|
Karo Michaelian
'Thermodynamic Dissipation Theory
of the Origin and Evolution of Life',
12th printing, March 2017
|
What if somebody told you that a deadly substance such as radioactivity
or UV light actually was involved in the origin of
life?
We all know that a small amount of UV-C light could instantly kill most
present day micro-organisms and viruses [27, 32, 37]. We all know
that the
ozone shield
is vitally important to life because it absorbs biologically harmful
ultraviolet
(UV) radiation from the sun [24]. We all know that melanin in
our skin absorbs the energy of UV light and shields our cells from the
radiation’s harmful effects [31] (Photoprotection). Geneticists know that
Ultraviolet light can damage DNA [25,26,36]. If we know all this,
how on Earth could somebody think that UV light plays a role, let alone a
key-role, in the origin of life? You probably think such a person is
ignorant or a genius.
There is such a person in Mexico. It is physicist
Karo Michaelian. He called his theory
Thermodynamic Dissipation Theory of the Origin and Evolution of Life. His view of life is a radical new theory about life and evolution based
on the theory of
dissipative systems. A dissipative system is a thermodynamically open system which is
operating far from equilibrium in an environment with which it exchanges
energy and matter. Examples of dissipative systems are hurricanes and
living organisms. I am intrigued. I want to know more about it. Even if
the theory only partially solved the origin of life, it would be a great
contribution to science.
UV-resistant RNA and DNA
Michaelian applies the theory of dissipative systems to the origin of life
with interesting results. He points out that [1] both RNA and DNA are
exceptionally strong absorbers and extremely rapid dissipaters of
ultraviolet light
UV-C
(230–290 nm) [2]. They do this within a
picosecond, which is extremely fast (one millionth of one millionth of a second).
There are no known other biotic or abiotic molecules that have this
property, he claims. UV-C light from the sun could have penetrated the
prebiotic atmosphere 4 to 2.5 billion years ago. The reason is that the
ozone-layer
(ozone shield) did not exist at the time [3], so UV-C light could not be
absorbed by the ozone layer. This is before the origin of life. So,
Michaelian suggests that DNA and RNA have those exceptional properties
because they could resist the UV-C light of those days. In other words: DNA
and RNA (especially the 5 bases) were thermodynamically selected. They were
stable under those harsh conditions. If DNA and RNA have indeed those
properties it makes sense that they were selected. Not only DNA and RNA:
"There are also many other vestiges remaining in the fundamental molecules
of life pointing to a UV-C environment at, or very near, the beginnings of
life which would also have to be considered as mere accidents or
coincidences..." (p. 307). This all makes sense and this is one
of the potential valuable contributions to the Origin of Life field [28].
So, the explanation of why DNA has been 'chosen' as the hereditary
molecule, is that it has been thermodynamically selected at a time 4 to 2.5
billion years ago. A relic of the past. This seems plausible because all
molecules of those days must necessarily have been very resistant to UV
light. One cannot call it natural selection, because we are talking
here about non-living non-reproducing molecules. I guess other molecules
were destroyed, but Michaelian does not tell us much about what happened for
example with amino acids, peptides, proteins, lipids, sugars, etc. in those
days.
Now we have short sequences of DNA or RNA. But that is not life. DNA should
be replicated. Michaelian has ideas about that too ('Ultraviolet and
Temperature Assisted Replication'). Still, this does not amount to life. But
all other Origin of Life researches face the same problem. Michaelian is not
the only scientist claiming a role for UV light. John D. Sutherland
reports that his team created nucleic acid precursors starting with just
hydrogen cyanide (HCN), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and ultraviolet
(UV) light [4]. I don't know what the specific role of UV is in
their scenario.
I am not an expert on these matters, so I have to rely on the opinion of
Origin of Life researchers. I found a few isolated remarks which seem to
support Michaelian. For example
Koonin et al (2006): "... suggest that photosynthesis originated in the cyanobacterial lineage
under the selective pressures of UV light and depletion of electron
donors". That is similar to the main claim of Michaelian. There is a short
supporting remark in Leslie Orgel (1973) [5]. I also found an old publication of the famous astronomer Carl Sagan [38]. However, these are a
few isolated remarks [39]. Almost universally, when in the Origin of Life and
evolution literature UV light or the ozone layer is mentioned, UV light is
harmful. For example: "the damaging effects of
solar UV, which was orders-of-magnitude stronger in the absence of the
ozone shield than it is now" (source). And: "Skin cells that produced a pigment called melanin were advantaged
because melanin is a natural sunscreen; it absorbs the energy of UV light
and shields cells from the radiation’s harmful effects." (
source
).
Famous origin-of-life researcher Cairns-Smith wrote: "It is being realised
too that ultraviolet sunlight is even better at destroying middle-sized
organic molecules than at making them" [6]. On the other hand, if UV
creates ozone O3 from O2 that seems to be a
creative process. Maybe that is a clue [17].
|
|
UV induces thymine dimer lesion in DNA ©wikipedia
|
Returning to our remarks at the beginning of this blog. How is it possible
that DNA and RNA are UV-resistant and yet are damaged by UV? It still
remains puzzling that UV light causes mutations [22], [23],
causes skin cancer [7], [20], skin aging [33] and is
widely used as an sterilization method (anti-bacterial, anti-viral
[29]), is implicated in mass extinctions [8], and at the
same time –according to Karo Michaelian– is instrumental in the
production of the first molecules of life and at the same time according to
mainstream science small amounts UVB radiation help synthesize vitamin D.
How does this all fit together? Is it possible that proto-life was not
damaged, but life today is damaged by UV? [19].
I would like to see experimental results with UV-C induced DNA and RNA
synthesis published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Such an
experiment would not be too complicated I guess. If successful that would
be a major breakthrough in the origin of life field.
Poor Photosynthesis
Now the most remarkable claim of all. Applying his theory to
photosynthesis: Karo Michaelian observes that photon dissipation into heat accounts for
99,9% of the free energy in sunlight and only 0,1% is used for
photo-synthesis (p.70, p.312) [9]. This is a crucial fact in his
thinking:
"This represents an extremely poor efficiency for a photosynthetic system
that has had the opportunity to evolve for at least 3,500 million years
considering that humans have developed systems capable of converting up to
40% of the free energy in sunlight into usable electrical energy within only
40 years of technological innovation." (p.312)
Michaelian concludes from these data that not photosynthesis, but photon
dissipation into heat has the highest priority of plant species. It is not
natural selection that rewards plant species with the highest
photosynthetic efficiency, but it is the law of dissipative systems that selects plants with the
highest dissipation [10], [11]. Needless to say this is
completely against the common sense and evolutionary biology [12],
[35].
His entire argument hinges on the assumption that it is possible to
distinguish optimization of biomass production from optimization of the
conversion of visible light into infrared light (heat). He claims
thermodynamic dissipation is optimized and photosynthesis is not. However,
if both processes are necessarily connected, then it is not possible to
distinguish between the two, let alone to point to the one that is
optimized! I think that they are two aspects of the same process. Two points
of view that can not conflict and are both true.
Obviously, Michaelian would counter that the number 0,1% is
decisive. It is just too small to be an optimum [18]. But the number
alone is cannot be decisive. We need to know whether is physically,
chemically and biology possible at all to have a significantly higher
efficiency. How can we know this? Comparing photosynthesis with solar panels
is certainly no good. The purpose of solar panels is electricity production
and nothing else. Plants do not produce electricity. In contrast with solar
panels, photosynthesis means synthesis of carbon compounds
(sugars) using CO2 + H2O + photons. Solar panels
are not in the business of synthesizing carbon compounds. So, that
comparison is wrong.
The conclusion that 0,1% is too low, is just as wrong as concluding from
the fact that 98% of the human genome is
non coding, that the function of the human genome is garbage collection. Or conclude
from the high energy consumption of the brain that the purpose of the brain
is heat production. Or conclude from the inefficiency of light bulbs and
fossil fuel cars that the main purpose is heat production [16].
If the percentage 0,1% is true (it is not: 30), it clearly
would be enough for all life on earth. More than 7 billion people and as many of cats, dogs, cattle and wild
animals depend on photosynthesis.
A better idea would be comparing natural photosynthesis with
artificial photosynthesis
[21].The highest reported efficiency for artificial photosynthesis
lab prototypes is 22.4%. However, plants are efficient in using CO2
at atmospheric concentrations, something that artificial catalysts still
cannot perform (wikipedia). (Plants cannot control CO2 in the atmosphere!). So, until
now natural photosynthesis still outperforms artificial
photosynthesis.
Even if humans could significantly improve artificial photosynthesis, it
would be comparable to improving milk production in cattle. It would not
prove that milk production of wild cattle is inefficient. There are
evolutionary and ecological reasons for this.
|
Improving Photosynthetic Efficiency for Greater Yield
source
|
In modern evolutionary theory the definition of fitness is
reproductive success. (I will return to that and what Karo Michaelian writes
about it in the next blog). If photosynthesis would be the only factor
determining reproductive success it is expected to be optimized or even
maximized. But photosynthesis is not the only factor. For example Nitrogen
availability is an important factor for growth (source). And there are other ways to enhance biomass production. Plants can make
few bigger leaves, or many smaller leaves. It at all depends on the design
specifications: for a shadow environment or the bright sun? Also CO2
is a limiting factor for photosynthesis and is out of control of a plant.
Life history theory
aims to explain the facts that different organisms have different strategies
for growth and reproduction. Weeds (annuals) have fast growth and short lives,
trees have slow growth, live long and invest heavily in non-photosynthetic
wood en root system [13]. Bamboo is a famous fast growing plant
[14] (whatever the photosynthetic efficiency).
Even if photosynthesis were the only factor in evolutionary fitness,
it would not necessarily mean that the efficiency would be high. The reason
is that there is enough sunlight. Literally more than enough. Whenever there
is more than enough of a resource, there is no reason to have high
efficiencies. "Crop leaves exposed to full sunlight absorb more light than
they can use. If they can’t get rid of this extra energy, it will actually
bleach the leaf. Chemical changes within the leaf allow the excess energy to
be dissipated as heat, in a process called
non-photochemical quenching
(NPQ)" (source). I think this is an important reason why the efficiency is 'low'.
See also:
Photo-inhibition,
photoprotection.
Thermodynamic Limit. There is an intriguing reason why
photosynthesis is not 100% efficient: thermodynamics! (see figure above).
There is a Thermodynamic Limit: "At the reaction centers,
thermodynamics limit the amount of energy available to do photosynthetic
work."! (source), (source). I would like Karo Michaelian's comments! As a physicist he should be
able to enlighten us.
Conclusion. The function of photosynthesis is carbon fixation: the
most fundamental biological reaction which incorporates carbon atoms into
organic molecules starting with carbon dioxide. Without carbon fixation no
plants, no animals, no biosphere. We animals cannot live from the sun! We
need photosynthesis because of the food it produces for us. We don't care if
plants produce entropy when we are hungry. We cannot eat entropy.
However, his thermodynamic view is not wrong. All organisms are open
thermodynamic systems that necessarily produce entropy: bacteria, plants and
animals. Michaelian unnecessarily claims that Darwinian natural selection
contradicts his 'thermodynamic selection', and natural selection should be
replaced by 'thermodynamic selection'. More on that in the next blog. In
this respect his views are over the top. He pushed it too far. That's a
pity.
Michaelian cites another two experiments purportedly proving his theory.
The first is 'A maximum hypothesis of transpiration in plants' (ref 392).
This won't work in a hot, dry climate because plants would die if the tried
to maximize evaporation. Second: 'Inactive Photosystem II Complexes in
Leaves' (ref 47). However, the authors of the article conclude: "Although
there are two few data to answer the question of whether inactive centers
serve a useful role in photosynthesis, for example in photoinhibition,
development, or otherwise, ..." (GK: 'two' must be 'too'). So, there is more
research required to find out their functions.
In the end reading his book is a pleasure and is not a wast of time. It
contains many illustrations, more than 400 notes, a detailed index, glossary
and is very cheap for a scientific book. His alternative view of life may be
unusual, even weird, it highlights facts which are not yet well explained by
Darwinian theory such as why plants devote resources to the synthesis of
reaction centers that apparently do not contribute to carbon fixation (p.
312) and the
red-edge
effect. I was not familiar with these facts.
|
Genetically modified plants are better able to make
use of the limited sunlight available when
their leaves go into the shade (source)
|
Others about Dissipative Systems and Life
To my surprise physicist
Jeremy England
[34] said "when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of
energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the
ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to
dissipate increasingly more energy". This is the same idea as
Michaelian.
Also to my surprise Eric Schneider and Dorion Sagan (2005)
Into the Cool use often the same idea and wordings as Karo
Michaelian. This one is beautiful:
"Go out and observe trees, and you will see living dissipative systems
stretching skyward to capture available solar energy. ... This process is
the result of the thermodynamic imperative to degrade the quality of the
incoming solar energy as completely as possible." "Plants are perhaps the
most advanced instrument yet evolved for degrading incoming solar
radiation." (p.220).
Michaelian certainly would agree.
Postscript: 100% quantum efficiency
"Photosynthetic light harvesting can achieve a quantum efficiency that
approaches 100% (that is, the conversion of 100 photons of light into
100 chemically available electrons), and yet it displays notable robustness
in the face of ever-changing external light conditions. (...) revealed the first hints of a simple, seemingly universal set of rules that
define the robustness of natural light harvesters. These rules should inform
the design of future solar technology." Science
26 Jun 2020
So, humans can learn from a 3,5 billion year old invention called
fotosynthesis! Quite the opposite of what Karo Michaelian claims!
PART 2:
Review of Karo Michaelian's Thermodynamic Dissipation Theory. Darwin and
Natural Selection
Review of Karo Michaelian's Thermodynamic Dissipation Theory, PART 2.
Darwin and Natural Selection, 16 May 2018
Notes
-
He points out that: See
wikipedia
article 'Abiogenesis'. The wording, the language, the style of the section
'Thermodynamic dissipation' are the same as in Karo Michaelian's book. So,
probably Karo Michaelian wrote that section. It is a summary of the theory
that only its author could have written. Or: it is a copy&paste work
of somebody else.
-
UV-C: Today UV light is used to kill bacteria! See: wikipedia
article
Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation
and
Germicidal lamp. On the wikipage
DNA
there is nothing about DNA's exceptional resistance to UV-C. On the
contrary: wikipedia tells us that
UV-B damages DNA
and causes mutations.
-
Ozone layer appeared when oxygen levels were high enough (Great Oxygenation Event)
-
Common origins of RNA, protein and lipid precursors in a
cyanosulfidic protometabolism
Nature Chemistry volume 7, pages 301-307 (2015)
-
L.E. Orgel (1973) The Origins of Life, p. 117: "However, it
has been shown that if hydrogen sulfide or formaldehyde were present in
sufficient quantities in the atmosphere, they could have absorbed a much
larger amount of ultraviolet energy and made it available for the
synthesis of organic compounds." but also here: "ozone absorbs ultraviolet
light strongly ... otherwise men would be subjected to very harmful doses
of ultraviolet light."(p.117). There there seems to be universal
agreement (1) there was no ozone layer at the origin of life,
(2) UV light was hitting the earth surface, (3) UV is
harmful. (added 2 May 2018)
-
A. G. Cairns-Smith Seven clues to the origin of Life, 1985, p. 42.
-
"No type of UV radiation has been shown to be safe – cancers have
developed after exposure to UVA (alone), UVB (alone), and UVC (alone)."
Source:
Does UV radiation cause cancer?
from the website www.cancer.org of the American Cancer Society. So, this
is a serious source. Further, see the website of the
Skin Cancer Foundation:
UVC isn't a concern for skin cancer.
-
See chapter 4: An ancient ozone catastrophe? in: David Beerling (2007)
The Emerald Planet. (my review).
-
p.70: KM quotes the lowest
Photosynthetic efficiency. But it ranges from 0,1% – 1% to 2% (crops). Nonetheless: it seems to be
low. KM emphasizes that everybody ignores this fact (p. 283). This is not
true: "a surprising small amount of that energy is turned
photosynthetically into biomass." (Eric Schneider, Dorion Sagan (2005)
Into the Cool, p.221) however these authors don't draw very
dramatic conclusions from this fact.
-
"Instead, if plants and other photosynthetic organisms have evolved to
optimize dissipation rather than photosynthesis ...". (page 234).
-
Plants could not exist without carbon fixation. If carbon fixation is
against universal law of dissipation-maximization then photosynthesis
could not have originated in the first place.
-
The 'purpose' of photosynthesis is the synthesis of carbon-compounds as
glucose and
ATP. Carbon-based life could not exist without photosynthesis.
-
Photosynthetic efficiency is not a fixed number. For example the
photosynthetic efficiency of oak forests drops from 1.5% - 1.7% at
ages between 20 - 40 years to 0.4% at the age of 200 years (Schneider and
Sagan, 2005, p.221).
-
Growth pattern and photosynthetic activity of different bamboo
species growing in the Botanical Garden of Rome.
-
The tile of this blog 'The Origin of Species by Means of Thermodynamic
Selection' is of course a paraphrase of Darwin's 'On the Origin of Species
by Means of Natural Selection'.
-
added May 2 2018: I couldn't believe when I first heard that the
fuel efficiency of a fossil fuel car was only 25%! An invention some 100
years on the market!
-
remark added May 2 2018
-
If you believe in intelligent design: the extremely low efficiency of
photosynthesis is an insult to the Creator. Creation is perfect.
So, it must have happened right after the fall. Before the fall plants had
a maximum efficiency only constrained by the laws of physics.
(added 3 May 2018)
-
In an email 17 May 2018 Karo Michaelian wrote: "in the book I do
in fact "explain why in contrast to mainstream opinion UV is not harmful".
I do that particularly in sections 4.2 (Of Pigments and Protectionism) and
19.13 (Pigments Provide Protection) and in many other places throughout
the book." [added 17 May 2018]
-
"By 1964, the biologists Robert Painter and Ronald Rasmussen had
discovered that UV irradiation of mammalian cells led to a phenomenon that
they interpreted as excision repair" (Nature, 31 May 2018). See
also:
UV-sensitivity disorders,
Photosensitivity,
Cockayne syndrome,
Xeroderma pigmentosum
(= inability to repair damage caused by ultraviolet (UV) light). [added 31 May 2018]
-
I blogged earlier on the efficiency of photosynthesis:
Bas Haring over de inefficiëntie van fotosynthese (4)
in which I discuss Robert E. Blankenship et al (2011) Comparing
Photosynthetic and Photovoltaic Efficiencies and Recognizing the Potential
for Improvement, Science 13 mei 2011. [added 7 Jun 2018]
-
There is too much literature on
cellular responses to ultraviolet-C radiation to summarize here.
For example: p53 becomes activated in response to myriad stressors,
including but not limited to DNA damage (induced by either UV, IR, or
chemical agents such as hydrogen peroxide). [17 Oct 2019]
-
Lethal and Sub-lethal Effects of UVB on Juvenile Biomphalaria glabrata
(Mollusca: Pulmonata). UVB (290–320 nm). Wild-type (pigmented) snails are less susceptible to
lethal effects of UVB than albino snails. [23 Oct 2019]
-
"Some of the most notorious are the chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) coolants used
for refrigeration and foam production. These destroy the ozone layer, the
shield that protects life on Earth from
damaging ultraviolet light." The chemists policing Earth’s
atmosphere for rogue pollution, Nature,
22 Jan 2020.
-
Antonio Conconi, Brendan Bell (2017)
The long and short of a DNA-damage response, Nature volume 545, pages165-166 (2017): "Ultraviolet light can
damage DNA, triggering a general shutdown of gene transcription – yet some
genes are activated by UV light." Added:
26 Mar 2020.
-
"The coronavirus, 2019-nCoV is sensitive to ultraviolet rays and heat"
from:
General questions COVID-19. Prevention and Control. 13 Apr 2020
-
"Far-UVC, which has a very short wavelength, cannot reach or damage living
human cells. But the narrow band wavelength can still penetrate and kill
very small viruses and bacteria floating in the air or on surfaces."
quoted from: Carla Cantor
Could a New Ultraviolet Technology Fight the Spread of Coronavirus?
Columbia University in the City of New York,
April 21, 2020
-
In 2020 researchers "identified a network of reactions promoted by
ultraviolet light that resulted in the synthesis of two of the
standard nucleosides found in RNA: uridine (U) and cytidine (C), which are
collectively known as pyrimidines." Furthermore, UV has a role in
"producing only the biologically relevant isomers of the purines." from:
How DNA and RNA subunits might have formed to make the first genetic
alphabet, Nature 3 Jun 2020
-
Researchers compared influenza rates in patients in TB buildings with and
without UV lights during the 1957-58 pandemic. In the rooms without UV,
19% got the flu; in rooms with UV lights only 2% became infected. Michael
Greger (2020) How to survive a pandemic. page 726/2247.
[20 Jun 2020]
-
In:
Optimizing Antenna Size to Maximize Photosynthetic Efficiency: "The theoretical upper limit for the operational efficiency of plant
photosynthesis has been estimated from a detailed stepwise analysis of the
biophysical and biochemical subprocesses to be about 4.6% for C3
and 6.0% C4 plants. (These estimates assume a leaf temperature of
30°C and an atmospheric [CO2] of 387 ppm and were calculated relative to
the full solar spectrum at the earth’s surface. These efficiencies would
be slightly more than double if calculated relative to only the
photosynthetically active radiation [i.e. 400–700 nm.]." that would be:
9.2% and 12.0% respectively. Karo does not mention these
numbers. He sticks to 0,1%! That is up to 120 times lower!
25 Aug 2020
-
"The epidermis is the skin’s outermost layer. Just 0.1 millimetres thick,
the epidermis is battered by mutation-promoting ultraviolet rays over a
person’s lifetime, and is the origin of the vast majority of skin
cancers".
Seeds of cancer in normal skin, Nature
07 October 2020
-
New species of water bear uses fluorescent ‘shield’ to survive lethal
UV radiation, Science 13 Oct 2020. "a
germicidal UV lamp dose of 1 kilojoule per square meter killed bacteria
and roundworms after just 5 minutes" "It’s likely, scientists say,
that the tardigrades evolved fluorescence as a means to tolerate the
high doses of UV typical for hot summer days in southern India."
13 Oct 2020
-
Photoaging is a term used for the characteristic changes to skin
induced by chronic UVA and UVB exposure, see wikipedia article:
Photoaging
16 Oct 2020
-
Jeremy England has now published about this: 'Every Life is on
Fire. How Thermodynamics Explains the Origins of Living Things'
92020), Basic.
8 Nov 2020
-
However, an article 'Soybean photosynthesis and crop yield are improved by
accelerating recovery from photoprotection' Science 19 Aug 2022 writes: "Plants protect themselves from too much sun by
dissipating excess light energy." and: "Crop leaves in full
sunlight dissipate damaging excess absorbed light energy as
heat. This protective dissipation continues after the leaf
transitions to shade, reducing crop photosynthesis." So, plants
adjust photosynthesis and dissipation according to light
intensity. The study proves this adjustment is under genetic
control. Karo views plants just as dead things. 19 Aug 2022.
- Aziz Sancar - investigating how cells repair UV damage by Nobel prize organization. 2015. "The molecular machinery that excises UV damage from human DNA is more complex than its bacterial counterpart but, in chemical terms, nucleotide excision repair functions similarly in all organisms."
- "In her first experiment as a graduate student, Evelyn set out to generate mutations by treating E. coli strain B with ultraviolet light (UV). There was no previous information on the UV sensitivity of E. coli, so she selected a relatively high dose, which killed all but four colonies of cells." She demonstrated that the E. coli B/r strain was resistant to both UV and x-rays. Evelyn M. Witkin (1921–2023), Science 7 Sep 2023 [8 Sep 2023]
- Carl Sagan (1973) Ultraviolet selection pressure on the earliest organisms, Journal of Theoretical Biology Volume 39, Issue 1, April 1973, Pages 195-200. [11 Mar 2025]
- Later I found that "Sutherland's team reports that it created nucleic acid precursors starting with just hydrogen cyanide (HCN), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and ultraviolet (UV) light. " Robert F. Service (2015) Researchers may have solved origin-of-life conundrum, Science 16 Mar 2015 [7 June 2025]
