host cell, viruses have the ability to reproduce. Viruses also evolve through the process of natural selection.

Modern science suggests that life emerged from a gradual evolution from inorganic matter to organic matter to protocells and finally to living cells. Physicists, chemists, and biologists now have a decent understanding of how this process likely took place, although they do not yet know all the details. Life seems to have emerged as the result of self-replicating molecules evolving into ribosomes and the ribosomes getting stuck inside of protocells. The two quasi-living entities seem to have emerged independently and then to have gotten entangled; then they formed a symbiotic relationship. The cell walls became the house to shelter the ribosomes from the elements. The ability of ribosomes to manufacture proteins helped the protocells survive and thrive. But the ability of the cell as a whole to reproduce requires other structures to emerge, like DNA and DNA polymerase, so the emergence of life through random coincidence is probably rare. Nevertheless, we now know that all that is needed for life to emerge is a perfect storm of events that could all come about randomly through natural processes. While we have witnessed the emergence of proto-biological entities through chemical processes in the lab, we have never witnessed the spontaneous emergence of life. It is likely that the synchronicity needed for the emergence of life is just extremely rare. Nevertheless, we do know the elements needed for life; and we have witnessed all of them coming about through natural chemical processes, so it is definitely possible for such a synchronicity to occur. 

<center><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fgQLyqWaCbA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></center>

The notion that life emerged as simple single-celled organisms is substantiated by archeology and genetics. The oldest fossils on Earth are stromatolites, likely formed by colonies of unicellular algea. Geneticists have isolated 355 genes that are shared by all known living organisms. Since genes are inherited, it follows that all living organism share some common ancestor that passed on those 355 genes to us. That common ancestor is called *LUCA*, the *last universal common ancestor*, and would have been a single-celled organism. The fact that we share genes with all other living organisms, and that genes are passed down to us from our ancestors, indicates that we all evolved from some common ancestor. And since simple single-celled organisms are the oldest creatures found in the fossil record, it seems probable that *LUCA* was a single-celled organism. This matches up with what scientists have learned about possible paths to life from chemistry. Protocells, self-assembling molecules, and self-replicating molecules seem to be the most likely entities to have developed into lifeforms. And single-celled organisms seem to be just a unique combination of those three proto-biological molecular forms. The evidence suggests that simple lifeforms evolved from quasi-living organic molecules, and that the diversity of species we see today evolved from a single unicelled common ancestor.

**The Evolution of Language**
--
Terence McKenna once suggested that the habit of consuming psychedelics might be the main reason that humans advanced so far beyond the other species on our planet. Over a relatively short period of time, humans made huge leaps forward in evolution and development. It is universally recognized that the characteristics that distinguish humans form lower animals are the capacity for language―the ability to think in terms of symbols and representations, form a lot of different sounds and assign meanings to them, the ability to assign meaning to visual representations, and communicate ideas to other members of the species through such verbal and visual symbolic representation―and ultimately to develop systems of thought, like philosophy and religion. McKenna proposed that the best explanation of the development of language and sophistication among humans is what he calls the *stoned ape theory* of human evolution. McKenna suggests that the consumption of psychoactive substances, such as psilocybin mushrooms (aka magic mushrooms) is the most plausible explanation for the development of human self-consciousness and language.

<center><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hOtLJwK7kdk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></center>

At some point in the evolutionary transition from *homo erectus* to the higher hominids―such as *denisova hominin* (denisovans), *homo neanderthalensis* (neanderthals), and *homo sapiens* (humans)―, language developed. Denisovans, neanderthals, and humans were very similar species. They were actually so closely related that they could reproduce together. Modern humans even contain some denisovan and neanderthal DNA, because our ancestors copulated with denisovans and neanderthals. But our cousins the denisovans and neanderthals have gone extinct. Humans did not evolve from denisovans and neanderthals, but all three evolved from a common ancestor.

Evidence suggests that denisovans and neanderthals never developed the capacity for language. This may actually be the reason that denisovans and neanderthals went extinct while modern humans survived to the present time. Neanderthals did not have a clear division of labor between males and females, while primitive humans did. In human hunter-gatherer societies, men hunted while women cared for the young and gathered. This division of labor between the sexes was probably facilitated by language. Early humans had developed the ability to communicate with one another and specify roles for different members of the family/community. The neanderthals never developed a good division of labor. Women participated in the hunt, just like the men, so meat was the primary source of food. With the division of labor in primitive human societies, the women gathered grains, berries, etc. This meant that humans had a more diverse food supply. If animals became scarce, humans had other sources of food. Also, humans developed bows and arrows and more advanced weapons, whereas neanderthals only used basic spears. The ability to manufacture and use bows and arrows is likely a result of language. Humans were able to communicate to other humans and teach them how to make and use such weapons. If neanderthals and denisovans lacked language, they would have had a very difficult time trying to teach each other how to build such things. They would only have been able to teach and learn more basic skills, which do not require verbal communication.

There is little doubt that war and violence was just as common among primitive humans as it is today. If neanderthals and denisovans lacked language and, consequently, were unable to develop more advanced weapons, humans would have had the technological advantage in any physical conflict. Also, humans had the strategic advantage of being able to communicate, organize, and plan. Language would have allowed primitive humans to fight real wars, whereas denisovans and neanderthals would not have been able to organize warriors to fight, nor could they produce weapons, which means that primitive humans would have had no problem conquering them, plundering their resources, and subjugating them. It is quite likely that primitive humans might have even kept neanderthals as slaves or pets. The survival of humans and the extinction of the other higher hominids is most likely due to the human capacity for language and sophisticated communication, which allowed humans to organize better in order to survive.

Denisovans, neanderthals, and humans all evolved from a common ancestor. Humans evolved in Africa, whereas denisovans and neanderthals evolved in Asia and Europe respectively. The three species are closely related―cousins, as it were. Modern humans emerged when our ancestors were forced out of the forests and into the savanna. It is likely that climate change lead to the emergence of vast grasslands or plains. As the environment changed, our ancestors moved from living in woodlands to living in grassy lands with only 40% tree coverage. Bipedalism and the ability to stand upright became a tremendous advantage because taller individuals were able to see farther in the new environment and thus could detect predators more easily. At the same time, our ancestors would have begun interacting with new species that they would not have previously encountered. Our ancestors moved out onto the plains and began to eat buffalo. The consumption of meat allowed them to develop larger brains. McKenna points out that the African savanna was also home to the psilocybin mushroom, which grows in the fecal matter of bovine animals on the grasslands. If early humans were living on the grasslands and eating buffalo, then it is virtually guaranteed that some of them would have consumed the mushrooms that were growing on the grasslands. The consumption of magic mushrooms is, according to McKenna's *stoned ape theory*, what created the impetus for the development of language.

There are three psychedelic experiences caused by the consumption of psilocybin mushrooms which seem to be likely to explain the origin of language and of religion/philosophy. These three psychedelic experiences are: *glossolalia*, *synesthesia*, and *apocalypsis*. Glossolalia is the phenomenon commonly known as "speaking in tongues." Under the influence of psychedelics, people often start "speaking in tongues." The person under the influence of the drug will start uttering random syllables and sounds. Synesthesia is the phenomenon of associating unrelated things as the result of new cognitive pathways being opened up under the influence of psychedelics. Under the influence of psychedelics, individuals who experience synesthesia will associate sounds with ideas, colors with sensations, shapes with sounds, etc. These two phenomena are likely what sparked the creation of language.

<center><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3iQLfCALknA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></center>

It is quite easy to imagine how people who had experienced synesthesia and glossolalia, having learned to associate sounds with ideas and having discovered the wide range of sounds that can be produced by the human vocal cords, might have begun to develop primitive language. Individuals who consume psychedelics are permanently impacted by their psychedelic experience. Psychedelic experiences are profound and tend to have a lasting impact. If two primitive humans consumed psychedelic mushrooms and experienced synesthesia and glossolalia, they would both have learned how to associate sounds with ideas. They would begin to assign meanings to sounds and teach each other the association. Language would begin to develop quite quickly. Even rudimentary language skills would have allowed primitive humans to communicate and organize for the hunt better than other hominids. The division of labor would quickly arise, as the male tells the female to gather grain or berries while the men go to hunt. The development of language gave our ancestors a huge evolutionary advantage. The consumption of psychedelics also helps improve eyesight. A person on mushrooms has improved "edge detection" in comparison to a sober person, so a "stoned ape" on the savanna would also have been able to spot predators more easily. At the same time, psychedelics also cause apocalypsis or revelatory visions. People who consume psychedelics tend to have visions and religious experiences. Primitive religion was shamanic in nature. The shaman or "medicine man" or "witch doctor" would consume psychoactive substances in order to have such a religious experience. The individual who consumes a psychoactive substance becomes a psychonaut. He has a shamanic experience and explores altered states of consciousness. Visions and religious experiences can be had by any individual; all they have to do is ingest a psychoactive substance. The shaman reflects on his psychedelic experience and attempts to derive meaning from it. The shaman or psychonaut becomes a "prophet" when he attempts to communicate his experience to sober people. Religion is a psychedelic phenomenon. The psychonaut attempts to interpret his experience and understand it. He derives meaning from it, and attempts to interpret the world in light of that experience. Thus, the shaman is looked to for answers to the perplexing questions of mankind. He attempts to explain the meaning of life, develop systems of ethics, and primitive religion serves also as primitive philosophy and science. Ultimately, the shamans became priests, hoarding the secret *gnosis* derived from psychedelic experience, and used their reputation for doing magic in order to establish systems of dominance and to create artificial hierarchies.

<center><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZnEKoFrx1rI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></center>

It appears that we owe all the progress of mankind to the fact that some primitive humans took up the habit of getting high by consuming psychedelic mushrooms on the African savanna 200,000 years ago. From that first leap forward with the development of language, in a relatively short period of time, we were able to go from being dumb apes to building and piloting airplanes and rockets, travelling to the moon, creating computers, building robots, and being able to instantly communicating to one another anywhere on the planet through telephone and internet. At the same time, the psychedelic experience is also what made humans ethical creatures. 

If there is life on other planets, it is probable that the lifeforms might never have developed language or philosophy, and thus would be indistinguishable from the lower animals in terms of development. If the consumption of psychedelics is the impulse for the development of language, philosophy, and ultimately of scientific thinking, then it follows that intelligent life "out there" in the universe probably would only develop if (a) extra-terrestrial animals had evolved in such a way that their biology allowed for them to have psychedelic experiences and (b) psychoactive substances that are not totally lethal happen to be in existence on their planet in forms that the extra-terrestrial animals would be likely to consume. Additionally, for language to develop, the extra-terrestrial species would also need to be evolved in such a way that their biology permits them to speak or write, or at least do something analogous thereto. If human vocal cords had not allowed us to make such a wide range of noises, and had our range of finger motion not been suited for drawing or carving/sculpting, humans would never have been able to develop language. It seems, then, that a perfect storm was needed in order to produce language. The emergence of life from basic chemistry seems to require a perfect storm; so does the evolution from ordinary animals to "intelligent life." We do not know how likely it is that life developed in other places in the universe. It seems probable that life might have emerged elsewhere in the universe. However, it seems very likely that extra-terrestrial animal species would not have advanced to the level that mankind has. I don't think that earthlings are alone in the universe, but I do think that humans are probably extremely unique. There is probably no other "intelligent life" out there. If intelligent life is going to emerge elsewhere in the universe, I think it will need the help of human intervention.