Download - Why Life Does Not Really Exist
Permanent Address: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2013/12/02/why-life-does-not-really-exist/
ADVERTISEMENT
A native bee in my backyard (Credit: Ferris Jabr)
A K'Nex contraption (Credit: Druyts.t viaWikimedia Commons)
Why Life Does Not Really ExistBy Ferris Jabr | December 2, 2013
I have been fascinated with
living things since
childhood. Growing up in
northern California, I spent
a lot of time playing
outdoors among plants and
animals. Some of my
friends and I would sneak
up on bees as they
pollinated flowers and trap
them in Ziploc bags so we
could get a close look at
their obsidian eyes and golden hairs before returning the insects to their
daily routines. Sometimes I would make crude bows and arrows from bushes in my backyard, using stripped bark for string and leaves
for fletchings. On family trips to the beach I learned how to quickly dig crustaceans and arthropods out of their hiding spots by
watching for bubbles in the sand as the most recent wave retreated. And I vividly recall an elementary school field trip to a grove of
eucalyptus trees in Santa Cruz, where thousands of migrating monarch butterflies had stopped to rest. They clung to branches in great
brown globs, resembling dead leaves—until one stirred and revealed the fiery orange inside of its wings.
Moments like that—along with a number of David Attenborough television specials—intensified my enthrallment with the planet’s
creatures. Whereas my younger brother was obsessed with his K’Nex set—meticulously building elaborate roller coasters—I wanted to
understand how our cat, well, worked. How did she see the world? Why did she purr? What were fur and claws and whiskers made of?
One Christmas I asked for an encyclopedia of animals. After ripping the wrapping paper off a massive book that probably weighed half
as much as I did, I sat near the tree reading for hours. Not too surprising, then, that I ended up writing about nature and science for a
living.
Recently, however, I had an epiphany that has forced me to rethink why I love living things so
much and reexamine what life is, really. For as long as people have studied life they have struggled
to define it. Even today, scientists have no satisfactory or universally accepted definition of life.
While pondering this problem, I remembered my brother’s devotion to K’Nex roller coasters and
my curiosity about the family cat. Why do we think of the former as inanimate and the latter as
alive? In the end, aren’t they both machines? Granted, a cat is an incredibly complex machine
capable of amazing behaviors that a K’Nex set could probably never mimic. But on the most
fundamental level, what is the difference between an inanimate machine and a living one? Do
people, cats, plants and other creatures belong in one category and K’Nex, computers, stars and
rocks in another? My conclusion: No. In fact, I decided, life does not actually exist.
Allow me to elaborate.
Formal attempts to precisely define life date to at least the time of ancient Greek philosophers.
Aristotle believed that, unlike the inanimate, all living things have one of three kinds of souls:
vegetative souls, animal souls and rational souls, the last of which belonged exclusively to humans.
Greek anatomist Galen proposed a similar, organ-based system of “vital spirits” in the lungs, blood and nervous system. In the 17th
century, German chemist George Erns Stahl and other researchers began to describe a doctrine that would eventually become known as
vitalism. Vitalists maintained that “living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities because they contain some
non-physical element or are governed by different principles than are inanimate things” and that organic matter (molecules that
contained carbon and hydrogen and were produced by living things) could not arise from inorganic matter (molecules lacking carbon
that resulted primarily from geological processes). Subsequent experiments revealed vitalism to be completely untrue—the inorganic
Why Life Does Not Really Exist | Brainwaves, Scientific American Blo... http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2013/12/02/why-life-d...
1 de 5 02/03/2014 20:27
A tardigrade can survive without food or water in adehyrated state for more than 10 years (Credit: Goldtseinlab via Wikimedia Commons via Flickr)
can be converted into the organic both inside and outside the lab.
Instead of imbuing organisms with “some non-physical element,” other scientists attempted to identify a specific set of physical
properties that differentiated the living from the nonliving. Today, in lieu of a succinct definition of life, Campbell and many other
widely used biology textbooks include a rather bloated list of such distinguishing characteristics, for instance: order (the fact that many
organisms are made from either a single cell with different compartments and organelles or highly structured groups of cells); growth
and development (changing size and shape in a predictable manner); homeostasis (maintaining an internal environment that differs
from an external one, such as the way cells regulate their pH levels and salt concentrations); metabolism (expending energy to grow
and to delay decay); reacting to stimuli (changing behavior in response to light, temperature, chemicals or other aspects of the
environment); reproduction (cloning or mating to produce new organisms and transfer genetic information from one generation to the
next); and evolution (the change in the genetic makeup of a population over time).
It’s almost too easy to shred the logic of such lists. No one has ever managed to compile a
set of physical properties that unites all living things and excludes everything we label
inanimate. There are always exceptions. Most people do not consider crystals to be alive,
for example, yet they are highly organized and they grow. Fire, too, consumes energy and
gets bigger. In contrast, bacteria, tardigrades and even some crustaceans can enter long
periods of dormancy during which they are not growing, metabolizing or changing at all,
yet are not technically dead. How do we categorize a single leaf that has fallen from a
tree? Most people would agree that, when attached to a tree, a leaf is alive: its many cells
work tirelessly to turn sunlight, carbon dioxide and water into food, among other duties.
When a leaf detaches from a tree, its cells do not instantly cease their activities. Does it
die on the way to the ground; or when it hits the ground; or when all its individual cells
finally expire? If you pluck a leaf from a plant and keep its cells nourished and happy
inside a lab, is that life?
Such dilemmas plague just about every proposed feature of life. Responding to the environment is not a talent limited to living
organisms—we have designed countless machines that do just that. Even reproduction does not define a living thing. Many an
individual animal cannot reproduce on its own. So are two cats alive because they can create new cats together, but a single cat is not
alive because it cannot propagate its genes by itself? Consider, also, the unusual case of turritopsis nutricula, the immortal jellyfish,
which can indefinitely alternate between its adult form and its juvenile stage. A jelly vacillating in this way is not producing offspring,
cloning itself or even aging in the typical fashion—yet most people would concede it remains alive.
But what about evolution? The ability to store information in molecules like DNA and RNA, to pass on this information to one’s
offspring and to adapt to a changing environment by altering genetic information—surely these talents are unique to living things. Many
biologists have focused on evolution as life’s key distinguishing feature. In the early 1990s, Gerald Joyce of the Scripps Research
Institute was a member of an advisory panel to John Rummel, manager of NASA’s exobiology program at the time. During discussions
about how best to find life on other worlds, Joyce and his fellow panelists came up with a widely cited working definition of life: a
self-sustaining system capable of Darwinian evolution. It’s lucid, concise and comprehensive. But does it work?
Let’s examine how this definition handles viruses, which have complicated the quest to define life more than any other entity. Viruses
are essentially strands of DNA or RNA packaged inside a protein shell; they do not have cells or a metabolism, but they do have genes
and they can evolve. Joyce explains, however, that in order to be a “self-sustaining system,” an organism must contain all the
information necessary to reproduce and to undergo Darwinian evolution. Because of this constraint, he argues that viruses do not
satisfy the working definition. After all, a virus must invade and hijack a cell in order to make copies of itself. “The viral genome only
evolves in the context of the host cell,” Joyce said in a recent interview.
When you really think about it, though, NASA’s working definition of life is not able to
accommodate the ambiguity of viruses better than any other proposed definition. A parasitic
worm living inside a person’s intestines—widely regarded as a detestable but very real form of
life—has all the genetic information it needs to reproduce, but it would never be able to do so
without cells and molecules in the human gut from which it steals the energy it needs to
survive. Likewise, a virus has all the genetic information required to replicate itself, but does
not have all the requisite cellular machinery. Claiming that the worm’s situation is categorically
different from that of the virus is a tenuous argument. Both the worm and virus reproduce and
evolve only “in the context” of their hosts. In fact, the virus is a much more efficient reproducer
than the worm. Whereas the virus gets right down to business and needs only a few proteins
inside a cell’s nucleus to initiate replication on a massive scale, the parasitic worm’s
reproduction requires use of an entire organ in another animal and will be successful only if
Why Life Does Not Really Exist | Brainwaves, Scientific American Blo... http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2013/12/02/why-life-d...
2 de 5 02/03/2014 20:27
A cluster of bacteriophages, viruses that evolvedto infect bacteria (Credit: Dr Graham Beards viaWikimedia Commons)
A geothermal pool in Wyoming. Nearly four billion yearsago, what we call life may have first evolved in similar"warm little ponds," as Darwin put it. (Credit: CalebDorfman, via Flickr)
the worm survives long enough to feed, grow and lay eggs. So if we use NASA’s working
definition to banish viruses from the realm of life, we must further exclude all manner of much
larger parasites including worms, fungi and plants.
Defining life as a self-sustaining system capable of Darwinian evolution also forces us to admit
that certain computer programs are alive. Genetic algorithms, for instance, imitate natural selection to arrive at the optimal solution to
a problem: they are bit arrays that code traits, evolve, compete with one another to reproduce and even exchange information.
Similarly, software platforms like Avida create “digital organisms” that “are made up of digital bits that can mutate in much the same
way DNA mutates.” In other words they, too, evolve. “Avida is not a simulation of evolution; it is an instance of it,” Robert Pennock of
Michigan State University told Carl Zimmer in Discover. “All the core parts of the Darwinian process are there. These things replicate,
they mutate, they are competing with one another. The very process of natural selection is happening there. If that’s central to the
definition of life, then these things count.”
I would argue that Joyce’s own lab delivered another devastating blow to NASA’s working definition of life. He and many other
scientists favor an origin of life story known as the RNA world hypothesis. All life on our planet depends on DNA and RNA. In modern
living organisms, DNA stores the information necessary to build the proteins and molecular machines that together form a bustling cell.
At first, scientists thought only proteins known as enzymes could catalyze the chemical reactions necessary to construct this cellular
machinery. In the 1980s, however, Thomas Cech and Sidney Altman discovered that, in collaboration with various protein enzymes,
many different kinds of RNA enzymes—or ribozymes—read the information coded in DNA and build the different parts of a cell piece
by piece. The RNA world hypothesis posits that the earliest organisms on the planet relied solely on RNA to perform all these tasks—to
both store and use genetic information—without the help of DNA or an entourage of protein enzymes.
Here’s how it might have happened: Nearly four billion years ago, in Earth’s primordial
soup, free-floating nucleotides—the building blocks of RNA and DNA—linked into longer
and longer chains, eventually producing ribozymes that were big enough and complex
enough to make new copies of themselves and thus had a much greater chance of
surviving than RNAs that could not reproduce. Simple self-assembling membranes
enveloped these early ribozymes, forming the first cells. In addition to making more
RNA, ribozymes may have joined nucleotides into chains of DNA; nucleotides may have
spontaneously formed DNA as well. Either way, DNA replaced RNA as the main
information-storing molecule because it was more stable. And proteins took on many
catalytic roles because they were so versatile and diverse. But the cells of modern
organisms still contain what are likely remnants of the original RNA world. The
ribosome, for example—a bundle of RNA and proteins that builds proteins one amino
acid at a time—is a ribozyme. There’s also a group of viruses that use RNA as their
primary genetic material
To test the RNA world hypothesis, Joyce and other researchers have tried to create the types of self-replicating ribozymes that may
have once existed in the planet’s primordial soup. In the mid-2000s, Joyce and Tracey Lincoln constructed trillions of random
free-floating RNA sequences in the lab, similar to the early RNAs that may have competed with one another billions of years ago, and
isolated sequences that, by chance, were capable of bonding two other pieces of RNA. By pitting these sequences against one another,
the pair eventually produced two ribozymes that could replicate one another ad infinitum as long as they were supplied with sufficient
nucleotides. Not only can these naked RNA molecules reproduce, they can also mutate and evolve. The ribozymes have altered small
segments of their genetic code to adapt to fluctuating environmental conditions, for example.
“They meet the working definition of life,” Joyce says. “It’s self-sustaining Darwinian evolution.” But he hesitates to say that the
ribozymes are truly alive. Before he goes all Dr. Frankenstein, he wants to see his creation innovate a completely new behavior, not just
modify something it can already do. “I think what’s missing is that it needs to be inventive, needs to come up with new solutions,” he
says.
But I don’t think Joyce is giving the ribozymes enough credit. Evolution is a change in genes over time; one does not need to witness
pigs sprouting wings or RNAs assembling into the letters of the alphabet to see evolution at work. The advent of blue eye color between
6,000 and 10,000 years ago—simply another variation of iris pigments—is just as legitimate an example of evolution as the first
feathered dinosaurs. If we define life as a “self-sustaining system capable of Darwinian evolution,” I cannot see any legitimate reason to
deny self-replicating ribozymes or viruses the moniker of life. But I do see a reason to ditch this working definition and all other
definitions of life altogether.
Why is defining life so frustratingly difficult? Why have scientists and philosophers failed for centuries to find a specific physical
Why Life Does Not Really Exist | Brainwaves, Scientific American Blo... http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2013/12/02/why-life-d...
3 de 5 02/03/2014 20:27
A photo taken with an electron scanning microscope of theALH 84001 meteorite, which supposedly formed on Mars 4billion years ago before eventually reaching Earth. Ahandful of scientists think the chain-like structures in thephoto are fossilized Martian nanobacteria, but mostresearchers are skeptical (Credit: NASA, via WikimediaCommons)
property or set of properties that clearly separates the living from the inanimate? Because such a property does not exist. Life is a
concept that we invented. On the most fundamental level, all matter that exists is an arrangement of atoms and their constituent
particles. These arrangements fall onto an immense spectrum of complexity, from a single hydrogen atom to something as intricate as a
brain. In trying to define life, we have drawn a line at an arbitrary level of complexity and declared that everything above that border is
alive and everything below it is not. In truth, this division does not exist outside the mind. There is no threshold at which a collection of
atoms suddenly becomes alive, no categorical distinction between the living and inanimate, no Frankensteinian spark. We have failed to
define life because there was never anything to define in the first place.
I nervously explained these ideas to Joyce on the phone, anticipating that he would laugh and tell me they were absurd. After all, this is
someone who helped NASA define life. But Joyce said the argument that life is a concept is “perfect.” He agrees that the mission to
define life is, in some ways, futile. The working definition was really just a linguistic convenience. “We were trying to help NASA find
extraterrestrial life,” he says. “We couldn’t use the word ‘life’ in every paragraph and not define it.”
Carol Cleland, a philosopher at the University of Colorado Boulder who has spent years researching attempts to deliniate life, also
thinks that the instinct to precisely define life is misguided—but she is not yet ready to deny life’s physical reality. “It’s just as premature
to reach the conclusion that there is no intrinsic nature to life as it is to define life,” she says. “I think the best attitude is to treat what
are normally taken as the definitive criteria of life as tentative criteria.”
What we really need, Cleland has written, is “a well-confirmed, adequately general
theory of life.” She draws an analogy to chemists in the sixteenth century. Before
scientists understood that air, dirt, acids and all chemical substances were made of
molecules, they struggled to define water. They could list its properties—it was wet,
transparent, tasteless, freezable and it could dissolve many other substances—but they
could not precisely characterize it until researchers discovered that water is two
hydrogen atoms bonded to an oxygen atom. Whether salty, muddy, dyed, liquid or
frozen, water is always H20; it may have other elements mixed in, but the tripartite
molecules that make what we call water water are always there. Nitric acid may resemble
water, but it is not water because the two substances have different molecular structures.
Creating the equivalent of molecular theory for life, Cleland says, will require a larger
sample size. She argues that, so far, we have only one example of what life is—the DNA
and RNA-based life on Earth. Imagine trying to create a theory about mammals by
observing only zebras. That’s the situation we find ourselves in when trying to identify
what makes life life, Cleland concludes.
I disagree. Discovering examples of alien life on other planets would undoubtedly expand our understanding of how the things we call
living organisms work and how they evolved in the first place, but such discoveries would probably not help us formulate a
revolutionary new theory of life. Sixteenth century chemists could not pinpoint what distinguished water from other substances
because they did not understand its fundamental nature: they did not know that every substance was made of a specific arrangement of
molecules. In contrast, modern scientists know exactly what the creatures on our planet are made of—cells, proteins, DNA and RNA.
What differentiates molecules of water, rocks, and silverware from cats, people and other living things is not “life,” but complexity.
Scientists already have sufficient knowledge to explain why what we have dubbed organisms can in general do things that most of what
we call inanimate cannot—to explain how bacteria make new copies of themselves and quickly adapt to their environment, and why
rocks do not—without proclaiming that life is this and non-life that and never the twain shall meet.
Recognizing life as a concept in no way robs what we call life of its splendor. It’s not that there’s no material difference between living
things and the inanimate; rather, we will never find some clean dividing line between the two because the notion of life and non-life as
distinct categories is just that—a notion, not a reality. Everything about living creatures that fascinated me as a boy are equally
wondrous to me now, even with my new understanding of life. I think what truly unites the things we say are alive is not any property
intrinsic to those things themselves; rather, it is our perception of them, our love of them and—frankly—our hubris and narcissism.
First, we announced that everything on Earth could be separated into two groups—the animate and inanimate—and it is no secret
which one we think is superior. Then, not only did we place ourselves in the first group, we further insisted on measuring all other life
forms on the planet against ourselves. The more similar something is to us—the more it appears to move, talk, feel, think—the more
alive it is to us, even though the particular set of attributes that makes a human a human is clearly not the only way (or, in evolutionary
terms, even the most successful way) to go about being a ‘living thing.’
Truthfully, that which we call life is impossible without and inseparable from what we
regard as inanimate. If we could somehow see the underlying reality of our planet—to
Why Life Does Not Really Exist | Brainwaves, Scientific American Blo... http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2013/12/02/why-life-d...
4 de 5 02/03/2014 20:27
Scientific American is a trademark of Scientific American, Inc., used with permission
© 2013 Scientific American, a Division of Nature America, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.
Our late family cat, Jasmine (Credit: Jabr family)
comprehend its structure on every scale simultaneously, from the microscopic to the
macroscopic—we would see the world in innumerable grains of sand, a giant quivering
sphere of atoms. Just as one can mold thousands of practically identical grains of sand
on a beach into castles, mermaids or whatever one can imagine, the innumerable atoms
that make up everything on the planet continually congregate and disassemble
themselves, creating a ceaselessly shifting kaleidoscope of matter. Some of those flocks of
particles would be what we have named mountains, oceans and clouds; others trees, fish
and birds. Some would be relatively inert; others would be changing at inconceivable
speed in bafflingly complex ways. Some would be roller coasters and others cats.
About the Author: Ferris Jabr is an associate editor focusing on neuroscience and psychology. Follow on Twitter @ferrisjabr.
More »
The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.
Why Life Does Not Really Exist | Brainwaves, Scientific American Blo... http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2013/12/02/why-life-d...
5 de 5 02/03/2014 20:27