What do you think?
Rate this book
The Equations of Life: How Physics Shapes Evolution
A groundbreaking argument for why alien life will evolve to be much like life here on Earth We are all familiar with the popular idea of strange alien life wildly different from life on earth inhabiting other planets. Maybe it's made of silicon! Maybe it has wheels! Or maybe it doesn't. In The Equations of Life, biologist Charles S. Cockell makes the forceful argument that the laws of physics narrowly constrain how life can evolve, making evolution's outcomes predictable. If we were to find on a distant planet something very much like a lady bug eating something like an aphid, we shouldn't be surprised. The forms of life are guided by a limited set of rules, and as a result, there is a narrow set of solutions to the challenges of existence.A remarkable scientific contribution breathing new life into Darwin's theory of evolution, The Equations of Life makes a radical argument about what life can -- and can't -- be.
352 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2018
105 people are currently reading
1792 people want to read
About the author
Charles S. Cockell
23 books46 followersCharles Cockell is Professor of Astrobiology at the University of Edinburgh. His academic interests encompass life in extreme environments, the habitability of extraterrestrial environments and the human exploration and settlement of space. He has also written on the subject of extraterrestrial liberty.
He is author of scientific papers and books, including the undergraduate-level textbook 'Astrobiology' (Wiley) and numerous popular science books.
He is author of scientific papers and books, including the undergraduate-level textbook 'Astrobiology' (Wiley) and numerous popular science books.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews
June 27, 2024
Brothers and sisters. Comrades and friends. It is that dreaded time where, due to certain fiscal urgencies, I must discipline myself in matters of waste, and, principle among my many superfluous expenditures, are the various promissory notes of chronological character that I have failed to honor. Nay, good reader, not only failed to observe, but railed, in hirsute lycanthropic rage, against the very idea of thrift. Spending currencies of time willy nilly on commodified sensory experiences conveyed by hooks like eviscerated torsos, butchered by committee and served completely denuded of every edifying impulse. Therefore, I will aim for concision when reviewing books henceforth. Which may upset those who found my prior vomitus excursions to be interesting forensic exercises in pareidolia, I’m stricken to say. However, for those that yearned only for information relevant to the books under consideration, I bid you rejoice, as I distill these robust formulations down to their essential lexical leanness. Observe, sentences of such shockingly low body fat percentage that they form like striations on a bodybuilder’s granite gluteal meats. Take a caliper to this one if you must, but I think you’ll see that it’s fit as a fiddle. Its lean body mass only supported with such instances of subcutaneous cushioning as necessary to prevent immediate transition into the realm of cadavers. I am focused, chums. I’ll not waste one more cent of your timely legal tender. And so, I present to you my thoughts on this book in the most straight forward way possible, as an exchange between a learned gentleman and myself (as a werewolf).
On nights when I have ingested far too many edibles, it is sometimes fashionable to transmogrify into a were-beast. Tonight, after prodigious consumption, I sit alone in the garage, flipping through the pages of this recently devoured book. I contemplate the ways in which the laws of physics circumscribe the adaptive landscape and limit the possible ways in which life can arise and thrive in the cosmos. Distant footsteps batter my ossicles with metronomic distraction. My ears pivot to localize the sound. That’s when I realize; I have slipped the dermal snuggy of my humanity and assumed a hybrid form most terrible. “Only one thing for it.” I think, as I rocket through the doggy door I’ve arranged for just such occasions. The flap is barely closing as I execute a breathtaking controlled slide at the edge of the lawn, my nails leaving the wet grass disfigured. I redirect my momentum to tear-ass northward along the rain slicked street in an eight cylinder Naruto-Run, flaying the tranquil sheen of tonight’s recent storm like a Colombian drug boat. Ahead, I sense my prey. The local Astrobiologist who frequently strolls this stretch of road. I lean into my ninja run as if charging headlong into a gale, my arms stretched behind me and carried aloft by powerful coefficients of speed related Jutsu, toes needling the asphalt like a vulpine sewing machine. Several strides away, I leap through the air, howling like a bad trip: “PROFESSOR, HAVE YOU EVER HAD YOUR ASS ATE BY A LYCANTHROPE IN THE PALE MOON LIGHT!?” He spins in surprise. Sagging to his knees and clawing his throat.
“WHAT HATH GOD WROUGHT?!?!” He bellows. Eyes big like an owl and face palsied by limbic overstimulation.
“Ohaiiii! Professor! I have come to discuss this book with you.” Producing the volume from my tactical Hello Kitty backpack and launching it at him.
“Saints be with us, *redacted*! You certainly possess the kind of personality which can shatter a leisurely jaunt to PIECES! God in heaven. The howling fantods. I’m telling you, child. There’s something not quite right about you.” He grunts, regaining his footing with some effort, dignity lagging way behind. “Nevertheless, let’s see what we have here..”
“You mean the fact that I’m a werewolf?”
“What?”
“I’m a werewolf, Professor.”
“A werewolf? Have you been drinking drugs young lady? You simply must desist this cavorting about in inclement weather in naught but jammy jams. Do you hear me? You’ll catch the buboes.”
“Why don’t I have wheels, Professor?”
“In a moment, dear. Ah, yes, I’ve read this one.”
“Why don’t fish have, Propellers?”
“A fine book about how universal physical laws constrain the phenotypic expressiveness of creatures terrestrial and boldly gone thereof no one has begone before.
“Professor, I think you might’ve like semantically manglified that statement..”
“Hush now. No time for games. Let me ask you, Jen. Don’t you find it appalling, this bogus bifurcation of biology and physics into isolated domains? Confusticate and bebother, Jen! I have stormed the castles of academia in a frightful temper, I tell you. Casting aspersions like death curses. Spittle flying. Hands and arms gesticulating in the manner of deGrasse Tyson to ward off apostles of prevailing wisdoms. Terrible stuff, Jen. But I’ve seen the oubliettes which house our many disciplines. Hell I’m mad as and I’m taking it anymore will no longer see my participation!.”
“Omelettes, sir?”
“Dungeons, my dear. Dungeons. But what you’ve got here is an Angstloch. The key to bringing these disparate pieces together. Forcing them to mingle. Like liquid water, you see. These properties of water, its polarized nature yielding less density when frozen due to the crystal lattice lining up just-“
“Is electron exchange the best game in town for complex organisms, Proton Motive Force?”
“These principles can be quantified, is what I’m saying. These are mathematical relationships. They have a great deal to say about the ubiquitous features that life must exhibit, throughout the known universe, and what environments are likely to be conducive to it. The biosphere is rife with examples of convergent evolution. And let me assure you, these are not mere contingencies. Accidents inertially etched into their bodies. It’s because these creatures, although geographically isolated, are subject to the same laws of physics, and as such, will land on solutions tha-“
“But, like, the human eye is built reversified, right?
“Yes, yes, and that IS an example of historical contingency, as best we can tell, for other organisms do display superior designs. No blind spot. But that’s not what I’m referring to. Take for example the cellular structure of life, or the utilization of amino acids for origami purposes.”
“Why is carbon so-”
“All these questions receive excellent scrutiny in here, Jen! Were you trying another one of those scientifically dubious speed reading courses? You know that the fovea is limited to-”
“I’ve been eating drugs.”
“One must not eat drugs whilst seeking to colonize additional territories of perspicaciousness! I have reinforced this dictum, sometimes rather more irately than I’d wish, on an almost nightly basis, and yet you continue to... how do the kids say it? Become plumb waisted. Flown in the creek. Tripping along like a ball. etcetera. During your studies. Sagacious folly of the highest order!”
“But, like, what are the upper and lower bounds for life on the like temperation gradients?”
“GET THEE HENCE AND READ THE DAMN BOOK!”
On nights when I have ingested far too many edibles, it is sometimes fashionable to transmogrify into a were-beast. Tonight, after prodigious consumption, I sit alone in the garage, flipping through the pages of this recently devoured book. I contemplate the ways in which the laws of physics circumscribe the adaptive landscape and limit the possible ways in which life can arise and thrive in the cosmos. Distant footsteps batter my ossicles with metronomic distraction. My ears pivot to localize the sound. That’s when I realize; I have slipped the dermal snuggy of my humanity and assumed a hybrid form most terrible. “Only one thing for it.” I think, as I rocket through the doggy door I’ve arranged for just such occasions. The flap is barely closing as I execute a breathtaking controlled slide at the edge of the lawn, my nails leaving the wet grass disfigured. I redirect my momentum to tear-ass northward along the rain slicked street in an eight cylinder Naruto-Run, flaying the tranquil sheen of tonight’s recent storm like a Colombian drug boat. Ahead, I sense my prey. The local Astrobiologist who frequently strolls this stretch of road. I lean into my ninja run as if charging headlong into a gale, my arms stretched behind me and carried aloft by powerful coefficients of speed related Jutsu, toes needling the asphalt like a vulpine sewing machine. Several strides away, I leap through the air, howling like a bad trip: “PROFESSOR, HAVE YOU EVER HAD YOUR ASS ATE BY A LYCANTHROPE IN THE PALE MOON LIGHT!?” He spins in surprise. Sagging to his knees and clawing his throat.
“WHAT HATH GOD WROUGHT?!?!” He bellows. Eyes big like an owl and face palsied by limbic overstimulation.
“Ohaiiii! Professor! I have come to discuss this book with you.” Producing the volume from my tactical Hello Kitty backpack and launching it at him.
“Saints be with us, *redacted*! You certainly possess the kind of personality which can shatter a leisurely jaunt to PIECES! God in heaven. The howling fantods. I’m telling you, child. There’s something not quite right about you.” He grunts, regaining his footing with some effort, dignity lagging way behind. “Nevertheless, let’s see what we have here..”
“You mean the fact that I’m a werewolf?”
“What?”
“I’m a werewolf, Professor.”
“A werewolf? Have you been drinking drugs young lady? You simply must desist this cavorting about in inclement weather in naught but jammy jams. Do you hear me? You’ll catch the buboes.”
“Why don’t I have wheels, Professor?”
“In a moment, dear. Ah, yes, I’ve read this one.”
“Why don’t fish have, Propellers?”
“A fine book about how universal physical laws constrain the phenotypic expressiveness of creatures terrestrial and boldly gone thereof no one has begone before.
“Professor, I think you might’ve like semantically manglified that statement..”
“Hush now. No time for games. Let me ask you, Jen. Don’t you find it appalling, this bogus bifurcation of biology and physics into isolated domains? Confusticate and bebother, Jen! I have stormed the castles of academia in a frightful temper, I tell you. Casting aspersions like death curses. Spittle flying. Hands and arms gesticulating in the manner of deGrasse Tyson to ward off apostles of prevailing wisdoms. Terrible stuff, Jen. But I’ve seen the oubliettes which house our many disciplines. Hell I’m mad as and I’m taking it anymore will no longer see my participation!.”
“Omelettes, sir?”
“Dungeons, my dear. Dungeons. But what you’ve got here is an Angstloch. The key to bringing these disparate pieces together. Forcing them to mingle. Like liquid water, you see. These properties of water, its polarized nature yielding less density when frozen due to the crystal lattice lining up just-“
“Is electron exchange the best game in town for complex organisms, Proton Motive Force?”
“These principles can be quantified, is what I’m saying. These are mathematical relationships. They have a great deal to say about the ubiquitous features that life must exhibit, throughout the known universe, and what environments are likely to be conducive to it. The biosphere is rife with examples of convergent evolution. And let me assure you, these are not mere contingencies. Accidents inertially etched into their bodies. It’s because these creatures, although geographically isolated, are subject to the same laws of physics, and as such, will land on solutions tha-“
“But, like, the human eye is built reversified, right?
“Yes, yes, and that IS an example of historical contingency, as best we can tell, for other organisms do display superior designs. No blind spot. But that’s not what I’m referring to. Take for example the cellular structure of life, or the utilization of amino acids for origami purposes.”
“Why is carbon so-”
“All these questions receive excellent scrutiny in here, Jen! Were you trying another one of those scientifically dubious speed reading courses? You know that the fovea is limited to-”
“I’ve been eating drugs.”
“One must not eat drugs whilst seeking to colonize additional territories of perspicaciousness! I have reinforced this dictum, sometimes rather more irately than I’d wish, on an almost nightly basis, and yet you continue to... how do the kids say it? Become plumb waisted. Flown in the creek. Tripping along like a ball. etcetera. During your studies. Sagacious folly of the highest order!”
“But, like, what are the upper and lower bounds for life on the like temperation gradients?”
“GET THEE HENCE AND READ THE DAMN BOOK!”
October 4, 2019
This is an immensely rewarding, profoundly enlightening, multi-disciplinary masterpiece of popular science; an hymn to the beauty and fundamental core simplicity of evolution of life on this planet and in the Universe, delivering multifarious complexity from a relatively simple set of physical patterns.
The author cogently demonstrates with unparalleled brilliance, with the support of a multifaceted plethora of examples, and with tantalizing forays into several disciplines (such as astrophysics, evolutionary biology, molecular genetics, computer modelling and simulation, biochemistry, hydrodynamics and thermodynamics, astrobiology, dynamics and quantum physics), how the apparent boundless variety of life forms is not as much contingency-driven as once assumed, but actually firmly and predictably grounded on universal physical laws, which ultimately constraints (and to a surprising extent, it must be said) the outcomes of evolutionary pressures.
The author compellingly exposes how the structures of life, at all levels of detail, are driven by the honing of biological form governed by simple physical principles; principles that can expressed and treated quantitatively through mathematical equations. Convergent evolution is the clear demonstration of the recurrent channeling of biological form into similar outcomes determined by such simple physical laws, and the author is in a really privileged position (with his background in biochemistry, molecular biology, biophysics and astrobiology) to deliver a cross-disciplinary synthesis of great lucidity and impact.
Life is not something magically separated from the rest of the physical world, and there is no real chasm between “nonlife” and “life”; many armchair philosophers (not to mention religious-driven ideologues) have loved to imbue life with some form of vitalism or some sort of mystic unfathomability, while in reality life is just a particular embodiment of physical processes. The real difference is actually in informational theoretical terms, as life is a “coded physical process” that makes use of sophisticated information management processes, necessary to respond in an efficient way to the unrelenting evolutionary and environmental pressures that drive the development of life in its many manifestations. As beautifully stated by the author, life ultimately is "a system of reproducing matter containing a code whose reproduction lies between perfection and error catastrophe".
I can not render justice to this masterpiece of popular science, as the fascinating themes treated by the author are just too many to be reasonably given fair attention within the limited space of a review, and I do not want to inadvertently introduce any conceptual spoiler.
Just to highlight one specific example that I found of particular interest: the chapter on the DNA coding, where the author demonstrates how evolution has driven the development of an amazingly efficient and highly optimised information storage and processing system, is a real page turner: the author explains how the “codes” used in DNA are not random, but deliver an optimal solution to many contrasting requirements such as efficiency, flexibility and stability, and the need to provide some form of embedded error-minimisation mechanisms. Moreover, the number of bases (four) is just right, and it delivers great computational efficiency with the available resources provided by nature.
The close relationship between nature and information processing is extremely fascinating, and the author treats the subject with magisterial, authoritative brilliance: however I think that the author might have allocated even more space on this item: for example, the author did not make any reference to fascinating experiments which demonstrated how the DNA can not only hold, but also process information (see https://www.nature.com/news/2000/0001..., where a "chemical computer" was used to address, with surprising results, one of the hardest of computational problems, the hyper-famous “traveling salesman”).
There are also many examples where information theory considerations drive evolutionary processes (for example, it has been demonstrated that neurons which receive outputs from the eye communicate about as much information as theoretically possible according to what dictated by information theory results; in more general terms, it has also been shown that brains operate close to the limits defined by Shannon's mathematical theory of communication).
But I am really nitpicking here, as the book is incredibly rich with many concepts and examples, a real smorgasbord, a feast of evolutionary science themes that delight the reader at almost every single page of this brilliant book.
Some readers have criticized the presence of several physics equations, many of them only partially explained and all of them treated only briefly. While the presence of such equations is completely fine with me (I have very little patience with readers who run for the hills as soon as they find a complex-looking equation - and isn't the book titled "equations for life"?), it is in any case definitely warranted in all instances where introduced by the author (and actually nothing really complex at all, when introduced), I must also say that a more comprehensive explanation of some equations would have made the treatment more accessible to the less mathematically inclined reader with no prior exposure to physics.
Very highly recommended, an absolute pleasure to read, a real page turner. 5 stars.
The author cogently demonstrates with unparalleled brilliance, with the support of a multifaceted plethora of examples, and with tantalizing forays into several disciplines (such as astrophysics, evolutionary biology, molecular genetics, computer modelling and simulation, biochemistry, hydrodynamics and thermodynamics, astrobiology, dynamics and quantum physics), how the apparent boundless variety of life forms is not as much contingency-driven as once assumed, but actually firmly and predictably grounded on universal physical laws, which ultimately constraints (and to a surprising extent, it must be said) the outcomes of evolutionary pressures.
The author compellingly exposes how the structures of life, at all levels of detail, are driven by the honing of biological form governed by simple physical principles; principles that can expressed and treated quantitatively through mathematical equations. Convergent evolution is the clear demonstration of the recurrent channeling of biological form into similar outcomes determined by such simple physical laws, and the author is in a really privileged position (with his background in biochemistry, molecular biology, biophysics and astrobiology) to deliver a cross-disciplinary synthesis of great lucidity and impact.
Life is not something magically separated from the rest of the physical world, and there is no real chasm between “nonlife” and “life”; many armchair philosophers (not to mention religious-driven ideologues) have loved to imbue life with some form of vitalism or some sort of mystic unfathomability, while in reality life is just a particular embodiment of physical processes. The real difference is actually in informational theoretical terms, as life is a “coded physical process” that makes use of sophisticated information management processes, necessary to respond in an efficient way to the unrelenting evolutionary and environmental pressures that drive the development of life in its many manifestations. As beautifully stated by the author, life ultimately is "a system of reproducing matter containing a code whose reproduction lies between perfection and error catastrophe".
I can not render justice to this masterpiece of popular science, as the fascinating themes treated by the author are just too many to be reasonably given fair attention within the limited space of a review, and I do not want to inadvertently introduce any conceptual spoiler.
Just to highlight one specific example that I found of particular interest: the chapter on the DNA coding, where the author demonstrates how evolution has driven the development of an amazingly efficient and highly optimised information storage and processing system, is a real page turner: the author explains how the “codes” used in DNA are not random, but deliver an optimal solution to many contrasting requirements such as efficiency, flexibility and stability, and the need to provide some form of embedded error-minimisation mechanisms. Moreover, the number of bases (four) is just right, and it delivers great computational efficiency with the available resources provided by nature.
The close relationship between nature and information processing is extremely fascinating, and the author treats the subject with magisterial, authoritative brilliance: however I think that the author might have allocated even more space on this item: for example, the author did not make any reference to fascinating experiments which demonstrated how the DNA can not only hold, but also process information (see https://www.nature.com/news/2000/0001..., where a "chemical computer" was used to address, with surprising results, one of the hardest of computational problems, the hyper-famous “traveling salesman”).
There are also many examples where information theory considerations drive evolutionary processes (for example, it has been demonstrated that neurons which receive outputs from the eye communicate about as much information as theoretically possible according to what dictated by information theory results; in more general terms, it has also been shown that brains operate close to the limits defined by Shannon's mathematical theory of communication).
But I am really nitpicking here, as the book is incredibly rich with many concepts and examples, a real smorgasbord, a feast of evolutionary science themes that delight the reader at almost every single page of this brilliant book.
Some readers have criticized the presence of several physics equations, many of them only partially explained and all of them treated only briefly. While the presence of such equations is completely fine with me (I have very little patience with readers who run for the hills as soon as they find a complex-looking equation - and isn't the book titled "equations for life"?), it is in any case definitely warranted in all instances where introduced by the author (and actually nothing really complex at all, when introduced), I must also say that a more comprehensive explanation of some equations would have made the treatment more accessible to the less mathematically inclined reader with no prior exposure to physics.
Very highly recommended, an absolute pleasure to read, a real page turner. 5 stars.
December 12, 2018
This book is everything. Historically, humans have treated physics and biology as if they are completely separate. That is not because scientists and the rest of society are stupid. It is because trying to understand our world, understand the universe outside our world, and how the laws of physics govern both is a very difficult task and has taken centuries of human understanding to even achieve the little we know at present. The field of astrobiology is a relatively new one specifically because it took us this long to start to fit together the pieces of the puzzle that explain how physical forces act upon and constrain the Endless Forms Most Beautiful that evolve upon Earth . In his book life equations Cockell described how the physical laws that govern the entire universe are at work here on Earth to shape and sustain the life we see before our eyes. Understanding what is in this book is the only way to understand the progressing theory of evolution. Though he doesn't necessarily name the people I list here, he most certainly covers the work of researcher such as Nick Lane (hydrothermal vents/thermodynamics and energetics of evolution), Jeremy England (dissipation of energy, adaptation of systems), biologist Sean Carroll (who he does name when he describes HOX genes), David Deamer (first life research). He is no dummy about the politics of science; he makes sure to dismiss Dawkins while still treating him with kid gloves.
This book is definitely a must read for anyone interested in the theory of evolution and how researchers are finally connecting the dots from biology to physics. One day we will laugh at a statement like that and say, 'Duh, of course the laws of biology conform to and are constrained by the laws of physics. How could anyone have thought otherwise?" It is just the case that it has taken centuries of scientific investigation to get to this point of understanding. Much of what is written here will seem like it must not be new. After all, it is so intuitive. While a lot of this work is many decades in the making, what is in this book is decidedly new because it took this long to be able to say all of this without too much controversy. What is written down in these pages is what we finally understand about how the laws of physics formed life, constrained the size and shape life could take, dictate the shape and number of the building blocks that were used to create Darwin's endless forms (Cockell will tell you why they are not truly endless), why the metabolism of all life uses the mechanisms it does, and what extreme conditions make it impossible for any life (as defined through a biological lens) can exist at all.
The central message for the reader is, life is math; you simply have to know how to understand the equations. The evolution of forms, life, death, and activity of the evolved forms all have equations, and these equations interact with other equations. No matter the interaction, no matter how vast forms and behaviors of forms seem to be, every single equation is bound by the laws of physics. Despite the title, the book itself included relatively few equations and focused more on discussing why we should try to understand the equations of life.
What are the equations for moving through water or walking on land? Why does it even matter? What would it tell us? It actually tells us a lot. If we can begin by understanding how simple forces like gravity (funny to call it simple since that force is one of the most complex issues in physics today) can pull something inward (or more accurately, make something roll down a hill toward it), we can understand something about the formation of stars and planets, as well as gain an understanding of our wider universe. But, what forces are at work when a small lady bug climbs up a wall? The tiny bug isn't very affected by gravity. Along with a weak force of gravity, the molecular forces of Van der Waals bonds are at work on the tiny, building climbing bug. How did that lady bug come to exist on the land and not exist as a fish in water, which allows animals to be less constrained by the forces of gravity? How did even larger animals, like big boned elephants, large horses, or humans evolve to withstand the pressures gravity exerts on land dwelling creatures? What are the equations that could help us understand how bones and skin need to change in order for fish to evolve and climb out of the water and, over time, evolve limbs that allow it to walk on land and bones thick enough to withstand the 9.8 meters per second squared gravitational force pushing down on it? What are the equations that govern the evolution of thickening skin, which now has to do the job of absorbing highly energetic UV rays from the sun that the water used to absorb? In order to avoid cell damage fungi, plants, and animals had to develop pigment, such as melanin, to help fend off some of that cancer causing energy. In addition to needing pigment, skin that exists on land has to be able to trap water inside. Your ancestors might have left the water, but if they didn't put water back inside their bodies very often and trap that water in a nice thick membrane of skin, they would have become dehydrated and died.
What are the equations that constrain the extreme boundaries for the existence of any form of life? One thing we can look at is temperature. Extreme temperatures around earth make it difficult for life forms to take shape or remain active. For example, organisms can live at -50 degrees C, but everything runs so slowly. A slow metabolism means that a cell cannot repair itself fast enough from normal cellular damage. At Earth's poles, such as Antarctica, temperatures are so cold, it freezes the fatty acids that make up the cell's membrane. A frozen membrane causes a cell to starve to death. The frozen, rigid fatty acid membrane cannot open up and take in nutrients (like oxygen, carbon, etc). To make their membranes a bit more flexible, some cells have evolved a single modification that allows the fatty acid to form a double bond instead of the normal single bond. That double bond is life saving because it allows cells to gain enough flexibility to open their mouths (channels) and take in food and air (oxygen, carbon, etc). Imagine your nostrils and mouth being frozen shut but then someone pokes a tiny hole in one of your openings and lets you breath air, drink water, or ingest food. Reading this section, funny enough, made me think of a show I saw when I was young, which horrified me. A girl was abducted and buried under ground, with only a thin tube through which to breathe. That tv show really stuck with me. When I read about the poor cells in Antarctica, I could not help but think about the girl who was buried and partially suffocated. (Weird thing to relate, I know.) Conversely, if temperatures are too high, even the fastest metabolizing cells cannot move fast enough to repair damage because that much heat causes damage on a continual basis. Life exists only on a thin layer on the planet. Even if we could extend the boundary of life to 450 C, we could triple the thickness of biosphere, which is still only about 0.3 % of earth's radius. Cockell stated, "Life is denied depth of earth bc of thermal energy", and "Between absolute zero and the temperature of interior of a star like the sun, life occupies only 0.007% of this temp range."
Does Cockell or anyone understand all the equations of life? Of course not. But this is certainly a good place to start.
There was quite a bit of discussion about the origin of life: how could lipids initially form into membranes; the tendency for molecules to want to disperse and not gather together to make the energy cells need; how could a cellular bag trap enough energy to allow for repair and replication; is there enough energy in a warm little pond, ocean waves, or crashing meteorites to allow replication; etc. When it came to the origin of life section in the book, I felt like he could have been a bit more forceful with his arguments here. He was on the money, spewing out essential facts that *must* be considered in order to come up with an accurate theory of first life, but seemed to be afraid to say, "If your hypothesis cannot account for the energetics involved in first life, your hypothesis probably isn't a good one." The reason I think it was important for him to be a bit stronger with this section is that, his focus on biological theories agreeing with, and being constrained by, the laws of physics is what is new about this book. Much of the material about cells has been known for quite some time. The exquisite, yet older, detail laid out in this book is only necessary to include because it provides foundational information for his central argument, which is that biology is constrained by physics. Without making a strong argument against theories that do not take the second law of thermodynamics and other laws of physics into account, this book could be a summary of what is already known and well told in many other books. I am not saying Cockell doesn't get around to the point, but he often discusses theories that are not constrained by the laws of physics as viable theories, only to passively - and at a later point - describe the physics that these theories ignore. I think a reader who is not familiar with both physics and biology might be forgiven for missing the point at times. Another thing missing from his first life discussion was the evolution of channels. This is absolutely an essential point. If he argues throughout the book that there are some universal rules, and the most important among them are that any species must take in nutrients and expel waste products during metabolism, then they need channels capable of doing that. The person working tirelessly on that is Nick Lane. So again, I don't know why he would not specifically mention Lane's work here. I felt as if there were politics at play and I get so bothered when the politics of science get int he way of the science.
Despite the forgoing criticisms, which is actually more of a suggestion for his future writing than it is an actual criticism, this book is a solid 5 star book. In fact, if there was a 6 star option that could only be used once for every 75 books reviewed, this book would get that extra star.
Cockell did take a bold stand on what life could look like if found in different places in our universe. This whole discussion was spot on. You need a cellular bag, or a bag or some sort, to trap energy. That is thermodynamics 101. Anything without this enclosure (and channels) would dissipate its energy too quickly to evolve into any form. (See Jeremy England's work for more on that).
What are the equations that constrain the size of cells? (Nick Lane does really nice work on this. I cannot remember if it was in his books or talks- or both). A cell cannot get too large because it needs enough surface area to ingest nutrients. If the cell has a huge, greedy inside, then its membrane does not provide enough surface area to include the channels it would need to take in nutrients to satisfy the activities inside the large cell. The largest cells have a few tricks up their sleeves. A large cell could, like a parasite, live inside an animal, so that the animal does the work the cell would otherwise have to do. A large cell could also have invaginations, which allow the cell to pull in nutrients from the outside without having to provide more channels. This part of the book reminded me a lot of animal size discussed in Geoffrey West's book Scale. Even those animals who are allowed to grow to enormous sizes, because they live in water and gravity will not crush their organs and bones like it would on land, can only grow so large. Whales have only one heart. The arteries, veins, and capillaries are fractals. They branch and then repeat the same branching pattern from the very large blood passageways to the tiniest passage ways. Blood must be fed to each part of the tissue. But the blood passageway system can only stretch so far. If the animal is larger than the system can provide blood to the tissues, the tissues will die. Thus, blood supply constrains the size of all animals.
When discussing convergent evolution, I can't remember if Cockell even used the word homologous, but I don't think he did. He didn't need to because his entire focus was on how the small set of physical laws that govern the larger universe and our small world could of course dictate the shape forms can take, whether or not they are related. I hope that all classrooms in the near future teach convergent evolution through this lens.
If you like biochem, you will love Cockell's discussion of why, if we find life on other planets, it will likely be made of carbon. Each of the CHNOPS elements (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur) get detailed treatment in this book. To make any life, either on Earth or another planet, bonds need to form and break to build and evolve life forms. If bonds are too strong, such as the case with fluorine and carbon, and to a lesser extent, chlorine and carbon, then those bonds will not break as easily. If the bonds are not strong enough, as is the case with silicone based life instead of carbon life, then bonds break too easily and life can't hold together. The bonds have to be just right for the dynamic nature of life to play out.
If you doubt that the process of synthesizing biology and physics is new, take note of Chapter 11, in which Cockell highlights many of the challenges biologists and physicists face when they try to apply universal laws that could explain the physical and biological world we see around us. This is a subject that I have been writing extensively about, in a personal project, for the past 10 years.
The take home message is a reiterated in the last chapter when Cockell talked about the role of chance in evolution. Like Steven Jay Gould, Cockell is fascinated with the diversity of evolutionary forms. Even within the same form, like Gould's Burgess Shale, you can find immense diversity because of the emergence of various traits, which have either been selected for or selected against by the conditions in the environment. These variations are impressive to be sure. They even speak the role of chance. However, what is even more glaring is that within species and *across species*, there are shockingly similar rules that govern the shape and function of life. Every form, no matter if that form is a single cell, the Burgess Shale, a fish, a plant, a huge whale, or a human, *all* of these forms must have cells that contain enough surface area to take in nutrients and expel waste products. They must have an enclosed skin or membrane that helps them achieve this. For forms that grow large, they must have many cells, and many organs made up of cells that do the job of providing enough surface area to take in various waste products and expel waste. Take your own body. You must have cells and organs that take in oxygen. Your mouth does this. Oxygen is then taken in by your lungs and and is sent around to your organs via pumping of your heat (which itself houses cells that take in and expel the oxygen). Your mouth takes in food and breaks it down to harvest the glucose. That glucose is broken down even further to make all the energy you will ever need to carry out every single thought and action you will ever think or do in your lifetime. Glucose is also broken down to make CO2 that will be ingested by plants as their nutrients. They will expel oxygen as their waste product.
Not a single evolved form can escape the process of ingesting nutrients and expelling waste products. A system/ species that cannot do that is a system that cannot remain active and will die. So no matter what elements other planets might use to evolve life, that life will make enclosed membranes/skins that can take in nutrients and expel waste products. Physics mandates this. There a small set of rules that confine what life can look like. Cockell boldly stated that what once seemed limitless and overly complex (the process of evolution) is now more simplified because of the convergence of biology and physics. In my opinion, there is notting more important problem/field that a scientist could be working on. I highly recommend this book.
This book is definitely a must read for anyone interested in the theory of evolution and how researchers are finally connecting the dots from biology to physics. One day we will laugh at a statement like that and say, 'Duh, of course the laws of biology conform to and are constrained by the laws of physics. How could anyone have thought otherwise?" It is just the case that it has taken centuries of scientific investigation to get to this point of understanding. Much of what is written here will seem like it must not be new. After all, it is so intuitive. While a lot of this work is many decades in the making, what is in this book is decidedly new because it took this long to be able to say all of this without too much controversy. What is written down in these pages is what we finally understand about how the laws of physics formed life, constrained the size and shape life could take, dictate the shape and number of the building blocks that were used to create Darwin's endless forms (Cockell will tell you why they are not truly endless), why the metabolism of all life uses the mechanisms it does, and what extreme conditions make it impossible for any life (as defined through a biological lens) can exist at all.
The central message for the reader is, life is math; you simply have to know how to understand the equations. The evolution of forms, life, death, and activity of the evolved forms all have equations, and these equations interact with other equations. No matter the interaction, no matter how vast forms and behaviors of forms seem to be, every single equation is bound by the laws of physics. Despite the title, the book itself included relatively few equations and focused more on discussing why we should try to understand the equations of life.
What are the equations for moving through water or walking on land? Why does it even matter? What would it tell us? It actually tells us a lot. If we can begin by understanding how simple forces like gravity (funny to call it simple since that force is one of the most complex issues in physics today) can pull something inward (or more accurately, make something roll down a hill toward it), we can understand something about the formation of stars and planets, as well as gain an understanding of our wider universe. But, what forces are at work when a small lady bug climbs up a wall? The tiny bug isn't very affected by gravity. Along with a weak force of gravity, the molecular forces of Van der Waals bonds are at work on the tiny, building climbing bug. How did that lady bug come to exist on the land and not exist as a fish in water, which allows animals to be less constrained by the forces of gravity? How did even larger animals, like big boned elephants, large horses, or humans evolve to withstand the pressures gravity exerts on land dwelling creatures? What are the equations that could help us understand how bones and skin need to change in order for fish to evolve and climb out of the water and, over time, evolve limbs that allow it to walk on land and bones thick enough to withstand the 9.8 meters per second squared gravitational force pushing down on it? What are the equations that govern the evolution of thickening skin, which now has to do the job of absorbing highly energetic UV rays from the sun that the water used to absorb? In order to avoid cell damage fungi, plants, and animals had to develop pigment, such as melanin, to help fend off some of that cancer causing energy. In addition to needing pigment, skin that exists on land has to be able to trap water inside. Your ancestors might have left the water, but if they didn't put water back inside their bodies very often and trap that water in a nice thick membrane of skin, they would have become dehydrated and died.
What are the equations that constrain the extreme boundaries for the existence of any form of life? One thing we can look at is temperature. Extreme temperatures around earth make it difficult for life forms to take shape or remain active. For example, organisms can live at -50 degrees C, but everything runs so slowly. A slow metabolism means that a cell cannot repair itself fast enough from normal cellular damage. At Earth's poles, such as Antarctica, temperatures are so cold, it freezes the fatty acids that make up the cell's membrane. A frozen membrane causes a cell to starve to death. The frozen, rigid fatty acid membrane cannot open up and take in nutrients (like oxygen, carbon, etc). To make their membranes a bit more flexible, some cells have evolved a single modification that allows the fatty acid to form a double bond instead of the normal single bond. That double bond is life saving because it allows cells to gain enough flexibility to open their mouths (channels) and take in food and air (oxygen, carbon, etc). Imagine your nostrils and mouth being frozen shut but then someone pokes a tiny hole in one of your openings and lets you breath air, drink water, or ingest food. Reading this section, funny enough, made me think of a show I saw when I was young, which horrified me. A girl was abducted and buried under ground, with only a thin tube through which to breathe. That tv show really stuck with me. When I read about the poor cells in Antarctica, I could not help but think about the girl who was buried and partially suffocated. (Weird thing to relate, I know.) Conversely, if temperatures are too high, even the fastest metabolizing cells cannot move fast enough to repair damage because that much heat causes damage on a continual basis. Life exists only on a thin layer on the planet. Even if we could extend the boundary of life to 450 C, we could triple the thickness of biosphere, which is still only about 0.3 % of earth's radius. Cockell stated, "Life is denied depth of earth bc of thermal energy", and "Between absolute zero and the temperature of interior of a star like the sun, life occupies only 0.007% of this temp range."
Does Cockell or anyone understand all the equations of life? Of course not. But this is certainly a good place to start.
There was quite a bit of discussion about the origin of life: how could lipids initially form into membranes; the tendency for molecules to want to disperse and not gather together to make the energy cells need; how could a cellular bag trap enough energy to allow for repair and replication; is there enough energy in a warm little pond, ocean waves, or crashing meteorites to allow replication; etc. When it came to the origin of life section in the book, I felt like he could have been a bit more forceful with his arguments here. He was on the money, spewing out essential facts that *must* be considered in order to come up with an accurate theory of first life, but seemed to be afraid to say, "If your hypothesis cannot account for the energetics involved in first life, your hypothesis probably isn't a good one." The reason I think it was important for him to be a bit stronger with this section is that, his focus on biological theories agreeing with, and being constrained by, the laws of physics is what is new about this book. Much of the material about cells has been known for quite some time. The exquisite, yet older, detail laid out in this book is only necessary to include because it provides foundational information for his central argument, which is that biology is constrained by physics. Without making a strong argument against theories that do not take the second law of thermodynamics and other laws of physics into account, this book could be a summary of what is already known and well told in many other books. I am not saying Cockell doesn't get around to the point, but he often discusses theories that are not constrained by the laws of physics as viable theories, only to passively - and at a later point - describe the physics that these theories ignore. I think a reader who is not familiar with both physics and biology might be forgiven for missing the point at times. Another thing missing from his first life discussion was the evolution of channels. This is absolutely an essential point. If he argues throughout the book that there are some universal rules, and the most important among them are that any species must take in nutrients and expel waste products during metabolism, then they need channels capable of doing that. The person working tirelessly on that is Nick Lane. So again, I don't know why he would not specifically mention Lane's work here. I felt as if there were politics at play and I get so bothered when the politics of science get int he way of the science.
Despite the forgoing criticisms, which is actually more of a suggestion for his future writing than it is an actual criticism, this book is a solid 5 star book. In fact, if there was a 6 star option that could only be used once for every 75 books reviewed, this book would get that extra star.
Cockell did take a bold stand on what life could look like if found in different places in our universe. This whole discussion was spot on. You need a cellular bag, or a bag or some sort, to trap energy. That is thermodynamics 101. Anything without this enclosure (and channels) would dissipate its energy too quickly to evolve into any form. (See Jeremy England's work for more on that).
What are the equations that constrain the size of cells? (Nick Lane does really nice work on this. I cannot remember if it was in his books or talks- or both). A cell cannot get too large because it needs enough surface area to ingest nutrients. If the cell has a huge, greedy inside, then its membrane does not provide enough surface area to include the channels it would need to take in nutrients to satisfy the activities inside the large cell. The largest cells have a few tricks up their sleeves. A large cell could, like a parasite, live inside an animal, so that the animal does the work the cell would otherwise have to do. A large cell could also have invaginations, which allow the cell to pull in nutrients from the outside without having to provide more channels. This part of the book reminded me a lot of animal size discussed in Geoffrey West's book Scale. Even those animals who are allowed to grow to enormous sizes, because they live in water and gravity will not crush their organs and bones like it would on land, can only grow so large. Whales have only one heart. The arteries, veins, and capillaries are fractals. They branch and then repeat the same branching pattern from the very large blood passageways to the tiniest passage ways. Blood must be fed to each part of the tissue. But the blood passageway system can only stretch so far. If the animal is larger than the system can provide blood to the tissues, the tissues will die. Thus, blood supply constrains the size of all animals.
When discussing convergent evolution, I can't remember if Cockell even used the word homologous, but I don't think he did. He didn't need to because his entire focus was on how the small set of physical laws that govern the larger universe and our small world could of course dictate the shape forms can take, whether or not they are related. I hope that all classrooms in the near future teach convergent evolution through this lens.
If you like biochem, you will love Cockell's discussion of why, if we find life on other planets, it will likely be made of carbon. Each of the CHNOPS elements (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur) get detailed treatment in this book. To make any life, either on Earth or another planet, bonds need to form and break to build and evolve life forms. If bonds are too strong, such as the case with fluorine and carbon, and to a lesser extent, chlorine and carbon, then those bonds will not break as easily. If the bonds are not strong enough, as is the case with silicone based life instead of carbon life, then bonds break too easily and life can't hold together. The bonds have to be just right for the dynamic nature of life to play out.
If you doubt that the process of synthesizing biology and physics is new, take note of Chapter 11, in which Cockell highlights many of the challenges biologists and physicists face when they try to apply universal laws that could explain the physical and biological world we see around us. This is a subject that I have been writing extensively about, in a personal project, for the past 10 years.
The take home message is a reiterated in the last chapter when Cockell talked about the role of chance in evolution. Like Steven Jay Gould, Cockell is fascinated with the diversity of evolutionary forms. Even within the same form, like Gould's Burgess Shale, you can find immense diversity because of the emergence of various traits, which have either been selected for or selected against by the conditions in the environment. These variations are impressive to be sure. They even speak the role of chance. However, what is even more glaring is that within species and *across species*, there are shockingly similar rules that govern the shape and function of life. Every form, no matter if that form is a single cell, the Burgess Shale, a fish, a plant, a huge whale, or a human, *all* of these forms must have cells that contain enough surface area to take in nutrients and expel waste products. They must have an enclosed skin or membrane that helps them achieve this. For forms that grow large, they must have many cells, and many organs made up of cells that do the job of providing enough surface area to take in various waste products and expel waste. Take your own body. You must have cells and organs that take in oxygen. Your mouth does this. Oxygen is then taken in by your lungs and and is sent around to your organs via pumping of your heat (which itself houses cells that take in and expel the oxygen). Your mouth takes in food and breaks it down to harvest the glucose. That glucose is broken down even further to make all the energy you will ever need to carry out every single thought and action you will ever think or do in your lifetime. Glucose is also broken down to make CO2 that will be ingested by plants as their nutrients. They will expel oxygen as their waste product.
Not a single evolved form can escape the process of ingesting nutrients and expelling waste products. A system/ species that cannot do that is a system that cannot remain active and will die. So no matter what elements other planets might use to evolve life, that life will make enclosed membranes/skins that can take in nutrients and expel waste products. Physics mandates this. There a small set of rules that confine what life can look like. Cockell boldly stated that what once seemed limitless and overly complex (the process of evolution) is now more simplified because of the convergence of biology and physics. In my opinion, there is notting more important problem/field that a scientist could be working on. I highly recommend this book.
January 10, 2019
Life is not magic. The physical becomes alive by following the laws that regulate the universe and those laws cannot be violated. The rules for life are fundamental and universal. As are the laws (rules) of physics and chemistry. There is no need for an elan vital, teleology or mysticism in explaining life. This book explains all of this and makes a case for why life if it exists elsewhere in the universe will share morphology with what we currently know about life from here on earth.
When stars from a binary group merge into each other and become one and turn into a black hole and cause the universe to shimmy, LIGO detectors on earth will be able to measure the bending and shifting of space itself and be able to tell the merged stars’ mass and what position in the heavens the stars resided while the LIGO gives us a whole new tool for observing the world. The math connected to the General Theory of Relativity and some fancy computer programming can resolve functionally what happened. At the core of everything we know about the event is a system of coherent mathematical relations which are true relative to the system as a whole and between the pieces that make up the system.
The author warns against reification. That is making the map the real or in this case making the math reality. The math is how we understand it is not what is real. The world is not numbers; the world is described by numbers. Every living thing must obey physical, chemical and biological laws from a microbe to a ladybug and to humans, and no matter where in the universe that living or inert matter is it is subject to a set of laws, not magic, not protoplasmic (elan vital) regularities or mysticism, but the same set of laws that rules over everything in the universe, and they must be obeyed. As the cosmologist can functionally understand cosmic collisions, biologist can similarly functionally understand life, because both are subject to the same set of physical laws that rule the universe.
The author cleverly defines life as ‘negative entropy’ because he doesn’t want to get bogged down in esoteric arguments of what life really is. All that matters is that everything in the universe whether alive or inert must obey a set of rules. He said that ‘negative entropy’ is the definition that Schrödinger used knowing full well that there is no such thing as ‘negative entropy’, but wants to define life such that it’s a thing that takes order from outside of itself in order to maintain its own order. The author is more nuanced and succinct than what I’m saying, but the real point is that life has fundamental and universal principals derived from considering life on earth and the author will argue that they are very likely true for all life within the universe.
No matter what, life in order to be alive must get energy from something in order to keep its order. An electron (or a charge) must come from something towards something in order to give energy. The chemical process can be from ammonia to nitrate as in some microbes, or can be part of the ATP process’ currency of life, but energy must come from somewhere. All living things must get energy from some process.
Life can take on many forms here on earth, but they tend to have fundamental and universal characteristics which tend towards a commonality which have converged on particularly efficient solutions which very well might be universal across the universe as a whole. For example, life might universally prefer carbon based solutions, and some amino acid protein making solution through RNA/DNA structures might be the optimal solution everywhere. Endobiosysis might be the only solution towards complex life, and so on.
The author is never dogmatic in his assertions while always being edifying in his presentation. Overall, this is a good book for those who have ever wondered about the universality and fundamental principles inherent in life, or how in the end life is nothing but a set of processes determined by a set of rules that reside within the universe.
When stars from a binary group merge into each other and become one and turn into a black hole and cause the universe to shimmy, LIGO detectors on earth will be able to measure the bending and shifting of space itself and be able to tell the merged stars’ mass and what position in the heavens the stars resided while the LIGO gives us a whole new tool for observing the world. The math connected to the General Theory of Relativity and some fancy computer programming can resolve functionally what happened. At the core of everything we know about the event is a system of coherent mathematical relations which are true relative to the system as a whole and between the pieces that make up the system.
The author warns against reification. That is making the map the real or in this case making the math reality. The math is how we understand it is not what is real. The world is not numbers; the world is described by numbers. Every living thing must obey physical, chemical and biological laws from a microbe to a ladybug and to humans, and no matter where in the universe that living or inert matter is it is subject to a set of laws, not magic, not protoplasmic (elan vital) regularities or mysticism, but the same set of laws that rules over everything in the universe, and they must be obeyed. As the cosmologist can functionally understand cosmic collisions, biologist can similarly functionally understand life, because both are subject to the same set of physical laws that rule the universe.
The author cleverly defines life as ‘negative entropy’ because he doesn’t want to get bogged down in esoteric arguments of what life really is. All that matters is that everything in the universe whether alive or inert must obey a set of rules. He said that ‘negative entropy’ is the definition that Schrödinger used knowing full well that there is no such thing as ‘negative entropy’, but wants to define life such that it’s a thing that takes order from outside of itself in order to maintain its own order. The author is more nuanced and succinct than what I’m saying, but the real point is that life has fundamental and universal principals derived from considering life on earth and the author will argue that they are very likely true for all life within the universe.
No matter what, life in order to be alive must get energy from something in order to keep its order. An electron (or a charge) must come from something towards something in order to give energy. The chemical process can be from ammonia to nitrate as in some microbes, or can be part of the ATP process’ currency of life, but energy must come from somewhere. All living things must get energy from some process.
Life can take on many forms here on earth, but they tend to have fundamental and universal characteristics which tend towards a commonality which have converged on particularly efficient solutions which very well might be universal across the universe as a whole. For example, life might universally prefer carbon based solutions, and some amino acid protein making solution through RNA/DNA structures might be the optimal solution everywhere. Endobiosysis might be the only solution towards complex life, and so on.
The author is never dogmatic in his assertions while always being edifying in his presentation. Overall, this is a good book for those who have ever wondered about the universality and fundamental principles inherent in life, or how in the end life is nothing but a set of processes determined by a set of rules that reside within the universe.
February 19, 2020
Um daqueles livros super integradores de temas que adoro. Uma mistura de química, física e biologia para mostrar como a vida funciona, por que é como é e como seria em outras condições. Ele detalha equações e fatores que explicam de como as células funcionam a como insetos voam, com a extrapolação de como a vida extraterrestre poderia funcionar em condições diferentes. Muito bom de ler, para qualquer interessado em qualquer área da ciência.
May 11, 2018
Is biology universal?
Sitting under my rock as I do, I had no idea there were astrobiologists. For a couple of decades now, apparently. One of them, Charles Cockell has written a book called The Equations of Life. Not only does it examine extraterrestrial life, but it firmly places physics underlying all of biology. Biology is totally dependent on physics.
Every lifeform seems to work along basic principles of physics or quantum physics. It’s all about processing electrons for their energy. The basic building blocks of life, amino acids, sugars and fatty acids are apparently raining down on planets all over the universe. Asteroids transport them. And water, which we like to think is our extraordinary trump card, is found commonly all over. The ingredients for life are everywhere. So there must be life out there, and there must be work for astrobiologists.
Cockell finds that life is pretty much going to be carbon-based, regardless of the planet or galaxy. Silicon-based life is possible, for example, but is just unlikely because of silicon’s inherent weaknesses. Silicon-based life is probably doomed to be primitive. Carbon however, is not only everywhere, it binds with everything appropriate to life. It’s the odds-on favorite for creating life. And will win the Darwinian battle.
The book takes a very long time to get to the good stuff. There is a lengthy examination of the ladybug, and how its wings and legs express physics equations. There is an in-depth examination of anthills and the sociology of their builders. These are interspersed with physics equations, partially explained, barely applied, and skippable. There is a great deal of basic biology and chemistry, including a long discourse on the periodic table. It is, despite Cockell’s efforts, rather flat.
Back in outer space, we do not know if the DNA/RNA system is universal, or how a DNA/RNA mutation system might perform in other environments, gravities, atmospheres, climates and seasons. But at the physics level, it is easier to predict. It’s the relationship of atmosphere to gravity to body mass that dictates it. This does not limit lifeforms; it enhances variations. Anything is possible, as long as it obeys the laws of physics. So, Cockell says, if there were a small planet with lesser gravity, and a thicker atmosphere, the top animals might be flying beings of human size. Maybe they wouldn’t have invented the automobile and burnt up all the carbon. Maybe they’d have really advanced flying machines. That’s the fun part of astrobiology. There is far too little of it in The Equations of Life.
Meanwhile, back on Earth, while we can’t say biology is universal right now, we can say that physics is. Everything that acts can be reduced to an equation. Is that good news. or what?
David Wineberg
Sitting under my rock as I do, I had no idea there were astrobiologists. For a couple of decades now, apparently. One of them, Charles Cockell has written a book called The Equations of Life. Not only does it examine extraterrestrial life, but it firmly places physics underlying all of biology. Biology is totally dependent on physics.
Every lifeform seems to work along basic principles of physics or quantum physics. It’s all about processing electrons for their energy. The basic building blocks of life, amino acids, sugars and fatty acids are apparently raining down on planets all over the universe. Asteroids transport them. And water, which we like to think is our extraordinary trump card, is found commonly all over. The ingredients for life are everywhere. So there must be life out there, and there must be work for astrobiologists.
Cockell finds that life is pretty much going to be carbon-based, regardless of the planet or galaxy. Silicon-based life is possible, for example, but is just unlikely because of silicon’s inherent weaknesses. Silicon-based life is probably doomed to be primitive. Carbon however, is not only everywhere, it binds with everything appropriate to life. It’s the odds-on favorite for creating life. And will win the Darwinian battle.
The book takes a very long time to get to the good stuff. There is a lengthy examination of the ladybug, and how its wings and legs express physics equations. There is an in-depth examination of anthills and the sociology of their builders. These are interspersed with physics equations, partially explained, barely applied, and skippable. There is a great deal of basic biology and chemistry, including a long discourse on the periodic table. It is, despite Cockell’s efforts, rather flat.
Back in outer space, we do not know if the DNA/RNA system is universal, or how a DNA/RNA mutation system might perform in other environments, gravities, atmospheres, climates and seasons. But at the physics level, it is easier to predict. It’s the relationship of atmosphere to gravity to body mass that dictates it. This does not limit lifeforms; it enhances variations. Anything is possible, as long as it obeys the laws of physics. So, Cockell says, if there were a small planet with lesser gravity, and a thicker atmosphere, the top animals might be flying beings of human size. Maybe they wouldn’t have invented the automobile and burnt up all the carbon. Maybe they’d have really advanced flying machines. That’s the fun part of astrobiology. There is far too little of it in The Equations of Life.
Meanwhile, back on Earth, while we can’t say biology is universal right now, we can say that physics is. Everything that acts can be reduced to an equation. Is that good news. or what?
David Wineberg
March 29, 2019
This is an important book that everyone should read. At least everyone interested in the possibility of extra-terrestrial life. But skip the first half (I'll explain why below).
It asks important questions about Earth life:
* Why is water the solvent of life?
* Why is life cellular?
* Why does life use this particular set of amino acids?
* Why is life carbon-based?
* Why is electron transport the basis of all respiration?
These are fundamentally physics questions and this book has solid answers for all of them! It's really impressive that we know so much about the limitations imposed on life's possibilities.
Also examined are how some features, like the aerodynamic shape of fish, moles, the chevron formation of flying geese, etc. can be predicted from physical principles. These are less impressive but still interesting.
The author seems like a pretty cool guy. He even recounts putting on a giant lizard suit and giving a lecture from the pretend perspective of an alien race that evolved on a planet where life has a totally different metabolism than does Earth life. That's a great learning tool! (The fictional shift in perspective, not the lizard suit. Okay, also the lizard suit.)
Okay, now, on to the complaints:
1. The first half of the book is a total time waster. It seems like it was added as a sloppy after-thought to sell the title of the book. It's a parade of equations that are included for no apparent reason and mostly unnecessary for the rest of the narrative. The value in presenting an equation is to show how terms very relative to one another. But this book puts the cart before the horse, introducing equations as the star of the show, while only explaining the consequences of variables as half-baked after thought. This is a tragedy because there are useful things to say which, most of the time, go unsaid!
2. He's got the philosophy of science ass backwards. Over and over he talks about physical laws "determining", "governing", or "limiting" life. Physical laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. We often forgive/ignore poetic usage of language like this. But Cockell consistently speaks as though equations and scientific laws as prescriptive. This may not sound like a big deal, but in my opinion it does a lot of damage to the lay reader, because it gives them both distrust and misunderstanding of the process of science.
It asks important questions about Earth life:
* Why is water the solvent of life?
* Why is life cellular?
* Why does life use this particular set of amino acids?
* Why is life carbon-based?
* Why is electron transport the basis of all respiration?
These are fundamentally physics questions and this book has solid answers for all of them! It's really impressive that we know so much about the limitations imposed on life's possibilities.
Also examined are how some features, like the aerodynamic shape of fish, moles, the chevron formation of flying geese, etc. can be predicted from physical principles. These are less impressive but still interesting.
The author seems like a pretty cool guy. He even recounts putting on a giant lizard suit and giving a lecture from the pretend perspective of an alien race that evolved on a planet where life has a totally different metabolism than does Earth life. That's a great learning tool! (The fictional shift in perspective, not the lizard suit. Okay, also the lizard suit.)
Okay, now, on to the complaints:
1. The first half of the book is a total time waster. It seems like it was added as a sloppy after-thought to sell the title of the book. It's a parade of equations that are included for no apparent reason and mostly unnecessary for the rest of the narrative. The value in presenting an equation is to show how terms very relative to one another. But this book puts the cart before the horse, introducing equations as the star of the show, while only explaining the consequences of variables as half-baked after thought. This is a tragedy because there are useful things to say which, most of the time, go unsaid!
2. He's got the philosophy of science ass backwards. Over and over he talks about physical laws "determining", "governing", or "limiting" life. Physical laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. We often forgive/ignore poetic usage of language like this. But Cockell consistently speaks as though equations and scientific laws as prescriptive. This may not sound like a big deal, but in my opinion it does a lot of damage to the lay reader, because it gives them both distrust and misunderstanding of the process of science.
February 23, 2019
Any book on the convergence of modern physics and evolutionary biology is bound to be interesting as this new volume from Charles Cockell certainly is. While most people who read in this area implicitly accept that of course physics has great impact on biology, the discussion usually is superficial and lacking in concrete data.
Here we are presented with numerous examples from our own world on how physics has acted as a constraining force on the method and result of evolution. These are taken from everything from insect anatomy and social structures to the presence of similar limb structures in the earliest land animals to the present day.
The most interesting part of the book is the latter couple of chapters where the discussion centers on whether or not there is a possibility of non-carbon based life. Though not specifically taking any positions, Cockell is careful to point out what would be most likely and what would not with great detail. Though I don't think it lives up to the Goodreads byline: A groundbreaking argument for why alien life will evolve to be much like life here on Earth.
What it is, is a work of great imagination and interest that shows the delicate and sometimes breathtakingly indelicate way the laws of physics have played their hands in the evolution of life as we know it, and, how they would continue to do so for life that isn't quite the life we know...
Here we are presented with numerous examples from our own world on how physics has acted as a constraining force on the method and result of evolution. These are taken from everything from insect anatomy and social structures to the presence of similar limb structures in the earliest land animals to the present day.
The most interesting part of the book is the latter couple of chapters where the discussion centers on whether or not there is a possibility of non-carbon based life. Though not specifically taking any positions, Cockell is careful to point out what would be most likely and what would not with great detail. Though I don't think it lives up to the Goodreads byline: A groundbreaking argument for why alien life will evolve to be much like life here on Earth.
What it is, is a work of great imagination and interest that shows the delicate and sometimes breathtakingly indelicate way the laws of physics have played their hands in the evolution of life as we know it, and, how they would continue to do so for life that isn't quite the life we know...
January 15, 2022
If you are a fan of science fiction and fed with a good dose of literary and movie SciFi, then you are definitely exposed to a wild menagerie of extraterrestrial life, entirely different from life as we know on our planet. They fill us with a sense of wonder, fear, revulsion, and above all the feeling that the universe is huge, and almost anything is possible in this vastness. We have all encountered life made of silicon thriving in a sea of acid, animals the size of islands, or animals whose physical form makes us shudder.
In this brilliant book physicist Charles Cockell systematically shows why life, anywhere in the universe, must still follow the same laws of physics and chemistry, and therefore cannot deviate too much from some fundamental constraints. These constraints work at many different scales. At the level of physical shape and form, the laws of physical forces may impose some constraints. That's why a mole found in Australia, which evolved independently of moles found elsewhere in the world, still has a similar body shape to help in the task of burying through the ground.
His arguments get even more compelling at the scale of atoms and molecules. The physics that determines the formation of chemical compounds, mostly derived from the Pauli Exclusion Principle, may impose very strong biases towards a carbon-based life form. Like any good scientist, he is not entirely ruling out another basis of life that may evolve in entirely different environmental conditions, but he shows that the probability of that is extremely small. If we discover life elsewhere, there is a very strong possibility that it will be based on carbon-based chemistry, involving the same set of elements -- hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, nitrogen, etc.
If we cannot discover life on other planets and satellites in the solar system, then it is rather unlikely that we will be able to analyze life around other stars. We may find tantalizing clues through telescopic observations and spectral analysis, but we will probably never know if they harbor multicellular complex life, or what they look like. Therefore, it is not very likely that we will be able to ever verify the claims made in this book, but the power of scientific thinking is that we can draw highly plausible conclusions about the universe that we will never observe directly. The confidence comes from the fact that we have repeatedly come to theoretical conclusions in science and later been able to confirm them through direct or indirect observations.
This book is a great exercise in systematic scientific thinking, and once again shows the power of reductionist methodologies when applied to the right problem.
In this brilliant book physicist Charles Cockell systematically shows why life, anywhere in the universe, must still follow the same laws of physics and chemistry, and therefore cannot deviate too much from some fundamental constraints. These constraints work at many different scales. At the level of physical shape and form, the laws of physical forces may impose some constraints. That's why a mole found in Australia, which evolved independently of moles found elsewhere in the world, still has a similar body shape to help in the task of burying through the ground.
His arguments get even more compelling at the scale of atoms and molecules. The physics that determines the formation of chemical compounds, mostly derived from the Pauli Exclusion Principle, may impose very strong biases towards a carbon-based life form. Like any good scientist, he is not entirely ruling out another basis of life that may evolve in entirely different environmental conditions, but he shows that the probability of that is extremely small. If we discover life elsewhere, there is a very strong possibility that it will be based on carbon-based chemistry, involving the same set of elements -- hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, nitrogen, etc.
If we cannot discover life on other planets and satellites in the solar system, then it is rather unlikely that we will be able to analyze life around other stars. We may find tantalizing clues through telescopic observations and spectral analysis, but we will probably never know if they harbor multicellular complex life, or what they look like. Therefore, it is not very likely that we will be able to ever verify the claims made in this book, but the power of scientific thinking is that we can draw highly plausible conclusions about the universe that we will never observe directly. The confidence comes from the fact that we have repeatedly come to theoretical conclusions in science and later been able to confirm them through direct or indirect observations.
This book is a great exercise in systematic scientific thinking, and once again shows the power of reductionist methodologies when applied to the right problem.
July 30, 2018
This was my first book by the author and I found that my instincts were spot on in picking out this one.
Cockell's main thesis is that evolution is constrained by physical science (definitely a chemical component- though physics does take center stage). So, he delves into a lot of different topics until he arrives at his summary chapters on the constraints on extraterrestrial life and the predictability of life itself. Surprisingly, I don't think the book actually lost steam toward the end and was really readable throughout- a difficult feat to achieve.
There are several reasons why I liked the author. I liked his anecdotal divergences into how he teaches tricky concepts to his college students (thought experiments that I could consider integrating myself)-- particularly his ideas about if anaerobic life could yield intelligent life. I enjoyed the way that his prose was accessible, while still introducing challenging principles. I liked the way that he supported his thesis about life's predictability, while leaving some window for open mindedness- acting both scientifically and not-so-arrogantly as other authors are wont to behave.
I thought he had some interesting insights into a number of topics like the predictability of the chemical nature of life, how organisms adapt to extreme environments (probably my favorite chapter), and the hidden physics of the lady bug.
More and more authors have been convincingly demonstrating the evolution, while fascinating in and of itself, isn't infinitely unpredictable and ascribes to certain principles of both physics and environmental constraints. I am drawn to this view as it is less pie in the sky and also less naive and more grounded.
I wish the most was a bit more affordable ($20 is a little steep of a Kindle price), but I guess popular science is a hard area in which to be profitable... It was worth it!
Cockell's main thesis is that evolution is constrained by physical science (definitely a chemical component- though physics does take center stage). So, he delves into a lot of different topics until he arrives at his summary chapters on the constraints on extraterrestrial life and the predictability of life itself. Surprisingly, I don't think the book actually lost steam toward the end and was really readable throughout- a difficult feat to achieve.
There are several reasons why I liked the author. I liked his anecdotal divergences into how he teaches tricky concepts to his college students (thought experiments that I could consider integrating myself)-- particularly his ideas about if anaerobic life could yield intelligent life. I enjoyed the way that his prose was accessible, while still introducing challenging principles. I liked the way that he supported his thesis about life's predictability, while leaving some window for open mindedness- acting both scientifically and not-so-arrogantly as other authors are wont to behave.
I thought he had some interesting insights into a number of topics like the predictability of the chemical nature of life, how organisms adapt to extreme environments (probably my favorite chapter), and the hidden physics of the lady bug.
More and more authors have been convincingly demonstrating the evolution, while fascinating in and of itself, isn't infinitely unpredictable and ascribes to certain principles of both physics and environmental constraints. I am drawn to this view as it is less pie in the sky and also less naive and more grounded.
I wish the most was a bit more affordable ($20 is a little steep of a Kindle price), but I guess popular science is a hard area in which to be profitable... It was worth it!
November 21, 2018
This book is organized around a central idea (you can see the idea in the title: physics shapes evolution). It's informative and full of interesting examples, but it felt like the book was a bit undecided what it wanted to be.
I really liked examples or 'case studies' about actual animals: why don't rabbits have wheels? Why a ladybug can climb the wall, but a drop of water could kill it? There's a VERY speculative part at the end of the book about what forms evolution could take on a smaller planet with less gravitation? How about MORE gravitation? The examples allow you to see the principles at work, and when you read them, you have that "a-ha!" moment.
But the book sets out to prove something and so it delves deeper in the chemistry, genetics etc. The topics are insanely interesting, but the limeted scope of the book just doesn't allow a reader to form a coherent understanding before accepting author's point of view (for instance, that carbon is the best basis for life). I really forgot almost everything about chemistry since high school and I felt I had to take the author's word for it, when he describes best chemical properties of the 'stuff of life'.
The author doesn't want to be taken as denying the (actual or possible) complexity of organic life, so a portion of the book is devoted to make it clear what the author isn't trying to say. It's probably an important thing to specialists, but a layperson such as myself at times like this might want to shout: "Can we please go on now! Talk about lizards and ladybugs already!"
It's not a bad book, just a bit 'undecided' at times. You might have to push through some parts, but when you get to the good stuff, it's really good!
I really liked examples or 'case studies' about actual animals: why don't rabbits have wheels? Why a ladybug can climb the wall, but a drop of water could kill it? There's a VERY speculative part at the end of the book about what forms evolution could take on a smaller planet with less gravitation? How about MORE gravitation? The examples allow you to see the principles at work, and when you read them, you have that "a-ha!" moment.
But the book sets out to prove something and so it delves deeper in the chemistry, genetics etc. The topics are insanely interesting, but the limeted scope of the book just doesn't allow a reader to form a coherent understanding before accepting author's point of view (for instance, that carbon is the best basis for life). I really forgot almost everything about chemistry since high school and I felt I had to take the author's word for it, when he describes best chemical properties of the 'stuff of life'.
The author doesn't want to be taken as denying the (actual or possible) complexity of organic life, so a portion of the book is devoted to make it clear what the author isn't trying to say. It's probably an important thing to specialists, but a layperson such as myself at times like this might want to shout: "Can we please go on now! Talk about lizards and ladybugs already!"
It's not a bad book, just a bit 'undecided' at times. You might have to push through some parts, but when you get to the good stuff, it's really good!
July 11, 2020
[23 March 2020]
This was a somewhat strange book. When I first started reading it, I thought, "Duh..." The idea that anyone doubted that living creatures were subject to the rules of physics seemed to me to be silly, at best. But it was still kind of interesting to see living things through a slightly different lens than is usually used. When he got to the chapters on cells, and DNA, and atoms, he sometimes lost me in the detail, but I could understand his general point pretty well. However, what really bothered me was that most of the later chapters were full of "maybe", "probably", "I suspect that...", "it's likely that..." Sure, he was often talking about the possibilities for alien life and that must be speculative. However, since he was trying to say that the rules of science would dictate the forms of alien life just as it does with terran life, I would have expected somewhat more certainly. Still it was an interesting read.
This was a somewhat strange book. When I first started reading it, I thought, "Duh..." The idea that anyone doubted that living creatures were subject to the rules of physics seemed to me to be silly, at best. But it was still kind of interesting to see living things through a slightly different lens than is usually used. When he got to the chapters on cells, and DNA, and atoms, he sometimes lost me in the detail, but I could understand his general point pretty well. However, what really bothered me was that most of the later chapters were full of "maybe", "probably", "I suspect that...", "it's likely that..." Sure, he was often talking about the possibilities for alien life and that must be speculative. However, since he was trying to say that the rules of science would dictate the forms of alien life just as it does with terran life, I would have expected somewhat more certainly. Still it was an interesting read.
September 11, 2022
A good example of the positivist idea, which I like, of the unity of science.
August 17, 2022
This was an interesting read. I will admit, it has been more than a hot minute since I have studied anything to do with physics, so some of this was over my head, bu the author did a really good job of keeping me interested, even when I didn't fully comprehend all that he was saying.
June 17, 2018
[I received a copy of this book from NetGalley.]
Well, that was a pretty informative read. A little difficult to get into at times (although I suspect half of it was because I was trying to read it when I was too tired), but definitely informative.
To be honest, I’m not that well-versed in equations in general. I can solve basic linear equations with two unknowns, that kind of thing; just don’t ask me to memorise really complex ones. So, I admit that, at first, I was hesitant to request this book, thinking that maybe it’d be out of my reach. Fortunately, while it does deal with equations, it’s not just page after page filled with numbers and symbols, and the author does explain what each term of each equation stands for. In the end, this was all fairly understandable, both the math and the writing itself.
The book doesn’t simply deal with equations either, and delves into astrobiology and basic atomic and particles physics (electrons -are- subatomic particles, after all, and knowing what part they play in atomic interactions is useful to understand what exactly happens at the biological molecular level, too). In fact, I found that a couple of chapters do fit in nicely with quantum theory, if you’re interested in that as well, since they explain essential interactions at shell level. I hadn’t studied chemistry since… at least 21 years, but this sent me back to my old classes, and I realised that I still possessed the required knowledge to get what the author was talking about. Which is great, because 1) I’m interested, 2) I like it when I grasp something that old me would’ve dismissed as ‘too hard’, 3) did I say I’m interested?
Last but not least, the book also contains a list of references that I’ll try to check at some point. Not all of them, of course, but since he points to Sean B. Carroll and his works on evo-devo, that’s a win in my little world.
All in all, this was a set of really interesting and intriguing theories, theories that make a lot of sense when you think about it and take time to observe nature around you. (Why did animals develop legs and not wheels? Well, inequal terrain and all that… Logics, logics…) And if you’re wondering about the possibility of other forms of life, either carbon-based on other planets or not even carbon-based, the author also explores this, going to demonstrate why it may or may not work (hence why a basic lesson in chemistry is provided). A solid 4.5 stars for me (I just think it dragged slightly in the last chapter).
Well, that was a pretty informative read. A little difficult to get into at times (although I suspect half of it was because I was trying to read it when I was too tired), but definitely informative.
To be honest, I’m not that well-versed in equations in general. I can solve basic linear equations with two unknowns, that kind of thing; just don’t ask me to memorise really complex ones. So, I admit that, at first, I was hesitant to request this book, thinking that maybe it’d be out of my reach. Fortunately, while it does deal with equations, it’s not just page after page filled with numbers and symbols, and the author does explain what each term of each equation stands for. In the end, this was all fairly understandable, both the math and the writing itself.
The book doesn’t simply deal with equations either, and delves into astrobiology and basic atomic and particles physics (electrons -are- subatomic particles, after all, and knowing what part they play in atomic interactions is useful to understand what exactly happens at the biological molecular level, too). In fact, I found that a couple of chapters do fit in nicely with quantum theory, if you’re interested in that as well, since they explain essential interactions at shell level. I hadn’t studied chemistry since… at least 21 years, but this sent me back to my old classes, and I realised that I still possessed the required knowledge to get what the author was talking about. Which is great, because 1) I’m interested, 2) I like it when I grasp something that old me would’ve dismissed as ‘too hard’, 3) did I say I’m interested?
Last but not least, the book also contains a list of references that I’ll try to check at some point. Not all of them, of course, but since he points to Sean B. Carroll and his works on evo-devo, that’s a win in my little world.
All in all, this was a set of really interesting and intriguing theories, theories that make a lot of sense when you think about it and take time to observe nature around you. (Why did animals develop legs and not wheels? Well, inequal terrain and all that… Logics, logics…) And if you’re wondering about the possibility of other forms of life, either carbon-based on other planets or not even carbon-based, the author also explores this, going to demonstrate why it may or may not work (hence why a basic lesson in chemistry is provided). A solid 4.5 stars for me (I just think it dragged slightly in the last chapter).
May 25, 2018
Note: I received this book as an ARC from NetGalley.
I thought this book was written well and explored a lot of topics. While it's called The Equations of Life, it only deals with a few equations, though that didn't bother me. I found that the author is great at explaining how simplified equations can lead to surprising consequences in terms of what kind of life we can expect. He also devotes some time to astrobiology, which is an interesting field of research right now (particularly because we don't know what's out there). Overall, the book was a pleasure to read, and I recommend it to people who enjoy reading about science and physics.
He also includes a large list of sources and citations, which can give the reader more material in order to explore any topic of interest in more depth.
I thought this book was written well and explored a lot of topics. While it's called The Equations of Life, it only deals with a few equations, though that didn't bother me. I found that the author is great at explaining how simplified equations can lead to surprising consequences in terms of what kind of life we can expect. He also devotes some time to astrobiology, which is an interesting field of research right now (particularly because we don't know what's out there). Overall, the book was a pleasure to read, and I recommend it to people who enjoy reading about science and physics.
He also includes a large list of sources and citations, which can give the reader more material in order to explore any topic of interest in more depth.
May 24, 2019
This book is beautiful! I have enjoyed reading this book so much. It should be given to anyone who is curious about the world.
January 1, 2019
Cockell is a Professor of Astrobiology in Edinburgh, a new field combining space and biology. This gives him the unique ability to ask truly fundamental questions such as: will aliens look completely different from us, or will they be similar to us? He posits that evolution of all living things in the universe must conform to the fundamental rules or equations of physics. He then went through a lot of fundamental rules of biology and chemistry, how they are actually bound by physical laws. Darwinian evolution allows organisms to adapt to their surroundings as dictated by physics.
1. Self organization: ants work with each other, transmitting information with positive feedback loops. Once an ant found food, it brings food home and also tells others food is available. Soon many ants also go to the place. Ditto for building their nest. With simple rules, no hyper intelligent queen is necessary. This also applies to basic proteins such as actin and myosin: put them together and give them energy, and they automatically crawl over each other, and cause muscle contraction.
2. We can discover laws that organisms use. Such as how a ladybug is able to stick to a wall but also able to climb up on it when necessary. Just the right amount of stickiness and lift is required.
3. Moles from different continent look similar because they all need a tubular shape, a sharp head and powerful paws to dig. P=F/A Evolutionary convergence (birds, insects and bats have wings that look and work quite similarly) stems from the requirement to obey physical laws.
4. Cells are the basics structure of life because it allows genetic material to be protected from the problem of dilution, and allows chemical reaction to occur efficiently. Cells need membranes and the phospholipids, with a water loving head and water repulsive tail, forming two layers is just right for the task. In cold weather, unsaturated fatty acid is used to provide a lower freezing point allowing the creatures to survive freezing temperature.
5. Organisms need energy provided from movement of electrons; that allows the battery like ATP to be formed. The electrons must be accepted by something, which is usually oxygen because this metabolic pathway provides 10 times more energy than any others. We can also do anaerobic metabolism but it causes cramps in our muscles. Bacteria living in extreme conditions like geothermal vents can use sulphur or iron as acceptors of electrons, though they will never be able provide enough energy for more complex organisms.
6. DNA coded with the ATGC nucleic acids provide enough stability but yet enough flexibility so that usually it is a secure store of genetic information but it can be opened up quite easily for transcription to occur. With 20 amino acids we can make a million kind of proteins, the basic building block of life. Recent studies had shown that the codes for different kinds of limbs in animals are already there; evolution just changed the expression of the DNA, forming different species. So snakes and lizards have similar DNA but the DNA for legs in snakes are not expressed. This allow rapid evolution to occur. Though not mentioned by the author is how this omnipotent DNA came about in the first place...
7. How about in other galaxies? We now know that elements are universal, and water and carbon are the basis of life throughout the whole galaxy. Water has unique chemical properties that make it a good solvent; carbon can form strong bonds with itself, stable rings, and versatile bonds with other elements. However there may be other worlds in which ammonia or sulphuric acid provides the solvent and different compounds are used as the basic building blocks; but they will not be as stable and not have the propensity to evolve well as ours. So physical laws must be obeyed, even in other galaxies.
8. Quantum physics can cause spontaneous mutation even without cosmic radiation on our DNA, allowing hydrogen atoms to teleport literally!
This book blows my mind! Physics rule!
1. Self organization: ants work with each other, transmitting information with positive feedback loops. Once an ant found food, it brings food home and also tells others food is available. Soon many ants also go to the place. Ditto for building their nest. With simple rules, no hyper intelligent queen is necessary. This also applies to basic proteins such as actin and myosin: put them together and give them energy, and they automatically crawl over each other, and cause muscle contraction.
2. We can discover laws that organisms use. Such as how a ladybug is able to stick to a wall but also able to climb up on it when necessary. Just the right amount of stickiness and lift is required.
3. Moles from different continent look similar because they all need a tubular shape, a sharp head and powerful paws to dig. P=F/A Evolutionary convergence (birds, insects and bats have wings that look and work quite similarly) stems from the requirement to obey physical laws.
4. Cells are the basics structure of life because it allows genetic material to be protected from the problem of dilution, and allows chemical reaction to occur efficiently. Cells need membranes and the phospholipids, with a water loving head and water repulsive tail, forming two layers is just right for the task. In cold weather, unsaturated fatty acid is used to provide a lower freezing point allowing the creatures to survive freezing temperature.
5. Organisms need energy provided from movement of electrons; that allows the battery like ATP to be formed. The electrons must be accepted by something, which is usually oxygen because this metabolic pathway provides 10 times more energy than any others. We can also do anaerobic metabolism but it causes cramps in our muscles. Bacteria living in extreme conditions like geothermal vents can use sulphur or iron as acceptors of electrons, though they will never be able provide enough energy for more complex organisms.
6. DNA coded with the ATGC nucleic acids provide enough stability but yet enough flexibility so that usually it is a secure store of genetic information but it can be opened up quite easily for transcription to occur. With 20 amino acids we can make a million kind of proteins, the basic building block of life. Recent studies had shown that the codes for different kinds of limbs in animals are already there; evolution just changed the expression of the DNA, forming different species. So snakes and lizards have similar DNA but the DNA for legs in snakes are not expressed. This allow rapid evolution to occur. Though not mentioned by the author is how this omnipotent DNA came about in the first place...
7. How about in other galaxies? We now know that elements are universal, and water and carbon are the basis of life throughout the whole galaxy. Water has unique chemical properties that make it a good solvent; carbon can form strong bonds with itself, stable rings, and versatile bonds with other elements. However there may be other worlds in which ammonia or sulphuric acid provides the solvent and different compounds are used as the basic building blocks; but they will not be as stable and not have the propensity to evolve well as ours. So physical laws must be obeyed, even in other galaxies.
8. Quantum physics can cause spontaneous mutation even without cosmic radiation on our DNA, allowing hydrogen atoms to teleport literally!
This book blows my mind! Physics rule!
August 24, 2024
iseenesest huvitava raamatu kohta oli see üpris igav lugemine :( siin oli... liiga palju sõnu ja liiga vähe pilte?
põhiteesis - et kogu bioloogia allub füüsikaseadustele - ei kahelnud ma enne lugemist ega kahtle nüüdki. valemid... no nii ja naa, minu meelest ei jagunud autoril kogu selle raamatu jaoks üldse valemeid ja mõned, mida ta kasutas, olid puha pastakast imetud. mul iseenesest valemitega mingeid probleeme pole, andke aga ete - ainult et kui neile juba selline tähtsus anda, siis võiks nad ka loetavamalt kirja panna minu meelest, mitte ühele reale suruda. näidake mulle korralikult visuaalselt ära, mis on lugejas ja mis nimetajas, nii on palju lihtsam mustreid näha ja päriselt aru saada!
aga jah, pealkiri lubas valemeid ja tegelikult oli mingi lõputu heietamine, mille juures ma llihtsalt ei suutnud mõttega püsida. minu meelest oleks keegi hea inimene võinud selle teksti palju lühemaks ja tihedamaks ja konkreetsemaks toimetada.
ja samas teadusega väga ei hellitatud, nii rakubioloogia kui aatomifüüsikaga mindi päris süvitsi siin minu meelest, ja no tõesti oleks kulunud ära vähemalt mõned selgitavad skeemid või joonised nende teemade juurde. rakkude teema ma lõpuks lihtsalt... lasingi endal üle pea lennata, sest ma ei mäleta, et ma ka kooliajal sellest suuremat aru oleks saanud. aga Mendelejevi tabeli ja igasuguste aatomarvude ja elektronkihtide alal olin omal ajal täitsa kõva tegija, nii et selle puhul mind täitsa nörritas, et pidin vahepeal minema muudest allikatest otsima, et mismoodi see siis käiski, mitu elektroni mahtus ühte kihti ja miks just nii. minu meelest Cockell libiseb siin mingitest päris olulistest asjadest päris hooletult üle, kuni selleni välja, et raamat ongi päriselt loetav ainult inimesele, kes kõike seda juba enne ka teab. ja miks selline inimene peaks seda raamatut lugema, ma ei tea.
aga noh, ok, ma olen nüüd nõus uskuma, et see ei ole juhus, et kõik meile teadaolevad eluvormid nii süsinikupõhised on. Cockellil olid mingid sarnaselt olulised väited ka vee ja DNA kohta (no et need on just need, mis nad on, sest nad ei saaks eriti midagi muud olla füüsikaliste piirangutega arvestades), aga neist ma ei saanud piisavalt aru, et internaliseerida. ja seda, miks mutid on mutikujulised ja miks ei ole meie planeedil ühtegi ratastega looma, oleks ma osanud ise ka seletada, seda ei ole jällegi ülemäära keeruline välja mõelda.
põhiteesis - et kogu bioloogia allub füüsikaseadustele - ei kahelnud ma enne lugemist ega kahtle nüüdki. valemid... no nii ja naa, minu meelest ei jagunud autoril kogu selle raamatu jaoks üldse valemeid ja mõned, mida ta kasutas, olid puha pastakast imetud. mul iseenesest valemitega mingeid probleeme pole, andke aga ete - ainult et kui neile juba selline tähtsus anda, siis võiks nad ka loetavamalt kirja panna minu meelest, mitte ühele reale suruda. näidake mulle korralikult visuaalselt ära, mis on lugejas ja mis nimetajas, nii on palju lihtsam mustreid näha ja päriselt aru saada!
aga jah, pealkiri lubas valemeid ja tegelikult oli mingi lõputu heietamine, mille juures ma llihtsalt ei suutnud mõttega püsida. minu meelest oleks keegi hea inimene võinud selle teksti palju lühemaks ja tihedamaks ja konkreetsemaks toimetada.
ja samas teadusega väga ei hellitatud, nii rakubioloogia kui aatomifüüsikaga mindi päris süvitsi siin minu meelest, ja no tõesti oleks kulunud ära vähemalt mõned selgitavad skeemid või joonised nende teemade juurde. rakkude teema ma lõpuks lihtsalt... lasingi endal üle pea lennata, sest ma ei mäleta, et ma ka kooliajal sellest suuremat aru oleks saanud. aga Mendelejevi tabeli ja igasuguste aatomarvude ja elektronkihtide alal olin omal ajal täitsa kõva tegija, nii et selle puhul mind täitsa nörritas, et pidin vahepeal minema muudest allikatest otsima, et mismoodi see siis käiski, mitu elektroni mahtus ühte kihti ja miks just nii. minu meelest Cockell libiseb siin mingitest päris olulistest asjadest päris hooletult üle, kuni selleni välja, et raamat ongi päriselt loetav ainult inimesele, kes kõike seda juba enne ka teab. ja miks selline inimene peaks seda raamatut lugema, ma ei tea.
aga noh, ok, ma olen nüüd nõus uskuma, et see ei ole juhus, et kõik meile teadaolevad eluvormid nii süsinikupõhised on. Cockellil olid mingid sarnaselt olulised väited ka vee ja DNA kohta (no et need on just need, mis nad on, sest nad ei saaks eriti midagi muud olla füüsikaliste piirangutega arvestades), aga neist ma ei saanud piisavalt aru, et internaliseerida. ja seda, miks mutid on mutikujulised ja miks ei ole meie planeedil ühtegi ratastega looma, oleks ma osanud ise ka seletada, seda ei ole jällegi ülemäära keeruline välja mõelda.
August 27, 2022
The writer takes on a long-standing prejudice that life is something other than matter (chemistry, physics). Evolution, he says, is not an anything-that-works phenomenon. Rather, what works is subject to well-known physical laws (hence, “Equations”). While the theme was good, I found his discussion to be overwhelming in detail.
I liked the writer’s definition of life – living matter capable of reproducing and evolving: a self-sustaining chemical system, capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution. The key word for me is “capable.” Evolution is typically and implicitly framed in Newtonian terms. Life is a collection of atoms in motion, deviated by external forces (the environment) or changed by random mutation. That way of framing life unfortunately skews a key point: that life is inner-directed. The governing force is internal, not external. (1)
I liked the author’s description of life’s cell membrane that is hydrophobic and hydrophilic. It keeps out fluids or draws in fluids. It is a combo of love and hate for water. Extended, this could be the origin of ourselves as outward seeking beings (for what we need, “love”) on the one hand and resisting beings (for what we fear, “hate”) on the other. Seen this way, all complex human processes are governed by two underlying forms: seeking and resisting or, philosophically, love-pleasure and hate-pain. These twin forces in turn, are analogous, if not a direct reflection of, inertia in physics: the continuance of straight-line motion is the natural state and life’s resistance to deviation from that motion. Thus, life, as for cells, and like inertia in physics, moves outward and resists pressures to do otherwise.
I liked the author’s reference to the genetic code that walks a fine line between perfection – replication that is true to itself - and imperfection – mutation - that allows life to adapt to changing environments. Here too, at the core of life, the stability of the genetic code protects life, but that code also allows for the incorporating the outside world (fitting itself to it) to further provide stability (survival). But, in the end, survival is the End; changes, via adaptation, are the means to the End. Changes, in other words, are always made in reference to an inner value: survival.
(1) The author sort of gets at this point with his reference to Schrodinger who stated that ‘“life was a struggle to fight entropy.’” The bottom line for all of life is to get more energy than it consumes. This is what is meant, in part, by the author’s use of “self-sustaining,” i.e. life has the capacity to self-sustain.
I liked the writer’s definition of life – living matter capable of reproducing and evolving: a self-sustaining chemical system, capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution. The key word for me is “capable.” Evolution is typically and implicitly framed in Newtonian terms. Life is a collection of atoms in motion, deviated by external forces (the environment) or changed by random mutation. That way of framing life unfortunately skews a key point: that life is inner-directed. The governing force is internal, not external. (1)
I liked the author’s description of life’s cell membrane that is hydrophobic and hydrophilic. It keeps out fluids or draws in fluids. It is a combo of love and hate for water. Extended, this could be the origin of ourselves as outward seeking beings (for what we need, “love”) on the one hand and resisting beings (for what we fear, “hate”) on the other. Seen this way, all complex human processes are governed by two underlying forms: seeking and resisting or, philosophically, love-pleasure and hate-pain. These twin forces in turn, are analogous, if not a direct reflection of, inertia in physics: the continuance of straight-line motion is the natural state and life’s resistance to deviation from that motion. Thus, life, as for cells, and like inertia in physics, moves outward and resists pressures to do otherwise.
I liked the author’s reference to the genetic code that walks a fine line between perfection – replication that is true to itself - and imperfection – mutation - that allows life to adapt to changing environments. Here too, at the core of life, the stability of the genetic code protects life, but that code also allows for the incorporating the outside world (fitting itself to it) to further provide stability (survival). But, in the end, survival is the End; changes, via adaptation, are the means to the End. Changes, in other words, are always made in reference to an inner value: survival.
(1) The author sort of gets at this point with his reference to Schrodinger who stated that ‘“life was a struggle to fight entropy.’” The bottom line for all of life is to get more energy than it consumes. This is what is meant, in part, by the author’s use of “self-sustaining,” i.e. life has the capacity to self-sustain.
October 12, 2021
“Elu võrrandid. Evolutsiooni suunavad varjatud reeglid” Charles S. Cockell
Argo, 2020, 310 lk, sari Elav teadus
#ElavTeadus #ArgoSuperlugeja
Stephen Hawking püstitas endale ambitsioonika elueesmärgi - kõiksuse teooria - üks elegantne võrrand, mis kirjeldaks kõike. Kõlab imeliselt. Kõlab ka jumalikult või ketserlikult, sõltuvalt lugeja religioossetest vaadetest.
Kuid on see üks võrrand võimalik? Kas füüsika suudab kõike seletada?
Hawking ei unistanud üksi, Edinburgi ülikooli astrobioloogiaprofessor Charles S. Cockell esitab oma raamatus “Elu võrrandid” põneva kokkuvõtte füüsikute pingutustest selgitada füüsika abil elu teket ja selle (näiliselt lõputut) mitmekesisust. Millised füüsika valemid suunasid elu teket ning seda, et see just selline on nagu me kogeme? Raamat on täis valemeid, kuid neid pole mõtet karta, need on toodud valdavalt illustratiivsetena ja on seega mitte reaalteadlastest lugejatele täiesti ohutud.
Ääremärkuseks neile, kes raamatut lugedes tunnevad, et füüsikud üritavad jumalat asendada. Füüsika ja füüsikud püüavad maailma selgitada ja mõtestada inimesele hoomatavalt, tuues mängu matemaatika, et võimaldada mõõtmist ja seeläbi tulevaste protsesside ennustamist. Tõesti, vahel hävineb selle käigus mütoloogia ja folkloori killukesi. Nagu ulmekirjaniku Arthur C. Clarke'i kuulus 3. seadus ütleb: iga piisavalt arenenud tehnoloogiat on võimatu maagiast eristada. Varem maagiline taandub (või miks mitte hoopis üleneb?) mingil hetkel "lihtsalt" teaduseks. Kelle keel sügeleb siin sõna “ketserlus” välja ütlema, peaksid teadma, et füüsikud on tõenäoliselt ühed kõige siiramad usklikud üldse. Vaadates, kui kavalalt ja hästi maailm meie ümber erinevate väikeste ja suurte reeglite abil tiksub, on raske mitte tunda imetlust ja uskuda loojasse, kes kõik selle käima pani.
Cockell alustab linnuparvedest ja sipelgatest. Ta selgitab, kuidas hulkade käitumist on võimalik kirjeldada üsna lihtsa füüsikalise võrrandiga. Kui näiteks üksiku sipelga käigud võivad olla ettearvamatud, siis suurte hulkadena on sipelgate käitumine vägagi prognoositav. Tunnistan, et see oli hea peatükk. Parem, et miljoneid sipelaid juhib paar füüsika võrrandit, kui et oma aega ootav maailma vallutamise ambitsioonidega filmilik superaju. Teisalt tähendab see ka, et salapärane kõikvõimas loojakuju, millega muidu salapärast seaduspära selgitada, lipsab siit välja - veidi füüsikat ja programm (protsess) jookseb ilusti ka omapäi. Kuigi miks see peaks olema jumala troonilt tõukamine? Küllap ka tema soovib veidi puhata. Ja kuigi ta ei pruugi otseselt osaleda, on ta oma geniaalsuse kaudu ikkagi esindatud.
Kriitiline mass või hulk on ääretult huvitav fenomen, mis laieneb peaaegu kõigele. Näiteks tavalise mateeria puhul - aatomite tasandil juhib protsesse kvantmehaanika, aga kui pisikesi osakesi saab piisavalt suur hulk kokku, lihtsustub see tavapäraseks mehaanikaks.
Keskajal räägiti müstilistest rotikuningatest (sabapidi sõlme läinud rottidest, kes moodustasid justkui superorganismi, mis oli suurem kui selle osade summa). Ka inimeste puhul on selgelt näha, kuidas mingil hetkel isiksused kaovad ja tekivad massid (ühiskonnad, kultuurid, mäsud), mis omavad justkui mingit oma, suuremat, teadvust.
Keda teema paelub, soovitan uurida, millist infot Google suudab paljalt sisestatud otsingusõnade pealt hulkade käitumise kohta tuletada. See lööb tõsise mõlgi uskumusse, et inimene on eriline ja omab vaba tahet. Ma ei eita kumbagi, aga faktid näitavad, et inimene on eelkõige mugav ega kasuta eriti tihti oma vaba tahet või erilisust.
Hulkade juurest liigub Cockell edasi üksikute isendite juurde lepatriinude ja oma lemmiku, muti, näitel.
Pole vahet, kas uuritakse mõnd kehaosa või tervet looma, igal pool ilmneb sama seaduspära - füüsika annab piirid, mille sisse elu end mahutab, testides füüsika seaduste paindlikkust loodusliku valiku kaudu. Endiselt kehtib füüsikute veidi ninakas väide, et kõik, mis pole füüsikaliselt võimatu, on võimalik.
Õnneks selgub siit ka üks oluline asi - ükski eluvorm ei saa sellisena, nagu ta on, lõpmata suureks kasvada (või väikeseks kahaneda). Taas midagi, mille eest tänulik olla. Teadmine, et mõne putuka kasvatamine keskmise maja suuruseks ei anna tegelikkuses elujõulist isendit, sest füüsika astub keelavalt vahele, on midagi, mis laseb rahulikult magada ka keskpärase Hollywoodi kollifilmi vaatamise järel.
Cockell selgutab füüsika abil, kuidas saavad eri paigus esineda suhteliselt sarnased liigid. Värvus, suurus, toidulaud jne võib küll varieeruda, kuid põhiehitus on liikidel siiski väga sarnane, olgugi, et neil puuduvad vahel isegi ühised esivanemad. Cockell toob mängu elu modulaarse ülesehituse, ning selgitab, kuidas evolutsioon suudab teha ka päris pööraseid kannapöördeid, kui muutunud keskkonna tingimused seda nõuavad. Minu jaoks oli see raamatus üks paremaid ahaa-hetki. Mõnda häirib väga, et inimene ja šimpans erinevad DNA vaates üksteisest vaid umbes 1% võrra. Mind šimpansid ei sega, mulle isiklikult ei taha hoopis pähe mahtuda, et inimesel ja banaanil on 60%-line ühisosas.
Elu modulaarne ülesehitus tähendab seda, et geenid võivad olla ja ongi liigiti väga sarnased, mis aga hoopis enam erineb, on see, kuidas ja millal neid geene sisse ja välja lülitatakse. Nii saab sisuliselt samade “jooniste” järgi teha inimese 5-sõrmega käe ja kitse 2-varbaga sõra. Geniaalne!
Soovitan raamatut silmaringi mõttes loomulikult kõigile, sest raamatus on vastused mitmetele põletavatele “rumalatele” küsimustele. Näiteks: miks loomadel pole rattaid? (Kuidas sai evolutsioon sellest heast ideest nii suure kaarega mööda minna, kui ratas on ometi üks inimkonna suurimaid ja murrangulisemaid leiutisi nagu väidavad ajaloo õpikud?)
Ja miks pole kaladel propellereid?
Kasulik on raamat loomulikult bioloogia ja füüsika õpetajatele (ja õppijatele), sest Cockelli raamat annab palju häid näiteid interdisiplinaarsusest, vastates õpilaste igipõlisele “Milleks meil seda vaja teada on?” küsimusele.
Samuti on teos asjaks ka alustavale ulmekirjanikule, kelle ambitsioonide hulka kuulub täiesti uue maailma loomine, sest raamat annab vihjeid, kuidas luua usutav uus maailm loogiliste olenditega, nii et “usutav” ja “loogiline” ei rööviks kildugi maailmade või olendite hämmastavusest, vaid pigem hoopis panustaksid sellesse.
“Elu võrranid” on huvitav ja hästi kirjutatud raamat, mistõttu on mul kahju, et ma ei saa anda sellele teosele enda silmis täispunkte. Kuna lugesin tõlget, siis ilmselt on minu kriitika suunatud pigem toimetaja ja küljendaja pihta kui autori enda suunas. Autor oleks ilmselt märganud, mida mina märkasin, ja selle eos välja juurinud.
Mitte küll väga tihti, aga siin-seal on raamatus lauselohesid, millest toimetaja oleks võinud teha lugejale mõeldes paar väiksemat ja mitte nii keerulist koletist. Sellegipoolest on raamat suhteliselt hästi loetav ning võrdlemisi ladusalt kirjutatud/tõlgitud.
Võrrandid raamatus on valdavalt illustratiivsetena mõeldud. Samas on neid päris palju, seetõttu oleks ootuspärane, et mõni füüsik need üle vaatab, sest praegu on filoloogid neile kahjuks kohati väga liiga teinud.
Matemaatika võimaldab sama võrrandit esitada üsna mitmel moel, ometi on teatud põhjustel mitmetel valemitel väljakujunenud nö harjumuspärased kujud. Raamatus ongi nende harjumuspäraste kujude vastu kohati üsna jõhkralt mindud.
“:” ja murrujoon küll tähistavad mõlemad jagamist, aga igas valemis ei tohiks neid “sünonüümidena” esitada. Näiteks tuletiste (operaatorite) puhul peaks/võiks siiski kasutada Leibnizi tähistust dy/dx. Samuti on murrujoonel ka oma funktsioon võrrandi lugemisel, sest tihti koosnevad ka võrrandi erinevad liikmed omakorda mingitest avaldistest.
Lisaks ka mitmed inimlikud näpukad - sulgude algus või lõpp puudu, kera valemites on ruut ja kuup moondunud 2 ja 3-ks, kuigi tekstis on need õigesti. Ka füüsikute jaburatesse ühikutesse pole suhtutud täie tõsidusega (näiteks Maa gravitatsiooni konstandi ühik ON “meetrit sekundi ruudu kohta”, kuigi see võib tunduda tavainimesele hoomamatu).
Keemikuna nurisen molaalse kontsentratsiooni definitsiooni hägususe üle. Muidu poleks viga, aga keemikud kasutavad lisaks molaalsele kontsentratsioonile veel ka molaarset kontsentratsiooni, mis on teisiti defineeritud.
Kokkuvõtvalt: huvitav raamat, lugege, aga valemid kontrollige üle.
Argo, 2020, 310 lk, sari Elav teadus
#ElavTeadus #ArgoSuperlugeja
Stephen Hawking püstitas endale ambitsioonika elueesmärgi - kõiksuse teooria - üks elegantne võrrand, mis kirjeldaks kõike. Kõlab imeliselt. Kõlab ka jumalikult või ketserlikult, sõltuvalt lugeja religioossetest vaadetest.
Kuid on see üks võrrand võimalik? Kas füüsika suudab kõike seletada?
Hawking ei unistanud üksi, Edinburgi ülikooli astrobioloogiaprofessor Charles S. Cockell esitab oma raamatus “Elu võrrandid” põneva kokkuvõtte füüsikute pingutustest selgitada füüsika abil elu teket ja selle (näiliselt lõputut) mitmekesisust. Millised füüsika valemid suunasid elu teket ning seda, et see just selline on nagu me kogeme? Raamat on täis valemeid, kuid neid pole mõtet karta, need on toodud valdavalt illustratiivsetena ja on seega mitte reaalteadlastest lugejatele täiesti ohutud.
Ääremärkuseks neile, kes raamatut lugedes tunnevad, et füüsikud üritavad jumalat asendada. Füüsika ja füüsikud püüavad maailma selgitada ja mõtestada inimesele hoomatavalt, tuues mängu matemaatika, et võimaldada mõõtmist ja seeläbi tulevaste protsesside ennustamist. Tõesti, vahel hävineb selle käigus mütoloogia ja folkloori killukesi. Nagu ulmekirjaniku Arthur C. Clarke'i kuulus 3. seadus ütleb: iga piisavalt arenenud tehnoloogiat on võimatu maagiast eristada. Varem maagiline taandub (või miks mitte hoopis üleneb?) mingil hetkel "lihtsalt" teaduseks. Kelle keel sügeleb siin sõna “ketserlus” välja ütlema, peaksid teadma, et füüsikud on tõenäoliselt ühed kõige siiramad usklikud üldse. Vaadates, kui kavalalt ja hästi maailm meie ümber erinevate väikeste ja suurte reeglite abil tiksub, on raske mitte tunda imetlust ja uskuda loojasse, kes kõik selle käima pani.
Cockell alustab linnuparvedest ja sipelgatest. Ta selgitab, kuidas hulkade käitumist on võimalik kirjeldada üsna lihtsa füüsikalise võrrandiga. Kui näiteks üksiku sipelga käigud võivad olla ettearvamatud, siis suurte hulkadena on sipelgate käitumine vägagi prognoositav. Tunnistan, et see oli hea peatükk. Parem, et miljoneid sipelaid juhib paar füüsika võrrandit, kui et oma aega ootav maailma vallutamise ambitsioonidega filmilik superaju. Teisalt tähendab see ka, et salapärane kõikvõimas loojakuju, millega muidu salapärast seaduspära selgitada, lipsab siit välja - veidi füüsikat ja programm (protsess) jookseb ilusti ka omapäi. Kuigi miks see peaks olema jumala troonilt tõukamine? Küllap ka tema soovib veidi puhata. Ja kuigi ta ei pruugi otseselt osaleda, on ta oma geniaalsuse kaudu ikkagi esindatud.
Kriitiline mass või hulk on ääretult huvitav fenomen, mis laieneb peaaegu kõigele. Näiteks tavalise mateeria puhul - aatomite tasandil juhib protsesse kvantmehaanika, aga kui pisikesi osakesi saab piisavalt suur hulk kokku, lihtsustub see tavapäraseks mehaanikaks.
Keskajal räägiti müstilistest rotikuningatest (sabapidi sõlme läinud rottidest, kes moodustasid justkui superorganismi, mis oli suurem kui selle osade summa). Ka inimeste puhul on selgelt näha, kuidas mingil hetkel isiksused kaovad ja tekivad massid (ühiskonnad, kultuurid, mäsud), mis omavad justkui mingit oma, suuremat, teadvust.
Keda teema paelub, soovitan uurida, millist infot Google suudab paljalt sisestatud otsingusõnade pealt hulkade käitumise kohta tuletada. See lööb tõsise mõlgi uskumusse, et inimene on eriline ja omab vaba tahet. Ma ei eita kumbagi, aga faktid näitavad, et inimene on eelkõige mugav ega kasuta eriti tihti oma vaba tahet või erilisust.
Hulkade juurest liigub Cockell edasi üksikute isendite juurde lepatriinude ja oma lemmiku, muti, näitel.
Pole vahet, kas uuritakse mõnd kehaosa või tervet looma, igal pool ilmneb sama seaduspära - füüsika annab piirid, mille sisse elu end mahutab, testides füüsika seaduste paindlikkust loodusliku valiku kaudu. Endiselt kehtib füüsikute veidi ninakas väide, et kõik, mis pole füüsikaliselt võimatu, on võimalik.
Õnneks selgub siit ka üks oluline asi - ükski eluvorm ei saa sellisena, nagu ta on, lõpmata suureks kasvada (või väikeseks kahaneda). Taas midagi, mille eest tänulik olla. Teadmine, et mõne putuka kasvatamine keskmise maja suuruseks ei anna tegelikkuses elujõulist isendit, sest füüsika astub keelavalt vahele, on midagi, mis laseb rahulikult magada ka keskpärase Hollywoodi kollifilmi vaatamise järel.
Cockell selgutab füüsika abil, kuidas saavad eri paigus esineda suhteliselt sarnased liigid. Värvus, suurus, toidulaud jne võib küll varieeruda, kuid põhiehitus on liikidel siiski väga sarnane, olgugi, et neil puuduvad vahel isegi ühised esivanemad. Cockell toob mängu elu modulaarse ülesehituse, ning selgitab, kuidas evolutsioon suudab teha ka päris pööraseid kannapöördeid, kui muutunud keskkonna tingimused seda nõuavad. Minu jaoks oli see raamatus üks paremaid ahaa-hetki. Mõnda häirib väga, et inimene ja šimpans erinevad DNA vaates üksteisest vaid umbes 1% võrra. Mind šimpansid ei sega, mulle isiklikult ei taha hoopis pähe mahtuda, et inimesel ja banaanil on 60%-line ühisosas.
Elu modulaarne ülesehitus tähendab seda, et geenid võivad olla ja ongi liigiti väga sarnased, mis aga hoopis enam erineb, on see, kuidas ja millal neid geene sisse ja välja lülitatakse. Nii saab sisuliselt samade “jooniste” järgi teha inimese 5-sõrmega käe ja kitse 2-varbaga sõra. Geniaalne!
Soovitan raamatut silmaringi mõttes loomulikult kõigile, sest raamatus on vastused mitmetele põletavatele “rumalatele” küsimustele. Näiteks: miks loomadel pole rattaid? (Kuidas sai evolutsioon sellest heast ideest nii suure kaarega mööda minna, kui ratas on ometi üks inimkonna suurimaid ja murrangulisemaid leiutisi nagu väidavad ajaloo õpikud?)
Ja miks pole kaladel propellereid?
Kasulik on raamat loomulikult bioloogia ja füüsika õpetajatele (ja õppijatele), sest Cockelli raamat annab palju häid näiteid interdisiplinaarsusest, vastates õpilaste igipõlisele “Milleks meil seda vaja teada on?” küsimusele.
Samuti on teos asjaks ka alustavale ulmekirjanikule, kelle ambitsioonide hulka kuulub täiesti uue maailma loomine, sest raamat annab vihjeid, kuidas luua usutav uus maailm loogiliste olenditega, nii et “usutav” ja “loogiline” ei rööviks kildugi maailmade või olendite hämmastavusest, vaid pigem hoopis panustaksid sellesse.
“Elu võrranid” on huvitav ja hästi kirjutatud raamat, mistõttu on mul kahju, et ma ei saa anda sellele teosele enda silmis täispunkte. Kuna lugesin tõlget, siis ilmselt on minu kriitika suunatud pigem toimetaja ja küljendaja pihta kui autori enda suunas. Autor oleks ilmselt märganud, mida mina märkasin, ja selle eos välja juurinud.
Mitte küll väga tihti, aga siin-seal on raamatus lauselohesid, millest toimetaja oleks võinud teha lugejale mõeldes paar väiksemat ja mitte nii keerulist koletist. Sellegipoolest on raamat suhteliselt hästi loetav ning võrdlemisi ladusalt kirjutatud/tõlgitud.
Võrrandid raamatus on valdavalt illustratiivsetena mõeldud. Samas on neid päris palju, seetõttu oleks ootuspärane, et mõni füüsik need üle vaatab, sest praegu on filoloogid neile kahjuks kohati väga liiga teinud.
Matemaatika võimaldab sama võrrandit esitada üsna mitmel moel, ometi on teatud põhjustel mitmetel valemitel väljakujunenud nö harjumuspärased kujud. Raamatus ongi nende harjumuspäraste kujude vastu kohati üsna jõhkralt mindud.
“:” ja murrujoon küll tähistavad mõlemad jagamist, aga igas valemis ei tohiks neid “sünonüümidena” esitada. Näiteks tuletiste (operaatorite) puhul peaks/võiks siiski kasutada Leibnizi tähistust dy/dx. Samuti on murrujoonel ka oma funktsioon võrrandi lugemisel, sest tihti koosnevad ka võrrandi erinevad liikmed omakorda mingitest avaldistest.
Lisaks ka mitmed inimlikud näpukad - sulgude algus või lõpp puudu, kera valemites on ruut ja kuup moondunud 2 ja 3-ks, kuigi tekstis on need õigesti. Ka füüsikute jaburatesse ühikutesse pole suhtutud täie tõsidusega (näiteks Maa gravitatsiooni konstandi ühik ON “meetrit sekundi ruudu kohta”, kuigi see võib tunduda tavainimesele hoomamatu).
Keemikuna nurisen molaalse kontsentratsiooni definitsiooni hägususe üle. Muidu poleks viga, aga keemikud kasutavad lisaks molaalsele kontsentratsioonile veel ka molaarset kontsentratsiooni, mis on teisiti defineeritud.
Kokkuvõtvalt: huvitav raamat, lugege, aga valemid kontrollige üle.
November 1, 2018
Caveat- I listed to the audiobook version of this. Listening to him read off really long equations was kind of painful and it seemed like something that would be much better to read. He also pronounced some scientific words in a really weird way (example, when talking about codons he said co-DOHNE rhyming with bone instead of co-DON) which was a little off-putting. However, I really enjoyed some of the chapters, particularly about when he had students working on the physics of ladybugs, which got me thinking about them in a new way. The chapters on the genetic code, codons, transcription/translation/mutations/etc was pretty boring for me, only because I literally teach that and it was nothing new to me. I was hoping for maybe a new way to explain it or new example I could use. For someone who wasn't as familiar with those topics though it would probably be really interesting!
August 31, 2018
The last paragraph is a nice summary of the book: " Around us is a biosphere of limitless and wonderful detail, but in its forms most simple. We see not a dreadful menagerie of three- and five-legged beasts, grotesquely fashioned in irregular shapes, a collection of creatures whose outlines bewilder and appall, a ghastly farrago of unbridled evolutionary contingency and experimentation. This is a biosphere of symmetry, of predictable scales and pleasing ratios, a pattern in form and construction that runs deep from the very core of biochemical architecture to families of ants and birds. It is the immutable and unbreakable marriage of physics and life."
The details of evolution are contingent, but the basics are decreed by the laws of physics, for several of which Cockell gives formulas and explains the ways in which they limit in basic ways the avenues down which evolution may roam. No need to fear the formulas, as it's the explanations that count here.
His considerations of the possible ways in which life and its evolution on exoplanets might differ from its course on earth, while still being limited by those basic physical laws, are especially interesting.
The details of evolution are contingent, but the basics are decreed by the laws of physics, for several of which Cockell gives formulas and explains the ways in which they limit in basic ways the avenues down which evolution may roam. No need to fear the formulas, as it's the explanations that count here.
His considerations of the possible ways in which life and its evolution on exoplanets might differ from its course on earth, while still being limited by those basic physical laws, are especially interesting.
Read
December 25, 2019Wonderful professor from the University of Edinburgh
Enjoyable to speak with, and his book explains the equations behind some of evolution
Astrobiological mindset
Interview with Professor Cockell at:
Episode 205 with Professor Charles Cockell
Enjoyable to speak with, and his book explains the equations behind some of evolution
Astrobiological mindset
Interview with Professor Cockell at:
Episode 205 with Professor Charles Cockell
September 4, 2018
An excellent science book
Connecting physics and biology through astrobiology is a great way to learn about all three sciences. Well-documented and easy enough to follow. Highly recommended.
Connecting physics and biology through astrobiology is a great way to learn about all three sciences. Well-documented and easy enough to follow. Highly recommended.
October 12, 2018
instead of thinking that evolution can create unimaginable things, Mr. Cockell purposes to ivestigate into the chemical and physical make up, atoms and forces, chemicals and gravity. to study the different factors below that of biology that shape organisms.
April 20, 2018
Powerful! The ideas and theories are amazing and the author added the references. Great book and excellent candidate for any library from colleague to university.
September 22, 2018
Well done book about the constraints of physics on the evolution of life and the implications for the possibilities of life among the stars.
January 1, 2019
This book is a neat look into the interface of biology and physics. Each chapter outlines a physical phenomenon and reviews our attempts at making sense of it and creating a simple mathematical relationship. Along the way, the author discusses how physics causes convergent evolution as some systems will always be best optimized a certain way as well ask positing that life we encounter elsewhere in similar circumstances will likely have similar features to life we currently see.
Additionally, the author defends the apparent simplicity of biology by noting how, for many practical cases, a simple biological system is orders of magnitude more complex than a system of interest to physics. This isn't to say one is "harder" but moreso to dispel the idea that physics is somehow the "hard" one. Instead, since the systems in physics are generally simpler, the field has gotten further into more systems are remote from human experience and thus seem harder whereas in biology, our intuitive understanding of life hides the true complexity of the underlying systems.
That said, the book is a little light on actual equations and I would have liked to see more. I was also expected more equations regarding things like population dynamics but those were largely absent. In that those aren't really physics questions, I can see why they weren't included.
This books overall gave me an appreciation for the application of mechanics and mathematical modeling to biological questions and the insight that can engender. Interesting but only a start.
Additionally, the author defends the apparent simplicity of biology by noting how, for many practical cases, a simple biological system is orders of magnitude more complex than a system of interest to physics. This isn't to say one is "harder" but moreso to dispel the idea that physics is somehow the "hard" one. Instead, since the systems in physics are generally simpler, the field has gotten further into more systems are remote from human experience and thus seem harder whereas in biology, our intuitive understanding of life hides the true complexity of the underlying systems.
That said, the book is a little light on actual equations and I would have liked to see more. I was also expected more equations regarding things like population dynamics but those were largely absent. In that those aren't really physics questions, I can see why they weren't included.
This books overall gave me an appreciation for the application of mechanics and mathematical modeling to biological questions and the insight that can engender. Interesting but only a start.
September 28, 2022
Charles S. Cockell on Suurbritannia astrobioloog ja tema sulest on tulnud üksjagu kirjutisi. Selles raamatus enne elu võrranditest kirjutamist, defineerib Cockell elu: „Lugeja peas võib nüüd kummitada üks mõte. Te võite arutleda „Aga mis on elu?“ Selle raamatu tarbeks ei ole mul vaja selle üle arutleda. Lihtsuse mõttes lähtun selles raamatus elu mugavast töödefinitsioonist, mis sisuliselt ütleb, et elusaine on selline, mis suudab paljuneda ja areneda.“
Mida me ka elu kohta ei otsustaks, millist määratlust või mõistet ka ei valiks – kõik need võimalused on täiesti kooskõlas lihtsate füüsikaseadustega ja nii on siin raamatus terve peatükk lepatriinufüüsikast. Tundub natuke tobe 😏, kuid mõeldes aias lillevartel liikuvast lepatriinust ja lugedes võrrandeid, kuidas lepatriinu liikumine võimalikuks saab, siis nende võrrandite lugemine tekitas sellise omapärase tunde: "Pole üllatus, et nende teadmistega relvastatuna saame lepatriinu tiivad taandada võrranditeks ja kui need meil olemas on, saab arvutada nende jäsemetega tekitatavat tõstejõudu ja võimsust. Võttes arvessetiiba ümbritsevaid jõude, nurkkiirust ja inertsi, saame taandada lepatriinu lennu nii lihtsaks arvuks nagu jäsemetega tekitatav võimsus 30 vatti kilogrammi kohta." Ja samas vaimus läheb see ka edasi.
Ma ei ole eriti suur füüsikavõrrandite sõber, kuid raamat oli siiski huvitav ja hoolimata paljudest võrranditest hästi arusaadav.
Mida me ka elu kohta ei otsustaks, millist määratlust või mõistet ka ei valiks – kõik need võimalused on täiesti kooskõlas lihtsate füüsikaseadustega ja nii on siin raamatus terve peatükk lepatriinufüüsikast. Tundub natuke tobe 😏, kuid mõeldes aias lillevartel liikuvast lepatriinust ja lugedes võrrandeid, kuidas lepatriinu liikumine võimalikuks saab, siis nende võrrandite lugemine tekitas sellise omapärase tunde: "Pole üllatus, et nende teadmistega relvastatuna saame lepatriinu tiivad taandada võrranditeks ja kui need meil olemas on, saab arvutada nende jäsemetega tekitatavat tõstejõudu ja võimsust. Võttes arvessetiiba ümbritsevaid jõude, nurkkiirust ja inertsi, saame taandada lepatriinu lennu nii lihtsaks arvuks nagu jäsemetega tekitatav võimsus 30 vatti kilogrammi kohta." Ja samas vaimus läheb see ka edasi.
Ma ei ole eriti suur füüsikavõrrandite sõber, kuid raamat oli siiski huvitav ja hoolimata paljudest võrranditest hästi arusaadav.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews