Image: Bryan Christie Design
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
A Greek statesman who lived in the sixth century B.C. put forward the first explanation, shorn of theological trappings, that captured the essence of all things living and inanimate. Thales of Miletus noticed that water could exist as a liquid, gas or solid and posited that it was the fundamental constituent of matter from which the earth’s denizens—men, goats, flowers, rocks, and whatnot—somehow sprang forth.
As with all natural philosophy (a pursuit now known as science), Thales’ observation immediately provoked an argument. Anaximander, a disciple of Thales (today what would be called a graduate student), asked how water could be the single basic element if rock, sand and other substances appeared to be devoid of moisture.
The bickering about beginnings and the nature of our existence has not ceased in ensuing millennia, although Thales’ aqueous cosmology persists only as a passing citation in histories of philosophy and science. A definitive answer to the identity of the most basic ingredient of matter—and how it could ultimately lead to a world populated by iPhones and reruns of American Idol—still eludes today’s natural philosophers.
In early April a colloquy of 70 leading scientists assembled at Arizona State University to launch an Origins Initiative to ponder such questions as whether infinitesimal, stringlike particles may be candidates as the latest substitute for Thales’ vision of a wet world. An urge to deduce beginnings energizes the entire scientific endeavor—and of course that extends into the realm of biology. Appropriately, this year’s 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species coincides with a significant advance toward the milestone of demonstrating how life sprang from inanimate matter. A British team of chemists showed that one of the basic building blocks of life could form spontaneously from a warm soup of organic chemicals.
The immediacy of these themes is why this single-topic issue of Scientific American is devoted to origins in physics, chemistry, biology and technology. In the following pages, a physicist grapples with the overarching question of how the universe began. A chemist addresses possible ways in which life first started, and a biologist takes on what has made the human mind different from that of any other animal’s. Then a historian of technology contemplates the first computer, perhaps the most extraordinary invention of the human mind. A final section provides brief chronicles of the inception of dozens of physical and biological phenomena, in addition to a series of remarkable human inventions.
Whether related to rainbows, antibiotics or paper money, beginnings—and the stories they generate—serve as an endless source of fascination about the world around us.
More Origins Coverage
 Starter Menu--The Origins of the Origins IssueActing Editor in Chief Mariette DiChristina explains the September 2009 issue of Scientific American |
 Origins: The Start of EverythingWhere do rainbows come from? What about flying cars, love and LSD? |
 The Origin of the UniverseCosmologists are closing in on the ultimate processes that created and shaped the universe |
 The Origin of Life on EarthFresh clues hint at how the first living organisms arose from inanimate matter |
 The Origin of the MindThe first step in figuring out how the human mind arose is determining what distinguishes our mental processes from those of other creatures |
 The Origin of ComputingThe information age began with the realization that machines could emulate the power of minds |
Online Exclusives
 The Origin of Scientific AmericanA week of origins, starting with our own back in the 19th century |
 The Origin of Cubicles and the Open-Plan OfficeWall-free office spaces did not quite work out the way their utopian inventors intended |
 The Origin of Fruit RipeningA gaseous plant hormone turns off anti-ripening genes, enabling fruit to mellow--and taste good |
 The Origin of the Computer MouseNow an endangered species, it was crucial to the development of personal computing and the Internet |
 The Origin of Human MalariaNew data indicates that Homo sapiens picked up the malaria parasite from chimpanzees |
 The Science of Origins: Studies Across All DisciplinesA first-of-it-kind symposium on origins brought together 80 scientists to discuss and collaborate on these intriguing puzzles. |
 The Origin of HatredBrain scans reveal how hate begins to emerge--and it's not too far from love |
 The Origin of Oxygen in Earth's AtmosphereThe breathable air we enjoy today originated from tiny organisms, although the details remain lost in geologic time |
 The Origin of WineImbibing the liquid of fermented fruit may have had its start in medicinal traditions |
 The Origin of DogsFido's cousins may be Eurasian wolves, but new findings complicate the details of domestication |
 The Origin of ZeroMuch ado about nothing: First a placeholder and then a full-fledged number, zero had many inventors |
 The Origin of Rubber BootsGaloshes seem to have come from a little fire, Indians' boredom and Charles Goodyear's luck |
 Mysterious Origins: 8 Phenomena That Defy ExplanationThe unknown origins behind language, handedness, flu seasons, superconductivity, antimatter, proton spin, cosmic rays and sex |
 Issue Trailer: A Look inside Origins Introducing the September issue of Scientific American |
Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "In the Beginning."
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
30 Comments
Add CommentHey man...I'll explain notslic if you explain hotblack. Peace.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"A powerful urge to understand the emergence of the cosmos or even life itself fuels the scientific enterprise"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, an urge, a feeling, an emotion is now the origin of understanding. The result will only be that an urge was the origin of the cosmos. The assumption that we are in any way intelligent because we feel we are, will confirm a new theory of intelligent design.
If you are to ask these questions, we must seriously consider all ideas. One of the most influential of thinkers in these questions was Hannes Alfven... a 1970 Nobel Laureate whose work has been largely ignored in mainstream cosmology and astrophysics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlasma Cosmology... proving that HAARP should have its role realigned.
in addition... I should leave this quote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"We should remember that there was once a discipline called natural philosophy. Unfortunately, this discipline seems not to exist today. It has been renamed science, but science of today is in danger of losing much of the natural philosophy aspect." - Hannes Alfven
Right Morton, because the nature of the universe is based on your silly play on words. At no point did the author say, "emotion is the origin of understanding." You made that up. But then again, that's what religion does - makes things up until they agree with the tired old world-view they cling to so desparately.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists are often passionate about their work but that only inspires them. It is not the source of the knowledge aquired. True knowledge is derived from objective observation and careful adherance to logic and the scientific method. That is why intelligent design will not only never be a theory, but never even be a valid hypothesis.
If the the Big Bang is true, what came before it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“NOTHING”, nothing in the sense that whatever it was, it could not be seen. It might probably be the dark energy that had pervaded the universe prior to the Bang. This inexplicable dark energy is omnipresent, pervasive yet elusive.
However, most scientists have great faith in the Big Bang Theory. It has been their new religion.
disageed with your conclusion that intelligent design wouldn't be a valid hypothesis. What about mechanical design based on an intelligent existence?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can't pretend to know the answer, when the objectivity regarding your conclusion doesn't exist. You can state that it is improbable, but you're still not basing your opinion on fact, but rather an emotional teleological fallacy based on some current mainstream scientific ideology.
In order to be objective about these questions, we sincerely have to accept all possibilities while moving forward with skepticism.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
How can concepts of space and time derived from creation be raised to a priori status to explain creation? It is bootstrapping run amuck. Late in life Einstein himself doubted that physics could be based on a spacetime continuum. The only alternative is a discontinuous universe. For more see the website article Gravity, Quantum Relativity and Cosmic Order at www.cosmic-mindreach.com . A new cosmology necessarily follows consistent with the empirical evidence. Anaximander hypothesized that matter had its source as the boundless, a concept that transcends space and time. In a discontinuous universe Atoms are synchronously projected from a formless, timeless and boundless quantum energy field that is orthogonal to the integrated fabric of space and time. Atoms are thus waves and particles at the same time, since each projection defines space as well as a primary interval of time, a posteriori.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmazing how "scientists" can claim "A British team of chemists showed that one of the basic building blocks of life could form spontaneously from a warm soup of organic chemicals." and leave off that over 50 times the lethal amount of carcinogens were created right along with that one of the basic building blocks. Looks like the debate on this issue is going to be settled as well. So much for "Science".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA replicating cell is like pregnancy. It is an all or none affair. DNA is a relatively inert chemical without the machinery of the whole cell. The spontaneous assemby of a few amino acids is a long way from the spontaneous creation of a living cell. It is a bit like saying because one can jump three feet they can jump to Jupiter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe matter universe is like an appendage, a womb, to the Spirit Universe consisting of coordinates of time and space as a frame of reference and which do not exist in the Spirit Universe. In actuality there is no time or space, everything is here and now. The Laws of Physicality are subordinate to the Laws of the Spirit and we are already beginning to see some blurring of the lines as we approach a greater understanding of Quantum Physics and what lies beyond. The law of the physical is Change; the law of the Spirit is Permanence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen we create we first get an "idea" or "inspiration" (in-spiral-action). We think about it, write it down, plan how we will manifest it, and maybe even draw a blueprint. We desire to make it happen and mobilize all our available forces. Maybe we will build a prototype or model; we test it, revise it and then present a "finished" work which may later go through revisions. These four steps represent the densification process through the four planes of matter. Ideas appear in our "etheric, fire body, the body of memory" which is closest in vibration to Spirit. Sometimes the ideas are direct "inspirations" from Spirit for the benefit of people in the "earth planes". The "mental, air body", is the plane of our "mind" where we engage our brains to cogitate and define in physical terms the "glyph" from Spirit. We try to "make sense of it". The "emotional, desire, water body" moves us to want to "make it happen". We then engage our "physical" body in "doing the work" to manifest it. There have been a few who have been able to "directly manifest" from Spirit to matter instantaneously.
Everything in the matter universe is composed of God's Light, Energy and Consciousness and has Innate Intelligence. Eons of preparation went into the planning and development of every aspect of the Creation that was to be. When God then spoke the Fiat (Command): "LET THERE BE LIGHT" there was an instantaneous release of SPIRITUAL POWER that BURST FORTH from the planes of SPIRIT and GENERATED and brought forth the Divine Intent into the matter planes in what some have called The Big Bang. Evolution is a part of God's divine plan; the plan takes time and space to evolve into the fullness of the Divine Manifestation. The aspect of Free Will allowed for variations on the Theme.
The rebellion of Lucifer and the fallen angels introduced distortions and aberrations that are not of the Divine Intent. There is a creation of God (the wheat) and of Lucifer (the tares) that Jesus described in his parables.
Telrunya: what's wrong with science in your statement? There are poisons and carcinogens all over the planet, yet life manages to survive. Just because an experiment created compounds that are dangerous to COMPLEX life forms, doesn't mean they're dangerous to individual protein strands. Can a protein strand contract cancer? When life arose on our planet, the atmosphere contained very little oxygen and high amounts of sulfur. And yet...life arose and flourished. Your statements betray nothing but your own ignorance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOneRyt: No, we don't have to accept ALL possibilities. It's a fallacy that all opinions are valid, that's absolutely not true. If we accept Creation, for example, we have to accept that the Earth is flat, only has two land masses and is surrounded by a crystal sphere that contains lights rather than stars. That's not a valid opinion, period.
Science rejects creationism for the simple fact that there's no evidence for it. If ample evidence existed, scientists would take a look. But, when ALL of the evidence points away from creationism, it's kind of stupid to continue to trying to prove it with semantics and word play. As for Hannes Alfven, his contributions are appreciated, but frankly COBE & WMAP destroyed the plasma cosmology theory. All of the obervations made and evidence gathered supports the current cosmological model.
Tan Boon Tee: "If the the Big Bang is true, what came before it?" Scientists do not say "nothing" when asked that question, they answer "we don't know". That's the difference between science and religion and how science cannot be a religion: religion presupposes that it knows all of the answers to every question and if you can't answer a question you fill it in with blind faith. Science presupposes nothing, or a lack of knowledge, and builds a theory with experiments, evidence and observation. If there is no evidence to support a particular hypothesis, it is set aside. It is rejected for that experiment, but at some point, some new evidence might make it a valid hypothesis. Religion, however, when it decides something is wrong then rejects it, persecutes the person who expressed it and can take, literally, centuries to change its mind.
It never ceases to amaze me that the religious (and the right-wingers as well) use the exact same things THEY do as arguments against what other people do.
Carlton22: you're a complete nutter.
Well, it would seem to me that it is utterly possible that what seems to indicate evidence to one theory, could always easily lead to a truth within the other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, I fail to see how short sighted imaging can completely disprove plasma cosmology? Has there been any extensive work on the plasma cosmology model to try and prove the model and bring it into cooperation with recent discoveries? If so, I haven't heard any, but as with any theory there needs to be supporters who believe in it to try and find a conclusive theory.
Plasma Cosmology, to me, is just as plausible today as string theory.
Telrunya: Guess you have never heard of "extremophiles". Look it up! Guess science has leverage after all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe astrophysicist Gerrit L. Verschuur found a good degree of direct correlation between neutral hydrogen clouds in our galaxy with peaks in the Wilkinsin Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) that sought to detect galactic seeds in the early universe. See Verschuur G. L., High Galactic Latitude Interstellar Neutral Hydrogen Structure and Associated (WMAP) High Frequency Continuum Emission, Astrophysical Journal, July 23, 2007. WMAP does not necessarily support any of the Big Bang model variations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreationism is not the only option. There is evidence that galaxies may be cells creatively regenerating their own stellar populations. Some starburst galaxies are sufficiently active to recreate their entire stellar population in less than a billion years if the starburst episode was sustained, although they must be periodic and may be general. The center of our galaxy is also densely populated with old heavy stars with X-ray and infrared evidence of stellar accretion into a black hole. There is also evidence of giant molecular clouds being periodically ejected radially out into the galactic disc with hot young star formation. This is consistent with a discontinuous universe. See the article Cosmology and System 3 at www.cosmic-mindreach.com .
The Panspermia Theory first introduced by the Nobel Laureate Svante Arrhenius in his 1907 book is also consistent with this scenario. Bacterial and perhaps yeast spores can survive the rigors of interstellar space under certain conditions. They can be carried by comets into the inner solar system and are light enough to ride outward on the radiation pressure of starlight and have a soft landing on planets with the right atmospheric conditions such as the Earth. During their early life such planets are heavily bombarded with asteroids which can carry bacterial spores back into space and regenerate the interstellar gene pool.
There is no need to propose a self contradictory beginning to space and time in space and time. There does not have to be any beginning. The origin of the universe and biological life is no longer a question. There are alternate explanations for the red shift and background radiation in a discontinuous universe.
Hey Weir, just wanted to interject that I would put a galaxy at the molecule level, not cellular. :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTypographical error on p. 79 of September 2009 Scientific American, "Cooking" Column. It should be "1.9 million years ago", not "billions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, there is an intelligent design since we had already discovered the universal law of intelligence (ULI). See www.interrelation-theory.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan we get some more crackpot theories in here? There aren't enough as it is. Thanks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll you people are stupid. I MADE THE UNIVERSE!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no crackpot theories in science if the basis is the methodological naturalistic way like the Interrelation Theory. All theories offers explanation. Even ToE is a crackpot theory for only the proponents of ToE endorsed ToE. Which part in biological science does Interrelation Theory cannot explain?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNew discovery like the universal law of intelligence (ULI) must be used in determining any system or any phenomenom is intelligently designed or naturally designed/made. REMEMBNER that it is the origin that is being studied. That means, this is the most importatnt part in human history since humans must decide if humans were really created by God or evolved from ape-like creatures. This ULI is one of the most fascinating discovery in our time today, even Darwin, Dawkins, Gould and etc did not discover it.
Language can be manipulated to justify any piece of nonsense. Universal laws employ language. WE HUMAN BEINGS derive them and then raise them t0 a priori status to explain our own creation and the creation of this whole vast universe. Doesn't that strike anyone as a contradiction in terms?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTraditional science at least relates to empirical evidence. But there is no direct evidence that a spacetime continuum exists as something in itself. The Big Bang rests mainly on the red shift of distnt galaxies but there is an alternate explanation in a discontinuous universe. The Big Bang is a lot to swallow. One might as well believe in the bogey man or some contrived law of universal intelligence in language without intuitive justification consistent with the empirical evidence.
Their is a host of undeniable empirical evidence for evolution but there is no evidence whatever that rare random mution and natural selection is the SOLE governing mechanism, even though it may be part of the puzzle. No one can prove that all mutations are necessarily random. Does anyone really believe that the survival of DNA sequences are the ONLY transcending meaning in evolution? Do mindless molecules determine the nature of truth? Truth is a universal value that transcends and subsumes events in space and time. We establish scientific truth on that basis that it is universally valid.
Who made the world... a production of GUESS WHO, THE GREAT WHO, GHOST OF WHO, a great trinity from infinity!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you are a phylosopher, all opinions are valid. A very good argument by a lawyer will create reality in the law. But in science the only reality is the real facts, not what you want but what really is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf a pet theory fails to address all of the facts then it is a failure and must be discarded. Patches on it will only lead to greater failure later. Some of the most accepted modern theories have been patched many times, patches on patches, to the highth of weridness.
In the beginning, there was nothing but God, and God said Let there be light .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd space and time sprang into existence, and they were small and hot.
As time flowed and space expanded, they cooled.
As space-time cooled, all manner of particles were formed.
As the ones called fermions cooled, electrons and protons and neutrons and others were formed.
As they cooled, some combined to form hydrogen.
Where space-time was warped, dark clouds of hydrogen pooled.
Where the pools were deep, hydrogen fused with hydrogen to become helium.
It was then that the first stars lit the vast dark void.
And God saw that the light was good.
In "The Universe", Michael Turner states that Hubble's law found ready interpretation within general relativity: space itself is expanding, and galaxies are being carried along for the ride. How does this differ from matter expanding in a non-expanding space like in an explosion. In other words, when space expands, does the length of a meter stick expand by the same relative proportion as the distance between two galaxies? If not, how can one claim that space is expanding? On the other hand, if so, where does the following argument break down: When space expands, the electromagetic forces have to increase in strength proportionately to hold atoms and molecules together and the gravitational force has to increase proportionately to hold solar systems and galaxies together. Furthermore, the speed of light has to increase so that the time it takes for a light pulse to travel one meter remains constant, which preserves the wavelengths of atomic and molecular emission and absorptoion. In other words, it appears that everything would scale so that it would be impossible to detect the expansion of space. In this case, Hubble's law could still be explained as an expansion of matter in a non-expanding space.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is wonderful. On one extreme we have Mr. schmidt, A person deeply afraid of the possibility that something strange may exist outside his current (1982?) understanding of science, and on the other end of the spectrum is 'carlton22', a similary close minded individual who has achieved self delusion in the way that few do. Congratulations!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the center, perplexed by both is 'oneryt', who, having gleaned a basic understanding of truth, continues to educate with the hopes he/she isn't alone.
Oneryt stands a chance of further perception. (no, I don't see everything either).
I hope oneryt will continue to strive for truth even in the face of the overwhelming desire to leave it alone. Riding the implications can be scary indeed.
Me? I believe currently in a interwoven mix of unified field theory(*reality), and buddist dogma(perception of said reality). So far, it is the closest. It allows for our current state of existence, with all of the possibilties I can glean. I am however, always open to new paths. Always a lesson.
I'm sure all mentioned will rebuttle. Doesn't matter. Only oneryt could compete, and he/she won't feel compelled to prove after reading this. Mr. schmidt wants to compete, but through all the effort will only furthur his anxiety, and carlton22, I wish you the best.
Yes, You are probably right where I am probably wrong, mr. schmidt. Do you allow the same? If not, you have already lost. The last time I saw one of your posts, I asked you to be more conciderate of others feelings. You were petty. Your response was selfish and arrogant. Surprise us all.
The above paragraph is so I don't have to post here again. Don't worry, you'll have other chances.
I know, I know, sometimes I just can't resist. Have a good day.
Intelligent Design is not a valid hypothesis because there are no facts, none, to suggest it. It's merely plucked from the air, so to speak. A hypothesis needs something to suggest it. Before we knew of evolution, we had reason to hypothesise a god as the reason for things to be as they are. After centuries of treating the hypothesis as a proven fact, and widespread and vicious suppression of any alternative, along came Darwin, and a society in England that, despite some difficulties, allowed his proposals to be discussed and accepted. It is such a complete solution, indeed, rarely has science ever discovered such a satisfactory explanation for anything. It is evidence-based, and supported by uncounted observations. It does not need, nor is there any evidence for, any other input. Thus to hypothesis that 'god' caused it is now, with our present state of knowledge, absurd, Pure superstition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience publishes results based on experiment and observation using the evidence to conclude. Where is the evidence and the experiment that let scientists conclude that the universe is 37 billion years old? Wait! Less or more, pick a number between x billion and y billion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs that estimate science? If so test it.
Science publishes results based on experiment and observation using the evidence to conclude. Where is the evidence and the experiment that let scientists conclude that the universe is 37 billion years old? Wait! Less or more, pick a number between x billion and y billion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs that estimate science? If so test it.