Introduction

One of the great benefits of abiogenesis research is that it allows great reductionism in addressing the question, “What is life?” Protocellular metabolomic models strip considerable complexity from homeostasis to focus only on the bare essentials. How does any Sustained Functional System (SFS) [1] maintain itself through time far from equilibrium despite 2nd Law propensities [1-4]? What biosystems must be developed to convert raw energy into usable energy, store it, and use it when needed? [5-9]. How did these SFS’s come into existence in an inanimate environment? And how do these SFS’s produce the incredible products (both conceptual and physical) known to arise only from “life”? But long before we get to protocellular metabolomic models, we are confronted with a peculiar ontological reality and necessity foreign to naturalistic physicodynamics. We call it “Maxwell’s demon” [10-18]. He is a silly cartoon character that should have no place in naturalistic scientific literature. On the other hand, not even the simplest heat engine can spontaneously form without the agency of this silly little imagined personage. Why does this bizarre figure keep popping up in every elementary physics text? Why can’t self-respecting naturalists once and for all dispense with him and terminate his existence?

Maxwell’s demon sits at the top of the trap door that divides thermodynamic compartments [19-21]. The trap door is not and cannot be constrained in any way by physical forces or laws. To produce any formal function, its opening and closing must be fully contingent upon the demon’s purposeful choice. No physicodynamic causation can concentrate hotter faster moving molecules on one side of the partition. Linkages between thermodynamic disequilibria “push” and entropy “pull” do not solve the problem of steering toward biofunction. It’s very simple: No demon—no sustained energy differential. Who is this guy? Where did he come from? How and why does he become a cause of real, actual physical effects? Why can’t we kill him off and get serious about real science—you know—naturalistic science? The answer is because Maxwell’s demon is the very one responsible for scientists’ brains and minds. Science would not exist without him [22]. Maxwell’s demon is who chooses which nucleoside next to polymerize [23-30]. The demon is the one who chooses how each epigenetic configurable switch should be set to turn on and off certain instructions [31-38]. The demon is the one who orchestrates the integrated circuits into the symphony we call life [39-45]. He is the one who programs and cybernetically processes formal holistic “biosystems” [46,47]. The demon alone can account for genetic overlapping transcriptions [48,49], genes within genes, shared promoters, transcriptions in opposite directions, enhancers up to a million bases away from the genes they regulate, genes that prescribe both forward and backward at the same time, “gene neighborhood” interactions, environmental influence on genetic Prescriptive Information (PI) [23,50] itself [51,52], chromatic remodeling, epigenetic controls, alternate genetic splicing and functioning, and the innumerable long non-coding regulatory RNAs. Hundreds more proteins and functional RNAs are produced than the total number of genes in DNA. What law of physics or chemistry—what thermodynamic probabilism—is masterminding all this abstract, conceptual complexity? If we ever succeeded in killing off Maxwell’s demon, we would not only commit suicide ourselves, we would succeed in killing off all known lifeforms.

Where did Maxwell’s demon come from?

We will never know as long as we refuse to accept the reality of Physicodynamic Incompleteness—Physicodynamic Insufficiency [37,38]. There are way too many pieces of the puzzle of reality than cannot be corralled by the perimeter defined by the naïve, simplistic philosophy of naturalism [53-57]. One of those pieces of the puzzle is the very real Maxwell’s demon. So where did the demon come from? He came from the far side of The Cybernetic Cut [58,59]. The Cybernetic cut is an infinitely deep ravine that divides mass/energy physicodynamics from formalisms. The demon was born and raised on the far side of The Cybernetic Cut. His influence gained entrance to the near side of The Cybernetic Cut only across the narrow one-way bridge known as the Configurable Switch Bridge [58,59]. Physicodynamically-inert configurable switches had to be set by purposeful Choice Causation [53] to be able to generate any formal effect into physicality. Gravity doesn’t turn our light switches off. Agent choice does. Configurable switches are deliberately designed and engineered that way. They are “physicodynamically incoherent.” [3,26,27,56] Only active selection at true decision nodes, not just mere bifurcation points, produces formal effects. Irreversible nonequilibrium thermodynamics is incapable of setting configurable switches with the intent of achieving pragmatism. Choice Causation alone produces this physical effect. Subcellular life is replete with such configurable switch settings.

An alternative route across the Configurable Switch Bridge is the use of Material Symbol Systems [60,61] [23,24,28,29,54,61,62]. Physical symbol vehicles (tokens) have to be purposefully chosen, arranged and sequenced so as to communicate meaningful instructions according to formal rules [25,28,55], not laws, of how to produce non-trivial utility [30,63]. No sophisticated function has ever been observed to arise spontaneously out of physicodynamics alone [56,57]. Not even a simple piece of wire has ever self-organized or emerged from raw mass/energy interactions and reactions [1-4]. Irreversible nonequilibrium thermodynamics has never produced so much as a paper clip [64]. Neither has Chaos Theory nor Complexity Theory [37,53,54,62,63,65,66]. Prigogine’s “dissipative structures” destroy formal organization, not produce it [26,27,30,38,56,57,63,67,68].

Is the demon physical?

We live in a mass/energy world, don’t we? Doesn’t the demon have to be physical? Everything else is physical, isn’t it? Or is it? What about the laws of physics? Are the abstract, conceptual, mathematical equations that govern all physical interactions physical [65] [69,70]? What about scientific logic theory? Is that physical? What about the categorization and tabulation of results, and the drawing of conclusions? What about scientific ethics? Are we sure everything boils down to nothing more than mass and energy? Is the scientific method physical? Why is the mind/body problem still such an intractable problem?

What is so different about Maxwell’s demon?

Despite physical law, the demon can actively select from among real physical options. Probabilism only describes possibilities. It produces no efficacious results. Thermodynamic possibilities do not generate focused physical utility. The demon does far more than to deal with chance contingency. The demon exercises choice contingency. He enters the scene with a peculiar interest in and ability to cause physical effects never before observed to arise from physicodynamics alone. The demon sets foot on the stage of otherwise naturalistic reality with the unique ability to make purposeful choices. None of the forces of physics, no law or constraint, can make purposeful choices that cause physical, yet formal effects. We are talking about a third fundamental category of reality in addition to Chance and Necessity: Choice Causation [22,23,27,29,30,38,53,55,57-59,71]. The demon also possesses the unique ability to actually do something useful. He can identify, value and pursue utility. It is the demon who introduces a new definition of “work” that is completely foreign to physics. Not only is a mass moved through space, it is moved through space for some valuable reason. The demon’s choices alone value and pursue function. The demon alone says, “why don’t I operate this trap door “in order to” concentrate hotter, faster moving molecules on one side, and cooler, slower moving molecules on the other, so that I can create a differential that might eventually allow generating a heat engine.” Maxwell’s demon alone provides the essential element of steering toward function. The demon controls; physicodynamics constrains.

If we want to ever finally succeed in defining life, we had better begin acknowledging the reality and roles of formal subcellular controls. Mere laws and constraints have never been observed to control any formal process. Unlike inanimate physicodynamics, the demon is not only able to identify, sense and value usefulness; he pursues it. Unlike the physics definition of “work,” the demon’s definition of “work” requires accomplishing something of formal worth and mechanical profit. The demon’s choices are purposefully pragmatic. Physicodynamics knows nothing of pragmatism. The demon believes in expediency. He asks, “What would be helpful in this situation?” Would this choice be efficacious in accomplishing some yet-to-be-realized goal?

The majority of the demon’s choices have to be made prior to the realization of any function—“final” function especially. He often lacks the benefit of favoring what already works. Technically, neoDarwinian evolution doesn’t even do that. Evolution doesn’t select for function. It only selects the fittest organisms. In molecular evolution, organisms do not exist yet. The demon’s selection is not “natural” (after the fact of already-programmed, already-cybernetically-processed, already optimized, already-living organisms). His selection is active, not passive or secondary [3]. He has to generate from scratch what will eventually work through wise immediate choices. What will be advantageous upon successful computation? What will eventually be expedient? What will wind up being handy? What will be valuable? What will be suitable? Worthwhile? Nifty? Creative? Efficacious? These are not naturalistic physics or chemistry terms and concepts. They are purely formal notions. They are engineering terms, not natural science terms. They did not arise from the near side of The Cybernetic Cut. They arose from the far side, from the demon’s neighborhood of agency.

When the demon programs, he faces Turing’s nagging halting problem. The only thing is, somehow, unlike our finest programmers, Maxwell’s demon seems to be able to overcome the halting problem. He actively selects and polymerizes the needed sequences of nucleosides to prescribe primary, secondary and tertiary protein structure. How does he know what programming choices will compute only upon later cybernetic machine processing? He has insights physicodynamics not only lacks, but which the best of human programmers lack.

Imagined reality without the demon

The abiogenic literature is filled with all manner of hypothetical demon-less life-origin scenarios [43,72-124] [105,111-124]. They all sneak in steering and controls through the back door, hoping that no colleague will notice the investigator involvement in experimental design. When the details are studied of all the latest and best models of spontaneous establishment of homochirality, for example [125,126], we find that a number of specific conditions must be met at the right time and place. These supposedly naturalistic models become not only statistically prohibitive, but their scenarios violate the Universal Plausibility Principle with a UPM of ξ < 1.0. This renders the hypothesis untenable for reasons of scientific implausibility [127,128].

Why can’t reputable scientific naturalists kill off Maxwell’s demon?

The answer is very simple:

No Maxwell’s demon

• • no simplest heat engine.
• • no sustained circumvention of the 2^nd Law
• • no life
• • no scientists
• • no science
• • no philosophic naturalism, or any other metaphysical belief system conjured up by human agents.

Life is fundamentally abstract, conceptual and Formal [2-4,22,24,26,27,29,30,37,38,53-59,61,62,64,65,67,68,129]. Its formalisms are instantiated into mass/energy physicality using physicodynamically-inert configurable switch-settings [60,130,131]. Representational Material Symbol Systems (MSS) are also used to prescribe logical functions instructed by Prescriptive Information (PI) [23,25,28]. Physical symbol vehicles (tokens) are sequenced according to rules, not laws. These rules are shared by source and destination governed only by arbitrary pre-agreements, not by physical constraints [27,29,30,55,57,59]. Most of life’s instructions are prescribed by coded programming which is often superimposed and multi-dimensional [132]. This programming must be cybernetically processed by nanocomputers. Formal functional work, not just the work of physics, is done by ingenious molecular machines [133-141]. Life exists in the form of Sustained Functional Systems (SFS) [1] that continually compute interdependent, highly cooperative haltings. Integrated circuits orchestrate into physicality homeostatic metabolism. Active selections alone achieve far from equilibrium defiance of 2^nd Law thermodynamic propensities [3].

Conclusion

At the turn of the millennium, the finest life-origin scientists in the world gathered in Modena, Italy to address the question “What is life?” [142,143]. Not only were no two of our definitions the same at that conference; they all failed to recognize the essential ingredient of what makes life alive. It is the fact that all known life is programmed, computed and cybernetically processed by highly sophisticated nanocomputers and molecular machines that could only have come into existence through agency. Only the demon’s agency can practice formalisms like the abstract, conceptual, nonphysical, mathematical laws of physics. Life is a constellation of exquisite formalisms only secondarily instantiated into physicality. No agency: no formalisms: no life. Any model attempting to reduce abiogenesis to nothing more than inanimate physicodynamics measures out with a Universal Plausibility Metric ξ = < 1.0, thereby requiring editorial and peer-review rejection for reasons of scientific implausibility. Agency cannot fit within the narrow-minded worldview of metaphysical naturalism. Disallow the agency of Maxwell’s demon, and we not only throw a monkey wrench into the scientific method, we murder life itself. Naturalism is by far the worst Kuhnian paradigm rut [144] in the history of science. Our naturalistic god is too small. And this pathetic fanatical religion is greatly impeding scientific progress, biology in particular. Maxwell’s demon is ontologically and scientifically real.

References

1. Abel DL. Moving 'far from equilibrium' in a prebiotic environment: The role of Maxwell’s Demon in life origin In Genesis - In the Beginning: Precursors of Life, Chemical Models and Early Biological Evolution, Seckbach J Gordon R, Eds Seckbach J, Ed Springer Dordrecht (2012): 219-236.
2. Abel DL. Why is Abiogenesis Such a Tough Nut to Crack? Archives of Microbiology and Immunology 8 (2024): 338-364.
3. Abel DL. Selection in molecular evolution. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 107 (2024): 54-63
4. Abel DL. What is Life? Archives of Microbiology and Immunology 8 (2024): 428-443.
5. Watterson JG. The cluster model of energy transduction in biological systems. Biosystems 240 (2024): 105213.
6. Pfeuty B. Free-energy transduction mechanisms shape the flux space of metabolic networks. Biophys J 123 (2024): 3600-3611.
7. Lin J, Zhou J, Li L, Tahir I, Wu S, Naumov P, et al. Highly efficient in crystal energy transduction of light to work. Nat Commun 15 (2024): 3633.
8. Grelier M, Sivak DA, Ehrich J. Unlocking the potential of information flow: Maximizing free-energy transduction in a model of an autonomous rotary molecular motor. Phys Rev E 109 (2024): 034115.
9. Brown GC. Bioenergetic myths of energy transduction in eukaryotic cells. Front Mol Biosci 11 (2024): 1402910.
10. Poulsen K, Majland M, Lloyd S, Kjaergaard M, Zinner NT. Quantum Maxwell's demon assisted by non-Markovian effects. Phys Rev E 105 (2022): 044141.
11. Fontana, P.W. Hidden Dissipation and Irreversibility in Maxwell's Demon. Entropy (Basel) 24 (2022).
12. Zeng Q, Wang J. New fluctuation theorems on Maxwell's demon. Sci Adv 7 (2021).
13. Linke H, Parrondo JMR. Tuning up Maxwell's demon. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 118 (2021).
14. Grudka A, Kurzynski P, Wojcik A. Quantum semipermeable barriers: Investigating Maxwell's demon toolbox. Phys Rev E 104 (2021): 064114
15. Shenker O, Hemmo M. Maxwell's Demon in Quantum Mechanics. Entropy (Basel) 22 (2020).
16. Ciliberto S. Autonomous out-of-equilibrium Maxwell's demon for controlling the energy fluxes produced by thermal fluctuations. Phys Rev E 102 (2020): 050103.
17. Aydin A, Sisman A. Kosloff, R. Landauer's Principle in a Quantum Szilard Engine without Maxwell's Demon. Entropy (Basel) 22 (2020).
18. Manaselyan A, Luo W, Braak D. Chakraborty, T. Seeking Maxwell's Demon in a non-reciprocal quantum ring. Sci Rep 9 (2019): 9244.
19. von Baeyer HC. Maxwell's Demon: Why Warmth Disperses and Time Passes; Random House (1998).
20. Zaslavsky GM. From Hamiltonian chaos to Maxwell's Demon. Chaos 5 (1995): 653-661.
21. Zurek WH. Algorithmic information content, Church-Turing thesis, physical entropy and Maxwell's demon. In Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information, Zurek, W.H., Ed.; Addison-Wesley: Redwood City (1990): 73-89.
22. Abel DL. Is life unique? Life 2 (2011): 106-134.
23. Abel DL. The biosemiosis of prescriptive information Semiotica (2009): 1-19.
24. Abel DL. The GS (Genetic Selection) Principle. Frontiers in Bioscience 14 (2009): 2959-2969.
25. Abel DL, Trevors JT. More than Metaphor: Genomes are Objective Sign Systems. In BioSemiotic Research Trends, Barbieri, M., Ed.; Nova Science Publishers: New York (2007): 1-15.
26. Abel DL. Complexity, self-organization, and emergence at the edge of chaos in life-origin models Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 93 (2007): 1-20.
27. Abel DL, Trevors JT. Self-Organization vs. Self-Ordering events in life-origin models Physics of Life Reviews 3 (2006): 211-228
28. Abel DL, Trevors JT. More than metaphor: Genomes are objective sign systems Journal of BioSemiotics 1 (2006): 253-267.
29. Abel DL, Trevors JT. Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information. Theoretical Biology and Medical Modeling 2 (2005): 29-45.
30. Trevors JT, Abel DL. Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life Cell Biol Int 28 (2004): 729-739.
31. Tall AR, Fidler TP. An epigenetic switch in macrophages promotes fibrosis in the failing heart. Nat Cardiovasc Res 3 (2024): 254-255.
32. Smith JP, Paxton R, Medrano S, Sheffield NC, Sequeira-Lopez MLS, et al. Inhibition of Renin Expression Is Regulated by an Epigenetic Switch from an Active to a Poised State. Hypertension 81 (2024): 1869-1882.
33. Mitesser V, Simantov K, Dzikowski R. Time to switch gears: how long noncoding RNAs function as epigenetic regulators in Apicomplexan parasites. Curr Opin Microbiol 79 (2024): 102484.
34. Jakobsen ST, Jensen RAM, Madsen MS, Ravnsborg T, Vaagenso CS, et al. MYC activity at enhancers drives prognostic transcriptional programs through an epigenetic switch. Nat Genet 56 (2024): 663-674.
35. Jin L, Chen Y, Muzaffar S, Li C, Mier-Aguilar CA, Khan J, et al. Epigenetic switch reshapes epithelial progenitor cell signatures and drives inflammatory pathogenesis in hidradenitis suppurativa. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 120 (2023): e2315096120.
36. Jankowski K, Jagana V, Bisserier M, Hadri L. Switch-Independent 3A: An Epigenetic Regulator in Cancer with New Implications for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. Biomedicines 12 (2023).
37. Abel DL. Primordial Prescription: The Most Plaguing Problem of Life Origin Science Long View Press Academic: New York (2015).
38. Abel DL. (Ed.) The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control. LongView Press-Academic: Biolog. Res. Div.: New York (2011): 389.
39. Mukherjee R, Sinha S, Luker GD, Ghosh P. Interlinked switch circuits of biological intelligence. Trends Biochem Sci 49 (2024): 286-289.
40. Sun J, Sun C, Wang Z, Wang Y. Biosignals Secure Communication Scheme with Filtering of Active Control Projection Synchronization of Biological Chaotic Circuits with Different Orders Based on DNA Strand Displacement. IEEE Trans Biomed Circuits Syst 17 (2023): 470-482.
41. Merzbacher, C.; Mac Aodha, O.; Oyarzun, D.A. Bayesian Optimization for Design of Multiscale Biological Circuits. ACS synthetic biology 2023, 12, 2073-2082.
42. Giles, J.R.; Ngiow, S.F.; Manne, S.; Baxter, A.E.; Khan, O.; Wang, P.; Staupe, R.; Abdel-Hakeem, M.S.; Huang, H.; Mathew, D.; et al. Shared and distinct biological circuits in effector, memory and exhausted CD8(+) T cells revealed by temporal single-cell transcriptomics and epigenetics. Nat Immunol 2022, 23, 1600-161.
43. Kiwimagi, K.A.; Letendre, J.H.; Weinberg, B.H.; Wang, J.; Chen, M.; Watanabe, L.; Myers, C.J.; Beal, J.; Wong, W.W.; Weiss, R. Quantitative characterization of recombinase-based digitizer circuits enables predictable amplification of biological signals. Commun Biol 2021, 4, 875.
44. English, M.A.; Gayet, R.V.; Collins, J.J. Designing Biological Circuits: Synthetic Biology Within the Operon Model and Beyond. Annu Rev Biochem 2021, 90, 221-244.
45. Billerbeck, S. Synthetic biological toggle circuits that respond within seconds and teach us new biology. Synth Biol (Oxf) 2021, 6, ysab027.
46. DiStefano, J.J. Dynamic systems biology modeling and simulation, First edition. ed.; Elsevier, Academic Press: Amsterdam, 2013; pp. xxii, 859 pages.
47. Merva, G.E. Physical principles of the plant biosystem; American Society of Agricultural Engineers: St. Joseph, Mich., USA, 1995; pp. x, 272.
48. Clark, M.B.; Choudhary, A.; Smith, M.A.; Taft, R.J.; Mattick, J.S. The dark matter rises: the expanding world of regulatory RNAs. Essays Biochem 2013, 54, 1-16.
49. Djebali, S.; Davis, C.A.; Merkel, A.; Dobin, A.; Lassmann, T.; Mortazavi, A.; Tanzer, A.; Lagarde, J.; Lin, W.; Schlesinger, F.; et al. Landscape of transcription in human cells. Nature 2012, 489, 101-108.
50. D'Onofrio, D.J.; Abel, D.L.; Johnson, D.E. Dichotomy in the definition of prescriptive information suggests both prescribed data and prescribed algorithms: biosemiotics applications in genomic systems (Last accessed 9/2024). Theor Biol Med Model 2012, 9, 8.
51. Haltenhof, T.; Preussner, M.; Heyd, F. Thermoregulated transcriptomics: the molecular basis and biological significance of temperature-dependent alternative splicing. Biochem J 2024, 481, 999-1013.
52. Foo, G.W.; Leichthammer, C.D.; Saita, I.M.; Lukas, N.D.; Batko, I.Z.; Heinrichs, D.E.; Edgell, D.R. Intein-based thermoregulated meganucleases for containment of genetic material. Nucleic Acids Res 2024, 52, 2066-2077.
53. Abel, D.L. The three fundamental categories of reality In The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control, Abel, D.L., Ed.; LongView Press-Academic: Biolog. Res. Div.: New York, N.Y., 2011; pp. 19-54.
54. Abel, D.L. What is ProtoBioCybernetics? . In The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control, Abel, D.L., Ed.; LongView Press-Academic: Biolog. Res. Div.: New York, N.Y., 2011; pp. 1-18.
55. Abel, D.L. Constraints vs. Controls: Progressing from description to prescription in systems theory Open Cybernetics and Systemics Journal 2010, 4, 14-27.
56. Abel, D.L. The capabilities of chaos and complexity Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2009, 10, 247-291.
57. Abel, D.L. The capabilities of chaos and complexity In Proceedings of the Society for Chaos Theory: Society for Complexity in Psychology and the Life Sciences, International Conference at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA., Aug 8-10, 2008.
58. Abel, D.L. The Cybernetic Cut and Configurable Switch (CS) Bridge In The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control, Abel, D.L., Ed.; LongView Press--Academic, Biol. Res. Div. 55-74 New York, N.Y., 2011; pp. 55-74.
59. Abel, D.L. The ‘Cybernetic Cut’: Progressing from Description to Prescription in Systems Theory The Open Cybernetics and Systemics Journal 2008, 2, 252-262.
60. Rocha, L.M. Evolution with material symbol systems. Biosystems 2001, 60, 95-121.
61. Abel, D.L. Linear Digital Material Symbol Systems (MSS) In The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control, Abel, D.L., Ed.; LongView Press--Academic, Biol. Res. Div.: New York, N.Y., 2011; pp. 135-160.
62. Abel, D.L. The Genetic Selection (GS) Principle In The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control, Abel, D.L., Ed.; LongView Press--Academic: New York, N.Y., 2011; pp. 161-188.
63. Abel, D.L. What utility does order, pattern or complexity prescribe? . In The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control, Abel, D.L., Ed.; LongView Press--Academic, Biol. Res. Div.: New York, N.Y., 2011; pp. 75-116.
64. Abel, D.L. “Assembly Theory” in life-origin models: A critical review. Biosystems 2025, 247, 105378.
65. Abel, D.L. The Formalism > Physicality (F > P) Principle In The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control, Abel, D.L., Ed.; LongView Press Academic: New York, N.Y., 2011; pp. 325-351.
66. Abel, D.L. The Birth of Protocells In The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control, Abel, D.L., Ed.; LongView Press--Academic, Biol. Res. Div.: New York, N.Y., 2011; pp. 189-230.
67. Durston, K.K.; Chiu, D.K.; Abel, D.L.; Trevors, J.T. Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins Theoretical biology & medical modelling 2007, 4, 1-14.
68. Abel, D.L. Life origin: The role of complexity at the edge of chaos In Proceedings of the Washington Academy of Science 2006, Lecture delivered at the Headquarters of the National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA, 2006..
69. Hamming, R.W. The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics. The American Mathematical Monthly 1980, 87, 81-90.
70. Wigner, E.P. The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. Comm. Pure Appl. 1960, 13.
71. Abel, D.L. Is Life Reducible to Complexity? In Fundamentals of Life, Palyi, G., Zucchi, C., Caglioti, L., Eds.; Elsevier: Paris, 2002; pp. 57-72.
72. Fiore, M.; Chieffo, C.; Lopez, A.; Fayolle, D.; Ruiz, J.; Soulere, L.; Oger, P.; Altamura, E.; Popowycz, F.; Buchet, R. Synthesis of Phospholipids Under Plausible Prebiotic Conditions and Analogies with Phospholipid Biochemistry for Origin of Life Studies. Astrobiology 2022, 22, 598-627.
73. Osumah, A.; Krishnamurthy, R. Diamidophosphate (DAP): A Plausible Prebiotic Phosphorylating Reagent with a Chem to BioChem Potential? Chembiochem 2021, 22, 3001-3009.
74. Gaylor, M.O.; Miro, P.; Vlaisavljevich, B.; Kondage, A.A.S.; Barge, L.M.; Omran, A.; Videau, P.; Swenson, V.A.; Leinen, L.J.; Fitch, N.W.; et al. Plausible Emergence and Self Assembly of a Primitive Phospholipid from Reduced Phosphorus on the Primordial Earth. Orig Life Evol Biosph 2021, 51, 185-213.
75. Piotto, S.; Sessa, L.; Piotto, A.; Nardiello, A.M.; Concilio, S. Plausible Emergence of Autocatalytic Cycles under Prebiotic Conditions. Life 2019, 9, 33.
76. Derr, J.; Manapat, M.L.; Rajamani, S.; Leu, K.; Xulvi-Brunet, R.; Joseph, I.; Nowak, M.A.; Chen, I.A. Prebiotically plausible mechanisms increase compositional diversity of nucleic acid sequences. Nucleic Acids Research 2012.
77. Subbotin, V.; Fiksel, G. Aquatic Ferrous Solutions of Prebiotic Mineral Salts as Strong UV Protectants and Possible Loci of Life Origin. Astrobiology 2023, 23, 741-745.
78. Zlenko, D.V.; Zanin, A.M.; Stovbun, S.V. Molecular Self-Assembly as a Trigger of Life Origin and Development. Orig Life Evol Biosph 2022, 52, 105-111.
79. Bregestowski, P.D. [
80. Adamala, K.; Luisi, P.L. Experimental systems to explore life origin: perspectives for understanding primitive mechanisms of cell division. Results Probl Cell Differ 2011, 53, 1-9.
81. Hernandez, C.; Michaelian, K. Dissipative Photochemical Abiogenesis of the Purines. Entropy (Basel) 2022, 24.
82. Freeland, S. Undefining life's biochemistry: implications for abiogenesis. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface / the Royal Society 2022, 19, 20210814.
83. Michaelian, K. The Dissipative Photochemical Origin of Life: UVC Abiogenesis of Adenine. Entropy (Basel) 2021, 23.
84. Caliari, A.; Xu, J.; Yomo, T. The requirement of cellularity for abiogenesis. Computational and structural biotechnology journal 2021, 19, 2202-2212.
85. Scribano, V.; Simakov, S.K.; Finocchiaro, C.; Correale, A.; Scire, S. Pyrite and Organic Compounds Coexisting in Intrusive Mafic Xenoliths (Hyblean Plateau, Sicily): Implications for Subsurface Abiogenesis. Orig Life Evol Biosph 2019, 49, 19-47.
86. de la Escosura, A. The Informational Substrate of Chemical Evolution: Implications for Abiogenesis. Life (Basel) 2019, 9.
87. Toxvaerd, S. The start of the Abiogenesis: Preservation of homochirality in proteins as a necessary and sufficient condition for the establishment of the metabolism. J Theor Biol 2018, 451, 117-121, 8. Gibb, B.C. Abiogenesis and the reverse Hofmeister effect. Nat Chem 2018, 10, 797-798.
88. Chen, J.; Kipping, D. On the Rate of Abiogenesis from a Bayesian Informatics Perspective. Astrobiology 2018, 18, 1574-1584.
89. Branscomb, E.; Russell, M.J. Frankenstein or a Submarine Alkaline Vent: Who is Responsible for Abiogenesis?: Part 2: As life is now, so it must have been in the beginning. Bioessays 2018, 40, e1700182.
90. Branscomb, E.; Russell, M.J. Frankenstein or a Submarine Alkaline Vent: Who Is Responsible for Abiogenesis?: Part 1: What is life-that it might create itself? Bioessays 2018, 40, e1700179.
91. Branscomb, E.; Russell, M.J. Frankenstein or a Submarine Alkaline Vent: Who is Responsible for Abiogenesis?: Part 2: As life is now, so it must have been in the beginning. Bioessays 2018, 40, e1700182.
92. Duval, S., Branscomb, Elbert, Fabienne Trolard, Guilhem Bourrié, Olivier Grauby, Vasile Heresanu, Barbara Schoepp-Cothenet, Kilian Zuchan, Michael J. Russell, Wolfgang Nitschke,. On the why's and how's of clay minerals' importance in life's emergence. Applied Clay Science, 2020, 195.
93. Cardoso, S.S.S.; Cartwright, J.H.E.; Cejkova, J.; Cronin, L.; De Wit, A.; Giannerini, S.; Horvath, D.; Rodrigues, A.; Russell, M.J.; Sainz-Diaz, C.I.; et al. Chemobrionics: From Self-Assembled Material Architectures to the Origin of Life. Artif Life 2020, 26, 315-326.
94. Bonfio, C.; Russell, D.A.; Green, N.J.; Mariani, A.; Sutherland, J.D. Activation chemistry drives the emergence of functionalised protocells. Chem Sci 2020, 11, 10688-10697.
95. Camprubí, E.; de Leeuw, J.W.; House, C.H.; Raulin, F.; Russell, M.J.; Spang, A.; Tirumalai, M.R.; Westall, F. The Emergence
96. .
97. Branscomb, E.; Russell, M.J. Why the Submarine Alkaline Vent is the Most Reasonable Explanation for the Emergence of Life. Bioessays 2019, 41, e1800208.
98. Mariani, A.; Russell, D.A.; Javelle, T.; Sutherland, J.D. A Light-Releasable Potentially Prebiotic Nucleotide Activating Agent. Journal of the American Chemical Society 2018, 140, 8657-8661.
99. Branscomb, E.B.T., Goldenfeld, N. Russell M. . Escapement mechanisms and the conversion of disequilibria; the engines of creation. Physics Reports 2017, 677, 1–60, doi:file:///C:/Users/Owner/AppData/Local/Temp/MicrosoftEdgeDownloads/cd2ff37a-250a-4ddc-bbc6-111a964c4f7d/Branscomb%202017%20escapement%20mechanisms%20and%20conversion%20of%20disequilibria%202017%20(2).pdf.
100. Barge, L.M.; Branscomb, E.; Brucato, J.R.; Cardoso, S.S.; Cartwright, J.H.; Danielache, S.O.; Galante, D.; Kee, T.P.; Miguel, Y.; Mojzsis, S.; et al. Thermodynamics, Disequilibrium, Evolution: Far-From-Equilibrium Geological and Chemical Considerations for Origin-Of-Life Research. Orig Life Evol Biosph 2017, 47, 39-56.
101. Russell, M.J.; Barge, L.M.; Bhartia, R.; Bocanegra, D.; Bracher, P.J.; Branscomb, E.; Kidd, R.; McGlynn, S.; Meier, D.H.; Nitschke, W.; et al. The Drive to Life on Wet and Icy Worlds. Astrobiology 2014, 14, 308-343.
102. Bartlett, J.I. Causal Capabilities of Teleology and Teleonomy in Life and Evolution. Organon F 2023, 30, 222–254.
103. Martin, W.F.; Kleinermanns, K. The Geochemical Origin of Microbes, 1st ed.; CRC Press: Boa Raton, FL, 2024; p. 248 142 Color.
104. Schwander, L.; Brabender, M.; Mrnjavac, N.; Wimmer, J.L.E.; Preiner, M.; Martin, W.F. Serpentinization as the source of energy, electrons, organics, catalysts, nutrients and pH gradients for the origin of LUCA and life. Front Microbiol 2023, 14, 1257597.
105. Mrnjavac, N.; Wimmer, J.L.E.; Brabender, M.; Schwander, L.; Martin, W.F. The Moon-Forming Impact and the Autotrophic Origin of Life. Chempluschem 2023, 88, e202300270.
106. Bremer, N.; Tria, F.D.K.; Skejo, J.; Martin, W.F. The Ancestral Mitotic State: Closed Orthomitosis With Intranuclear Spindles in the Syncytial Last Eukaryotic Common Ancestor. Genome Biol Evol 2023, 15.
107. Weiss, M.C.; Preiner, M.; Xavier, J.C.; Zimorski, V.; Martin, W.F. The last universal common ancestor between ancient Earth chemistry and the onset of genetics. PLoS genetics 2018, 14, e1007518.
108. Barbieri, M. Overview of the fourth special issue in code biology. Biosystems 2024, 235, 105074.
109. Barbieri, M. A general model on the origin of biological codes. Biosystems 2019, 181, 11-19.
110. Barbieri, M. What is code biology? Biosystems 2018, 164, 1-10.
111. Service, R.F. New origin of life theory may explain biomolecular handedness. Science 2024, 383, 937-938.
112. Moreno, A.; Bonduelle, C. New Insights on the Chemical Origin of Life: The Role of Aqueous Polymerization of N-carboxyanhydrides (NCA). Chempluschem 2024, e202300492.
113. Lyman, G.H.; Lyman, C.H.; Kuderer, N.M. The Nature, Origin and Evolution of Life: Part II The Origin of Life. Cancer Invest 2024, 42, 115-118.
114. Lane, N.; Xavier, J.C. To unravel the origin of life, treat findings as pieces of a bigger puzzle. Nature 2024, 626, 948-951.
115. Cohen, Z.R.; Ding, D.; Zhou, L.; DasGupta, S.; Haas, S.; Sinclair, K.P.; Todd, Z.R.; Black, R.A.; Szostak, J.W.; Catling, D.C. Natural soda lakes provide compatible conditions for RNA and membrane function that could have enabled the origin of life. PNAS Nexus 2024, 3, page 084.
116. Agmon, I. Three Biopolymers and Origin of Life Scenarios. Life (Basel) 2024, 14.
117. Westall, F.; Brack, A.; Fairen, A.G.; Schulte, M.D. Setting the geological scene for the origin of life and continuing open questions about its emergence. Front Astron Space Sci 2023, 9, 1095701.
118. Tagami, S.; Li, P. The origin of life: RNA and protein co-evolution on the ancient Earth. Dev Growth Differ 2023, 65, 167-174.
119. Santos, T.C.B.; Futerman, A.H. The fats of the matter: Lipids in prebiotic chemistry and in origin of life studies. Prog Lipid Res 2023, 92, 101253.
120. Prosdocimi, F.; de Farias, S.T. Origin of life: Drawing the big picture. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 2023, 180-181, 28-36.
121. Papineau, D.; Devine, K.; Nogueira, B.A. Self-Similar Patterns from Abiotic Decarboxylation Metabolism through Chemically Oscillating Reactions: A Prebiotic Model for the Origin of Life. Life (Basel) 2023, 13.
122. Meyer, M.O.; Yamagami, R.; Choi, S.; Keating, C.D.; Bevilacqua, P.C. RNA folding studies inside peptide-rich droplets reveal roles of modified nucleosides at the origin of life. Sci Adv 2023, 9, eadh5152.
123. Lei, L.; Burton, Z.F. The 3 31 Nucleotide Minihelix tRNA Evolution Theorem and the Origin of Life. Life (Basel) 2023, 13.
124. Fine, J.L.; Pearlman, R.E. On the origin of life: an RNA-focused synthesis and narrative. RNA 2023, 29, 1085-1098.
125. Sharma, A. Sequential Amplification of Amino Acid Enantiomeric Excess by Conglomerate and Racemic Compound: Plausible Prebiotic Route Towards Homochirality. Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres 2023, 13 October.
126. Muller, F.; Escobar, L.; Xu, F.; Wegrzyn, E.; Nainyte, M.; Amatov, T.; Chan, C.Y.; Pichler, A.; Carell, T. A prebiotically plausible scenario of an RNA-peptide world. Nature 2022, 605, 279-284.
127. Abel, D.L. The Universal Plausibility Metric and Principle In The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control, Abel, D.L., Ed.; LongView Press--Academic: New York, N.Y., 2011; pp. 305-324.
128. Abel, D.L. The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP). Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 2009, 6, 27.
129. Abel, D.L. The Cybernetic Cut: Progressing from Description to Prescription in Systems Theory (Sci Topic page; www.DavidAbel.us; Last accessed 2/2025).
130. Rocha, L.M.; Hordijk, W. Material representations: from the genetic code to the evolution of cellular automata. Artif Life 2005, 11, 189-214.
131. Rocha, L.M. The physics and evolution of symbols and codes: reflections on the work of Howard Pattee. Biosystems 2001, 60, 1-4.
132. D'Onofrio, D.J.; Abel, D.L. Redundancy of the genetic code enables translational pausing Front Genet 2014, 5, 140.
133. Wang, B.; Lu, Y. Collective Molecular Machines: Multidimensionality and Reconfigurability. Nanomicro Lett 2024, 16, 155.
134. Song, K.; Makarov, D.E.; Vouga, E. Information-theoretical limit on the estimates of dissipation by molecular machines using single-molecule fluorescence resonance energy transfer experiments. J Chem Phys 2024, 161.
135. Smith, O.E.R.; Bharat, T.A.M. Architectural dissection of adhesive bacterial cell surface appendages from a "molecular machines" viewpoint. J Bacteriol 2024, 206, e0029024.
136. Ma, C.; Li, S.; Zeng, Y.; Lyu, Y. DNA-Based Molecular Machines: Controlling Mechanisms and Biosensing Applications. Biosensors (Basel) 2024, 14.
137. Kumar, S.; Padinhateeri, R.; Thakur, S. Shear flow as a tool to distinguish microscopic activities of molecular machines in a chromatin loop. Soft Matter 2024, 20, 6500-6506.
138. Kostitsyna, I.; Wood, C.; Woods, D. Turning machines: a simple algorithmic model for molecular robotics. Nat Comput 2024, 23, 407-430.
139. Doyle, M.T.; Bernstein, H.D. Molecular Machines that Facilitate Bacterial Outer Membrane Protein Biogenesis. Annu Rev Biochem 2024, 93, 211-231.
140. Ariga, K.; Song, J.; Kawakami, K. Molecular machines working at interfaces: physics, chemistry, evolution and nanoarchitectonics. Phys Chem Chem Phys 2024, 26, 13532-13560.
141. Ariga, K. Confined Space Nanoarchitectonics for Dynamic Functions and Molecular Machines. Micromachines (Basel) 2024, 15.
142. Palyi, G.; Zucchi, C.; Caglioti, L. Fundamentals of Life; Elsevier: Paris, 2002.
143. Palyi, G.; Zucchi; C.Caglioti. Workshop on Life: a satellite meeting before the Millennial World Meeting of University Professors,. Modena, Italy, 2000.
144. Kuhn, T.S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd 1970 ed.; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1970.