11,00 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: tredition
- Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
- Sprache: Englisch
During the nearly 4 billion years-old history of life on earth, the mechanisms of evolution were linked to natural selection and organic life. By creating artificial intelligence, humans could actually replace natural selection by intelligent design. The looming transhumanism, the resurrecting monster of eugenics and the constitution of the interface between the world of humans and the world of machines must not be surrendered to the fantasies of omnipotence of super-rich and mighty persons.
Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:
Seitenzahl: 320
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2021
Ähnliche
Eric Markhoff
Evolution, Eugenics and Transhumanism
© 2021 Eric Markhoff
Verlag und Druck: tredition GmbH, Halenreie 40-44, 22359 Hamburg
ISBN
Paperback:
978-3-347-31842-7
Hardcover:
978-3-347-31843-4
e-Book:
978-3-347-31844-1
Das Werk, einschließlich seiner Teile, ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages und des Autors unzulässig. Dies gilt insbesondere für die elektronische oder sonstige Vervielfältigung, Übersetzung, Verbreitung und öffentliche Zugänglichmachung.
INHALTSVERZEICHNIS
1. Prologue
Mechanisms of selection in economy and trade
2. The Evolution of species
Darwinism and Lamarckism
What means successful in evolution?
3. Right from the beginning
The dawn of life
Stable, self reproducing molecular structures
First traces of life on earth
Emergence of multicellular life
The cambric explosion of life
Exkurs: The precambrian explosion of life
The Chordata
Water and Land Animals
The Invention of the Egg (Amniots)
Exkurs: The development of the continents between the “invention“ of the egg (350 million years ago) and the extinction of the dinosaurs (66 million years ago)
The Rise of the Mammals
Exkurs: Paleocene-Eocene-Thermal-Maximum (PETM), 56 Millionen years ago
Old and New World Monkeys
4. History of Human Evolution
How Knowledge on the History of Human Evolution accrues
The (rather useless) ”Missing Link“ Concept
Splitters and Lumpers
The Last Common Ancestor (of human and chimpanzee)
Exkurs: Pre-humans (before Australopithecus)
Graecopithecus freybergi (Age 7,2 million years, site Greece)
Sahelanthropus tchadensis (6-7 million years, site Chad)
Ororin tugenensis (6 million years, site Kenya)
Ardipithecus kadabba (5.6 million years, site: Afar Depression, Ethiopia)
Ardipithecus ramidus (4,4 million years, site: Afar Triangle, Ethiopia)
Australopithecines: The Southern Apes (or rather Humans?)
The Genus Paranthropus
Australopithecus anamensis (4.2-3.9 million years, sites: East Africa)
Australopithecus afarensis (3.8-2.9 million years, sites: East Africa)
Australopithecus africanus (3.0-2.1 million years, sites: South Africa)
Australopithecus garhi (around 2.5 million years ago, site: Ethiopia)
Australopithecus sediba (1.95-1.78 million years, site: South Africa)
Australopithecus bahrelghazali (3.5-3.0 million years, site: Chad)
The Genus Homo
Exkurs: Species oft he genus Homo, who were not contemporaries of Homo sapiens (Homo rudolfensis, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster)
Homo rudolfensis (2.5-1.5 million years, sites: Kenya, Ethiopia, Malawi)
Homo habilis (2.1-1.5 million years sites: Tanzania, Kenya, Ethiopia, South Africa)
Homo ergaster (1.9-1.4 million years)
Homo erectus (1.9 million – 70.000 years ago)
Homo naledi (0.3 million years ago)
Homo heidelbergensis (0.7-0.2 million years)
Homo antecessor (780.000 years)
The Contemporaries of Modern Man
Homo floresiensis („Hobbit“)
Homo neanderthalensis (300.000-30.000 years ago)
What caused the disappearance of the Neanderthals?
Twelve speculative essays to explain the extinction of the Neanderthal
1. Homo sapiens violently replace Homo neanderthalensis (genocide, species-homicide)
2. Volcanic Erruptions
3. Homo sapiens domesticated Animals and cooperated with Wolfs when hunting
4. Homo sapiens could have been more skillful Hunters
5. Sharing of Tasks between Sexes and Age groups may have made the Organisation of Homo sapiens Groups more efficient than those of the Neanderthals
6. Neanderthals could have had lower Cognitive Abilities
7. Homo sapiens collective Believe in Non-objectiviable Entities could have brought about an Advantage for achieving Common Goals
9. Weather and Climate changes in the habitats of the Neanderthals
10. Neanderthales could have become Victims of Plagues
11. Inbreeding was very common among Neanderthals and hampered Fertility
12. Neanderthals assimilated with H. sapiens
Denisova-Man
5. Mechanisms of Evolution and their effects on Homo sapiens
Different Incentive Systems for promiscuitive Behaviour for Men and Women
Mechanisms of sexual Attraction sexueller Anziehung
Neurobiological Background
Examples of Neurobiological Mechanisms that underly Sexuality
Example 1: Control of the Mechanical Components of the Copulation Act
Example 2: Assuring the intrinsic Motivation for Sexual Activity
Example 3: Importance of olfactory Senses for Sexual Affinity
Hormons
Sociocultural Reasons for Restrictive Sexuality
Tightening of Sexual Supply as an Economic and Evolutionary Strategy
Density stress endangering the Eros?
6. The Evolution of Hierarchies
The Lobster Debate
Human Hierarchies in Evolution and History
An Example of a Complex Middle-Age Society
7. Evolution of Technologies
Sedentism of man (Neolithic Revolution)
Domestication of Plants (Cultivation)
The Domestication of animals
Consequences of geographically different pre-conditions for farming and cattle breeding
The Industrial Revolution
Global „The winner takes it all“ Capitalism
The burning of Fossil Fuels
Fire
The age of fossil fuel (since Middle of the 18th century)
8. Artificial Intelligence and Simulated Realities
Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Humans Everyday Live
Right Wrong (Human) and Wrong Right Decissions (AI)
And what if we live in a simulation after all?
9. Evolutionary Development of Competencies, mind and Intelligence
The 4 categories of competence acquisition (Learning) after Daniel Dennett
Trying to measure intelligence
Idiocratisation through Mechanisation
Idiocratisation is a combination of „Nature“ and „Nurture“
10. From Evolutionary Theory to Eugenics
Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859) – The Natural Geographer
Charles Darwin (1809-1882) – The Founder of Evolutionary Theory
Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913) – Darwins Brother in Spirit
Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) – The liberal Social Darwinist
Francis Galton (1822-1911) – The Universal Schoolar
Charles Davenport (1866-1944) – Head of the American Eugenic Movement
Margaret Sanger (1879-1966) – The Feminist
Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895) – Darwins Bulldog
Julian Huxley (1887-1975) –Humanist and First UNESCO-Secretary General
Aldous Huxley (1894-1963) – the Visionary Writer (Brave New World)
Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919)
11. Eugenics in America and in National Sozialistic Germany
The National Socialists
Mein Kampf (My Struggle)
Nuremberg Laws
Wannsee Conference
Aktion T4 – Extermination of Life unworthy of Life
The fountain of life
Were Germans of my Grandparents‘ Generation Bad Human Beings?
The Hume’s Paradox: How can the Few rule over the Many?
How Human Evolution favours Abuse of Power and Subjugation
The well-meaning Intentions underlying Eugenics
Birth Control in the 21st Century
12. Selective Eugenicsund Eugenics through Genetical Modifications
Negatively Selecting Eugenics (Eugenis by Murder)
Positively Selecting Eugenics (Eugenics through Reproduction Support)
Eugenics through direct Gentechnological Optimisation of the Human Genome
13. Gene-technological Modification of Complex Species
Clonal Growth
Cutting and Merging DNA and RNA Strands
The CRISPR/Cas9 Method
Twin Sisters with a targeted modification of the CCR5-Rezeptor Gene
Dolly (1996-2003)
Risks of Genome Modification for the Individual
Risks of Somatic (not germline effective) Genetic Modifications for Individuals
14. Access to the Resource Genetic Optimization
Linkage to a Citizenship or Nationality
Linkage to Racist Criteria
Immortality – Ray Kurzweil
Use of Human-Manipulation Means for Military Ends
15. Demography and Dying Out
On the extinction of Homo sapiens
Can Mankind Die Out with Dignity and Comfortably for the Individual?
16. Can Eugenics 2.0 be Prevented or Controlled?
Wie ließe sich Eugenik 2.0 regulieren?
Could the United Nations prohibit gene-technological Modifications of Humans?
Eugenics for Adapting to a Rapidly Changing Biosphere
17. Transhumanism - The Status Quo in 2020
The replacement of real social space (by virtual space)
18. The Great Reset
Why is the World Economic Forum interested in the philosopher Harari?
Eugenical Transhumanism as a just project for all of mankind?
19. Epilogue
20. Referenzliste
Eric Markhoff
Evolution, Eugenics and Transhumanis
1. Prologue
At the beginning of the 2006 American film “idiocracy”, which was not very successful, the viewer gets to know Trevor and Carol, a couple of highly intelligent academics of the early 21st century. They state that the decision to get children is such an important one, that you must not rush into it. You have to wait for the right time, which is not now.
These two prototypes of modern academics are in the next scene compared to Clevon, whose wife Trish just states to be pregnant again, which makes Clevon curse and stamp his beer bottle on the table. He already has „too many damn kids“ and thought she was on the pill, but probably he had confounded here with Britney. In raging jealousy Trish throws the pan after him. In the corner, Clevon’s offspring are displayed in a family tree showing 4 children with Trish and one with Britney
Back to Trevor and Carol. Five years older older than before, they again calmly sit on their well maintained livingroom sofa and head-shakingly state that at the moment they can not have kids, not with the current market-situation. Meanwhile Clevon’s wife Trish has a quarrel with her pregnant neighbour with beer bottles flying, while around them the loud chaos of the unordered lower-class family unfoulds.
Back to Trevor and Carol. Again, five years older older than before, they again calmly sit on their well maintained livingroom sofa and Carol states that they finally decided to have kids, however this does not seem to work out well, probably due to the low quality of Trevor’s sperms. Trevor apologetically shrugs and complainingly asks if Carol’s remark is helping.
Finally, a visibly aged Carol has a sad solo-appearance, in which she announces that Trevor has passed away from a heart attack while masturbating for in vitro fertilization. However, she has some eggs frozen away and as soon the right man comes along…..fingers crossed. By now, the family tree of Clevon’s offspring covers the entire cinema screen.
This 2-minute sequence at the beginning of the film Idiocracy shall illustrate, that human evolution does not automatically reward intelligence. Without natural selection pressure, evolution simply rewards thos who reproduce most, which makes the intelligent become a rare species. After the monstrous crimes that social Darwinism and eugenics had caused in the 20th century, it is however utterly delicate to point out that mechanisms of natural selection also act on Homos sapiens.
Switching off natural selection or modifying selection criteria (in the case of Idiocracy favouring those with reduced cognitive capabilities who reproduce most) may not remain without consequences over generations. Should mankind then try to intervene into its own evolution?
Mechanisms of selection in economy and trade
The mechanisms of natural selection in evolutionary biology find their correspondence in economy in competitive selection of business enterprises. Single actors in a competition-based economy carry a high risk to fail, which however minimizes the risk of failure for the corresponding branch of the economy. For systems which are not fragile, Nassim Taleb coined the term “antifragile”. Gastronomy may serve as an example for an antifragile branch of the economy. A single reastaurant enterprise is fragile and may quickly fail if it fails to attract clients. At the same time, one finds a good overall supply of restaurants in cities such as Hamburg. These compete with each other, which leads to a broad spectrum of restaurants with diverse kind of food and atmosphere. Although the single individual restaurant enterprise is fragile and might fail, the entity of restaurants, the “restaurant system”, appears very antifragile (1).
Market and market mechanisms with their selection mechanisms are thus an essential element of human trade interactions. Entirely free and uncontrolled markets (unleashed markets) however are also free of any ethical or moral judgement. If 2 market players compete, the one who makes more profit will prevail.
If the product brought to the market is good or bad for society in principle does not play a role. The economist Catherine Austin Fitts gave an illustrative example by comparing 2 tradesmen in America in the late 1940s. Both are expecting the arrival of a delivery at the docks of New Orleans. Sam trades sugar from Latin America that he refines and sells to wholesale merchants with 30% profit. After substracting costs for farming, transport and processing, Sam makes 10% profit. Dave works with a different agricultural product, for which he also imports raw materials, processes them and sells them to wholesale merchants. Dave, however, earns 50-times more für his upgraded product, cocaine. Certainly, Dave also has expenses for farming, transport, bribes and radar-equipment for circumventing coast guards. After subtracting costs from gains, Dave earns around 100-times more than Sam with each delivery. To get a feeling for the implications of these profit differences, one only has to answer to the following questions just using common sense:
Who is better in business? Sam or Dave?
Who is favoured by local bancs? Sam or Dave?
Who donates more to politicians and welfare? Sam or Dave?
Who can afford better lawyers? Sam or Dave?
Who could some day buy the company of the other? Sam or Dave?
Who could count on support from bancers and politicians when swallowing the other’s company? Sam or Dave?
Who pays more salaries of experts, opinion-makers and media-representatives? Sam or Dave?
Which business will thrive, if such developments act over decencies with compound interest effects and which business will consequently gain more influence on society? Catherine Austin Fitts, who came up with this example, explicitly appeals not to seek guidance from experts or the media when answering these questions, but only to follow your own intuition (2).
Which motivation states and governments have to forbid drugs, could also cater for an interesting discussion, however this would lead us too far away from the actual topic of this book. Here, we make do with pointing out the role opium played in the colonial suppression of China under the British Crown, or the British East India Company, to be more precise. In Bengal (India) opium was grown on large scale using slave labour and exported to Chinal by the English in order to buy Chinese silk, spices and tea. As long as opium was not more than a normal mean of payment or a bartering good, prices for opium remained on a normal level. Opium drove a lot of Chinese people into addiction and the Chinese raised import taxes on opium in order to protect themselves from the colonial opium. Finaly the Chinese emperor entirely prohibited the import of opium and Chinese custom officers destroyed incoming deliveries of opium. This led to an increase in illegal imports that even became much more profitable as the prices for (illegal) opium were much higher. The poppy plant providing for the raw opium, however had not become more precious. Not before the prohibition prices increased. Finaly the Brits send gun boats to China opening the “Opium war” of 1839. After 3 years of war the Chinese subdued.
One could object that drug trade per se does not have to be unmoral or unethical and that sugar consumed in high amounts also impairs health. Only the fact that legislators banned certain mind-altering drugs, but not sugar, made drug-trade such a criminal (but at the same time a very lucrative) business. Profit margins in the drug business would not be that high, if it was legal. But let us simply imagine, Dave was an arms dealer, who fuels murderous wars and thus becomes rich and powerful.
Apparently in an unleashed competition, unscrupulousness is a a competitive advantage. If, as in Idiocracy, people with low intelligence reproduce stronger and the economy favours reckless people, in the long run, mankind, will become rather stupid with reckless-unscrupulous people in positions of power. Not a very nice prospect.
Evolutionary selection-mechanisms of free markets lead to inceasing efficiency, when it comes to accumulation of capital. Efficient processes imply an optimized return of investement, meaning highest possible profist at the lowest possible effort. Chains of delivery are coordinated in a way, that a component is delivered to immediately being used, processed and built in, thus minimizing the storage capacity, storage time and storage costs (“Just in time capitalism”). Everything that causes unnecessary costs is being eliminated by optimization. This also applies for planning and use of personnel. An economy that selects for enterprises that pursue the least possible effort to generate profit has not reserve capacity. In the health sector a lack of reserve capacities surfaces if an epidemic occurs. By reducing overcapacities and merging of hospitals, private hospital companies made health care a profit generating endeavour. In normal mode they provide health care and pocket the profits (in contrast to public hospitals, which were planned along requirements of the population). If an epidemic (or the flu season) increases the needs for hospital capacities, the disadvantages of an efficiency-optimised health system: Hardly and reserve capacities, as these are cost-inefficient in normal mode and only cause costs. However, one should think that from the hospital operators point of view, cost efficiency should be given also during an epidemic. Actually, the cost efficiency should now even be increased as capacities (e.g. respirators) are used on a maximum level, which sounds lucrative from an economic point of view. Ironically the provision of intensive care capacities in expectation of a pandemic wave in many countries led to a reduction of normal standard health care with economic losses due to unused hospital beds and collateral morbidity and mortality, for example due to canceled medical procedures. The worldwide issued lockdowns and freedom restrictions due to COVID-19 especially damaged small and medium sized enterprises, which can be regarded as the backbone of a healthy economy that serves the society. At the same time international cooperations and monopolists increased their market power. Moreover, less and less economic transactions take place without digital interface.
In cashless payments a digital interface between the humans involved in the transaction already exists. With the raising importance of delivery services, the digital interface also intervenes in the hand-over of the purchased good. Nevertheless, the human sphere and the machine world are still clearly separated. Concerns about data that were generated in the digital sphere (still) refer to data utilization by humans or networks of humans. As long as abuse of power is carried out by humans over humans, machines remain means for ends. Once machines develop their own ends out of their own intrinsic motivation a shift of paradigms takes place.
2. The Evolution of species
Darwins „On the Origin of Species” which was published in 1859, is regarded as the most important fundamental book of evolutionary biology. Evolution needs time. A perceived expansion of time with regards to the existence of the earth was crucial for Darwins insights. Until the 19th century, the age of the earth was estimated to be not older than a few thousand years based on religious texts. In the 18th century, the natural scientist Edmund Halley tried deducing the age of the earth from the salt contents of rivers and seas and concluded that the earth must be considerably older than 6000 years, but was satisfied with this notion without giving his own estimate (3). Consequently, in Darwin’s days, the age of the earth was not yet known. Independantly from external scientific doctrines Darwing must have realized himself, that the existing species on earth must have had more than 6000 years time to develop, if his evolution-theory ought to be plausible. In “On the Origin of Species” Darwin estimated the age of the earth to around 300 million years. As we know now, 300 million years ago was the transition period from perm to carbon. The richt forest and swam flora of this period was the raw material for geological layers that we exploit in our days as coal. Among the animals of that period were amphibiae, who became more and more independent of water. Today the age of our planet ist estimated at 4.6 billion years.
Darwinism and Lamarckism
The French natural scientis Jean Baptiste de Lamarck (17441829) already shaped the idea of development of species. Darwin’s ideas were to some extent in the air. Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913) would probably also have developed the concepts that Darwin shaped in “On The Origin of Species”, if Darwin had not existed. Without any doubt Lamarcks ideas show a lot of agreements with Darwin. When talking about Lamarchism, it is therefore the differences that are being stressed. Lamarckism claims that properties and capabilities acquired during life can be passed on to offspring. Such an inheritance of acquired properties would in principle shorten the required time for evolution, compared to natural selection over many generations. An illustrative example for explaining the differences between Darwins and Lamarcks theory is the giraffe: Her long neck allows her to eat leaves in heights that no other plant eater of the prairie can reach. According to Lamarck giraffes of past generations would have stretched their necks again and again thus lengthening their neck during their lifetime. This lifetime-behaviour induced lengthening would then have been passed on to the next generation. According to Darwinistic views the long neck of the giraffe is not the result of passing on “training-lengthened” necks to the next generation. Rather giraffes with long necks must have had better survival- and reproduction chances and thus more frequently giraffes with long necks passed on their properties to the next generation than giraffes with a short neck. Lamarck thus postulated the inheritance of acquired “trained” properties to be the driving force of evolution. Darwin, in contrast postulated that different probabilities to reproduce of individuals with their existing properties leading to “natural selection” were decisive.
What means successful in evolution?
To reduce the mechanisms of natural selection that underly evolution to “Survival of the Fittest” is not quite correct. Social Darwinism in its worst manifestations deduced a natural Right of the Stronger from this conceptual oversimplification. This was for example done by the National Socialists to “scientifically” legitimise their atrocities which they justified with the alleged superiority of their own race. Natural selection simply means that there are traits that increase the probability that the genome of an organism is passed on to the next generation completely (asexual reproduction) or 50% (sexual reproduction). These traits do not necessarily have to be traits, we commonly regard as advantageous (e.g. strength, intelligence). Decisive for evolutionary success is only the passing on of the genome to the next generation. Sometimes one hearst that in evolution traits prevail that increase the chances of survival. This may often be the case, especially, wenn survivaltime is assicated with the number of offspring. (A seasonal breeder with yearly offspring will have more offspring, if it lives longer). In some cases, behaviousr can lengthen the life of an individual however at the cost of not-reproducing. For bee drones the copulation with the bee queen is deadly as the sperm containing reproductive organs remains in the bee queen. The abdomen of the drone thus gets ripped apart and the drone dies. Drones that do not copulate live longer (until the next autum), however they do not reproduce.
Critical are thus traits that increase the reproduction probability. “Generation-persitance of the reproductively successful“ might be more appropriate than “Survival of the Fittest“. The term “Survival of the Fittest“ was coined by the English Social-philosopher Herbert Spencer (1820-1903). Spencer was the first to sonsequently apply Darwings insights to human societies thus being a founder of Social Darwinism.
3. Right from the beginning
Evolution by natural selection needs time. Therefore, we will once more set the time frame in which evolution took place. The question, what was before the Big Bang and what is ouside our universe, is something we may well leave to physicists. (They could claim that the question “what was before the Big Bang?” was futile, as before the Big Bang, time itself did not exist).
The Big Bang happened around 13.8 billion years ago and since then our universe expands. Our solar system with our planet earth came into being around 4.6 billion years ago. The first primitive llive forms arose around 3 billion years ago in water. About half of the time that has passed since then, life on earth remained single-celled; not until around 1.5 billion years ago one single celled organism swallowed another one, which then however was not digested, but continued living symbiotically inside the organism that had taken it up and took over partial functions of the combined organism. Such Eukaryote cells are the building blocks of multicellular organisms with the single cell in complex organisms not being autonomous anymore, but rather becoming more and more functionally specialized (organ cells).
Since then diverse form of multicellular life has developed. The 4 cm measuring Pikaia that lived 525 million years ago in water were the first representatives of the chordates known to us (we also belong to the animal phylum of chordates). Chordates have a rod in their back (the chorda) that lies over the gut and under the neural tube as a common feature. The first steps on land were undertaken by the first amphibiae around 300 million years ago. The age of the dinosaurs started around 235 million years ago, lasted for around 150 million years and ended 66 million years ago, when a meteor hit the earth. The corresponding crater was discovered in the 1990s right next to the large Mexican peninsula Yucatan, and the diameter of the comet was estimated to have been around 10 km.
To give a feeling for evolutionary time frames using a fictious day or a fictitious year is a popular approach, as these are time frames that are ascertainable to our senses. Table 1 displays some milestones of evolution in relation to a fictitious year.
Table 1: Milestones in Earth history in a fictitious year with the last day being broken down into hours, minutes and seconds
As a child I was very impressed by the French animated film “Once Upon a Time….Man”. In the German edition the intro theme was sung by the 2014 deceased musician and composer Udo Jürgens. This small piece of music left a strong not only content driven, but also emotional memory. The whisperingly sung “Was ist Zeit” (What is time) that follows the line “Tausend Jahre sind ein Tag” (Thousand years are a day) still as a pure memory raises goose bumbs on my skin. Therefore, I also want to use this massstab: If 1000 years correspond to one day, the dinosaurs would have gone extinct 66,000 days ago (66 million years), the last common acestor of man and chimpanzee would have lived 6,000 days ago (6 million years) and Homo sapiens would not be roaming the earth for longer than just 300 days (300,000 years), most of which as hunter-gatherer. Only 12 days ago (12,000 years) the first Homo sapiens would have settled down for farming. The use of oil as a source of energy would have started 6 hours ago (250 years). Since 5 hours ago (1804) the world population would have reached 1 billion, since less than the length of a football match (around 1960) over 3 billion and since 13 minutes (2011) it would have surpassed 7 billion Homo sapiens.
The dawn of life
Mechanisms of selection certainly also play a role in astrophysics, however we want to focus on the evolution of life. Richard Dawkins’ 1976-book “The Selfish Gene” can well be seen as a fundamental book of evolutionary theory (4).
Stable, self reproducing molecular structures
Precondition for the emergence of life was the formation of stable structure that can reproduce, which means they are able to produce more or less identical (or reciprocal) copies of themselves. If atoms converge again and again with stable interdependencies that lead to stable structures, the complex formations arising are called molecules. Stability over time can be reached by long-term persistance or by replication or reproduction, which is the repetitive emergence of a certain molecule type. In our world, the long persistence over time is rather found in inanimate matter. Persistance over time by emerging and wearing away is a basic principle of life. A type of living being is more persistent over time if it does not depend on the single individual being, but rather exists as a concept, which propagates by replication over time. On a molecular level, chemical reactions permanently take place, which make molecules emerge and wear away, however we would not call this life. Water molecules consist of oxygen and two hydrogen atoms. The water molecule (H2O) is thus relatively simple build and could be seen as a manifestation of the affinity between oxygen and hydrogen, making water an omnipresent molecule on earth. An imbeded construction plane for water is not required for the formation of this molecule.
The underlying tendency of hydrocarbon compounds to form chains makes them the backbone for
larger and more complex molecules, which are the domain of organic chemistry. These hydrocarbon molecules can take oxygen, nitrogen or phosphor atoms on board and form comple spatial structures with foldings and branchings. Most organic molecules do not need an imbedded construction plan neither, as they simply emerge by “trial and error” of random constellations and connections formed, some of which arise often and some rarely. Complex hydrocarbon compounds are taken up and metabolised by forms of life from bacteria to elephants. On earth, 4 billion years ago, no life existed, yet, so that atom- or molecule conglomerates could emerge and wear away undisturbed. Millions of identical molecules could emerge through atom-affinity and atom-frequency driven accumulation certain combinations. Crystalline growth for example consists of multiple identical molecules attaching to each other. Crystalline structures are e.g. metals, sugars, salts and snow.
With growing complexity one can expect less and less that such complex structures arise randomly again and again with the same building blocks in the sam constellations. Not without an embedded plan.
On a molecular level, molecules must have arisen, which are able of replicating their own structure and doing so implement an embedded construction plan. Richard Dawkins in the “The selfish gene“ called such a molecule with the embeded ability to replicate as “replicators”. Around 3-4 billion years ago, the construction blocks were floating in the broth around the replicator with certain affinities to other components of the replicators. Some affinities were stronger, so that especially copies of replicators with components that have high affinities to each other, arise. For implementing a construction plan, which is embedded in the replicator, reading mechanisms must exist that decode for example the order of molecule-components in the replicator into information that is relevant for forming the daughter molecule. For example, the order of molecules in the replicator must be decoded into the information for the formation of the replicate. In principle the information in the replicator could be used for building an identical molecule with identical building blocks in the identical order. If we however lock at the shape of a single building block, it becomes clear that an identical copy would lack attachment sites to the original: Two balls can not entangle with each other in a stable way, but a ball lies stable in a bowl. Two keys do not form a stable connection, but a key sticks stable in a fitting keyhole. The principle that prevailed in life is therefore that of negative copies. The order of nonidentical molecule compounds of the negative copy molecule is defined by the order of the compounds of the positive original. From the positive a negative copy arises, from which a positive copy arises, from which a negative copy arises and so forth.
Such a posoitive-negative replication principle has preveailed in the genetic code of the desoxyribo- and ribo-nucleic acids (DNA and RNA): The order of 4 nucleic acids adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C) and Uracil (U) are the 4 letteres of the RNA alphabet. DNA contains thymine (T) instead of U.
In DNA, the hydrogen-bound mediated positive-negative affinity in the genetic code consists between G-C and A-T (or C-G and T-A).
In RNA, the hydrogen-bound mediated positive-negative affinity in the genetic code consists between G-C and A-U (or C-G and U-A).
Thus, DNA and RNA had become data carriers on which the information of life is coded as genetic code. For the production of proteins an RNA copy is generated as a negative copy from the corresponding DNA, the so calle messenger RNA (mRNA). This mRNA is being tailored by “splicing”, so that the protein-coding RNA only contains the information required for the protein to be synthesized. Thre RNA bases code for one amino acid and the order of base triplets on the RNA gives the order of amino acids of the protein (with three possible orders depending on the reading frame used). The actual protein synthesis is carried out by ribosoms which walk along the mRNA joining the amino acids, base-triple by base triplet.
How did complex forms of life develop over millions of years? According to common definitions of life found in biology books, one would not count self replicating molecules such as DNA as forms of life. Even viruses, that already show quite some complexities, are not considered to be life if I follow my biology schoolbook from the 1980s. If metabolism, reproduction and evolution are considered as “life-defining” criteria, viruses underly evolutionary mecanisms, but do not really have an own independent metabolism. For reproduction they depend on replicatory features of their host organism, e.g. for the replication of their RNA or DNA and for the synthesis of structural elements such as simple enzymes and structural proteins. But, if viruses rely on host organisms of higher complexity, the development of complex viruses relied on the development of complex (living?) host organisms, to pack the naked (future) virus genome into structures, that actually make a virus out of the naked genome. Viruses can emerge from complex organisms by release of endogenous viral genome sequences together mit hijacked structural elements (5). Did viruses exist before living organisms or did viruses require living organisms from which to emerge? This apparent hen-egg problem can be overcome by abandoning the strictly binary distinction between living and not-living organisms. The virus does not care if its structures come from a living or a non-living being (certainly a virus lacks a will, thus a virus can not be able not to care, a virus can only be).
Bacteria count as living beings. When it comes to pure numbers (and masses), bacteria are even the dominant form of life on earth. In a human’s gut only, according to Ed Yongs book “I contain multitudes”, an estimated 100 Trillion (1014) bacteria live. Following this, my gut contained around a million more bacteria than there are stars in our galaxy (milky way), whose number was estimated at around 100 (108)-400 million stars (6).
Bacteria together with archae-bacteria form the fundament for the development of complex life. According to the endosymbiotic theory, the ingestion of a bacterium by an archaeon (both procaryotes – single celled organisms without a nucleus) led to a symbiotic form of life from which eucaryotes developed (7). Eucaryote cells possess a nucleus that contains the genome of the organism. They are comparted with organells that perform different metabolic tasks and therefore are considerably more complex cells, which are also 100-10.000-fold bigger than bacteria or archaeon cells. Eucaryotes can be single-celled (e.g. amoeba, malaria parasites), however in contrast to bacteria they can also form multicellular forms of live. Plants, fungus, and animals consist of eucaryotic cells.
First traces of life on earth
The first (disputed) signs of life on earth are around 3.8 billion years old. Anomalies in carbon-isotopes and tubeformation in rock-samples from Greenland were interpreted as signs of oxidative processes in a hydrothermal environment resembling traces that metabolism of nowadays iron-oxidating bacteria leaves in rocks (8).
Somewhat surer seems to be the appraisal of slate samples from the Gunflint-Range in Canada. The traces of single celled living organisms were interpreted as traces of 1.9-billion-year-old cyanobacteria (blue algae). Cyanobacteria in contrast to bacteria stand out for oxydating photosynthesis.
They therefore may have had an important role in the transformation of the earth-atmosphere from oxygen-poor to oxygen-rich around 3 billion years ago. (Then cyanobacteria would have to roam the earth around a billion years longer than the Gunflint-Range traces testify).
Oxygen accumulation in the atmosphere and in the oceans eradicated the anaerobic organisms that existed. The higher oxygen supply, however, opended up entirely new pathways for evolution. By stepwise oxidation of energy-rich molecules, the emerging oxygen enabled more efficient possibilities for generating energy for live and emergence of life forms.
The following contemplations are confined to multicellular organisms, complex organisms. The single celled procaryotes should nevertheless be acknowledged as important domains in evolution and life on earth even though they will not get the same attention in the following passages as complex multicellular life forms.
Emergence of multicellular life
Multicellular life emerged around 1.5 billion years ago: According to the endosymbiotic theory through phagocytic ingestion of bacteria by another single-celled organisms, probably archaebacteriae. The ingested bacteria transformed to organells, such as mitochondria (or to chloroplasts in phptosynthetically active plants and algae) (9).
When describing evolutionary processes, we are often biased towards the roam of animals (fauna), although plants may be more remarkable from a physico-chemical point of view, because they developed the capability to transform solar energy and use it to generate complex molecules. The photosynthesis that takes place inside chloroplasts, is crucial for all life on earth and also for the atmosphere and the climate. Carbondioxid (CO2) is being taken up and oxygen (O2) generated, which is the most important energy provider for animal-life forms (and when transformed to ozone (O3) also provides the substance for the ozone layer in our atmosphere). Animals are not capable of photosynthesis, although the CO2 expired by animals can be used by plants for photosynthesis (10).
Metabolic products of animals, however also seem to change the constitution of the atmosphere, with farm animals, especially cows not only producing CO2, but also methane (CH4), which is considered to be a potent greenhouse gas
The cambric explosion of life
For a long time, life remained single-celled and small, until in the seas of the Cambrian-period (541-485 million years ago) a downright explosion of life took place: In the 56 million years of the Cambrian, the founding organisms of most multicellular animal and plant strains arose, for example the phylum of the chordatae, among which the vertebrates are a subphylum. The reasons for this explosion of life invite speculations. An increase of atmospheric oxygen in millions of years before the Cambrian may have created the environmental preconditions for the development of energy-intensive forms of being. Mechanisms of natural selection became more sophisticated with hunter-prey interactions that triggered the emergence of more effective sensory organs on both sides (hunter and prey). Hunters that could better detect their prey (e.g. through the uptake of optical signals through eyes) generate a selective advantage over conspecific hunters. Eyes may also provide a selection advantage for prey as they can better detect and deter an approaching threat. Thus, ecological niches with complex interactions between living beings formed. Inside living beings, specialisations of cells, organs and body parts emerged.
The trilobites, who were a very successful class in the phylum of arthropods and lived for around 250 million years in all seas of the world, emerged in the Cambrian. Trilobites can serve for demonstrating the tendencies for specialization with the development of specialized organs and bodyparts. Trilobites hat legs for propagation, eyes for detecting light and thus also neural structures for processing optical information from the surrounding sea environment. The transformation of energy was not always a purely biochemical process, but was accomplished by different specialized organs. For the uptake of food(energy), trilobites had oral orifices from which the nutrition (e.g. worms, sea cucumbers) reached a digestive system, where it was broken up, digestible components contained and the rest excreted. Furthermore, trilobites had an exoskeleton that provided stability to the organism,
