S1E1 Assembly Theory
Reshaping Our Quest for Extraterrestrial Life and AI
Welcome to Atomicxs Podcast Blog, the podcast where curiosity meets science!
I’m your host, Irais, and today, we’re going to talk about something that might just change the way we think about life itself.”
You see, for the longest time, we’ve been asking the same old question: ‘What is life?’ But maybe we’ve been looking at it all wrong. What if life isn’t about what it’s made of, but how it’s made? That’s where Assembly Theory comes in, a fascinating new way to understand life, not by what chemicals are present, but by how complex those chemicals are. And let me tell you, once you start looking at life this way, the whole universe starts to make a lot more sense.
By the end of this episode/article, you’ll see why Assembly Theory is revolutionizing our search for life beyond Earth. We’ll break down how scientists are using this idea to detect life in the cosmos—not by looking for little green men, but by looking for complex molecules that simply shouldn’t exist unless something was actively putting them together.
So, whether you’re a science lover, a space enthusiast, or just someone who likes a good mystery—trust me, you’ll want to stick around for this one.
✅ For full disclaimers, visit www.atom-collab.com.
Introduction
Alright, so let’s start with a simple question: What is Assembly Theory? You hear ‘theory’ and you might think it’s just another fancy idea cooked up by some physicist sitting in a lab, right? But no—this one’s different. This one’s about how life itself comes together. And it’s got some pretty wild implications.
Assembly Theory is the idea that we can measure how complex something is—not just by looking at what it’s made of, but by figuring out how many steps it took to make it. Imagine you’ve got a Lego house. If it took you one or two pieces to snap together, no big deal. But if you’ve got a whole castle with turrets and secret doors, that’s a lot of steps! That’s the idea here—life isn’t just about the ingredients, it’s about the recipe.
Why does this matter? Well, if we’re trying to figure out whether life exists beyond Earth, we need a way to spot it without assuming it looks like us. We can’t just keep looking for oxygen or water and expect every alien lifeform to breathe and drink the way we do. Instead, Assembly Theory proposes a new framework to detect life—even if it’s made of unfamiliar materials. And that? That could change the game.
Background
So where did this whole idea come from? Well, that brings us to Dr. Sara Imari Walker and Dr. Leroy Cronin. They started asking a different kind of question—not ‘What is life?’ but ‘What makes something look alive, no matter what it’s made of?’ They realized that life doesn’t just appear out of nowhere—it builds itself, piece by piece, through a series of steps. And the more steps it takes, the more likely it was designed rather than randomly thrown together.
Now, this is a pretty big shift in thinking. For decades, scientists have been trying to define life based on the chemicals it uses. ‘Does it have DNA? Does it breathe oxygen? Does it eat food?’ But Assembly Theory says—wait a second—maybe we should forget about what life is made of and focus on how it’s made instead.
Think about it like this: If you walk into a forest and see a bunch of sticks, no big deal. The wind could’ve blown them there. But if you see those sticks arranged in a perfect little log cabin? Now, someone put them there. That’s what Assembly Theory does—it looks at molecules and says, ‘Hey, this thing is way too complex to have happened by accident.’ And that? That might just be the key to finding alien life.
Darwinian Evolution
Alright, let’s dive into this fascinating concept called Darwinian evolution. Now, you might be wondering, what exactly is it? Well, it’s the theory that explains how species change over time through a process of natural selection. Imagine a population of organisms, each with slight variations in their traits. Some of these traits give certain individuals an advantage in their environment—maybe they’re better at finding food or avoiding predators. These lucky individuals are more likely to survive and reproduce, passing on their advantageous traits to the next generation. Over time, these small changes accumulate, leading to the evolution of new species (Darwin 1859). It’s nature’s way of tinkering, constantly experimenting to see what works best in a given environment.
Now, you might be thinking, that’s all well and good, but how does this apply to the real world? Let’s consider the field of medicine. Bacteria, those tiny microorganisms that can cause infections, are masters of evolution. When exposed to antibiotics, most bacteria are killed, but a few may have random mutations that make them resistant. These survivors reproduce, leading to a population of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. This is evolution in action and poses a significant challenge in treating infections (Palumbi 2001). Scientists call this “directed evolution”, and it’s one of the most urgent problems we face in medicine today (Livermore 2003).
Another intriguing application is in the realm of synthetic biology. Scientists are now attempting to create simple forms of life from scratch, aiming to produce metabolically active cells that can grow, divide, and even exhibit Darwinian evolution. This ambitious endeavor could deepen our understanding of life’s origins and its potential existence elsewhere in the universe (Budin and Szostak 2010). Researchers at the University of Groningen recently made strides in this field, producing artificial cells that show rudimentary evolutionary processes (Mutschler et al. 2015).”
So, why should we care about Darwinian evolution in our modern world? For starters, it has profound implications for public health. The rapid evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria necessitates the development of new drugs and treatment strategies. Understanding evolutionary principles helps us stay one step ahead in this ongoing arms race (Davies and Davies 2010). The World Health Organization has classified antimicrobial resistance as one of the top global health threats (WHO 2021).
Moreover, the concept of evolution extends beyond biology. In economics, for instance, evolutionary game theory applies Darwinian principles to understand how strategies evolve over time among competing individuals or organizations (Smith 1982). This approach provides insights into human behavior, market dynamics, and even social structures. For example, companies that adapt their business models based on consumer demand and technological changes survive, while those that resist change struggle—just like in natural selection (Nowak and Sigmund 2004).
In essence, Darwinian evolution isn’t just a historical theory confined to biology textbooks. It’s a dynamic framework that influences various aspects of our lives, from healthcare to technology to social sciences. By appreciating and understanding these evolutionary processes, we can better navigate the challenges and opportunities of our ever-changing world.
The Birth of Assembly Theory
Alright, let’s start with something you’ve probably heard a thousand times—evolution by natural selection. It’s one of the biggest ideas in science, and for a good reason. The basic idea is simple: living things change over time because some traits help them survive better than others. The ones with the best traits live long enough to pass them on, and over many generations, you get species that are perfectly adapted to their environment (Darwin 1859).
Take giraffes. The ones with longer necks could reach more food, so they survived and passed that trait down. The ones with short necks? Not so lucky. Over time, the average neck length increased. That’s how evolution works—it’s reactionary, meaning it happens after something changes in the environment. It’s nature’s way of saying, ‘Hey, this works, so let’s keep it!’
Now, that all sounds great, but here’s the problem—evolution is slow. It’s like playing the world’s longest game of trial and error. Mutations pop up randomly, and only the useful ones stick around. But what if you need a change now? What if life didn’t have time to wait millions of years to get it right? (Mayr 1963).
Let’s talk about bacteria. These little guys are masters of evolution. Throw antibiotics at them, and most die. But a few lucky ones—just by chance—have a mutation that makes them resistant. Those survivors reproduce, and suddenly, you’ve got a whole population that’s antibiotic-resistant. That’s evolution happening in real-time. But here’s the catch—this is still a reaction. The bacteria didn’t plan to become resistant; they just got lucky (Palumbi 2001).
Now, here’s where things get interesting. Darwinian evolution explains a lot, but it doesn’t explain everything. It tells us how species change over time, but it doesn’t explain how complex life started in the first place. You don’t just go from a bunch of random chemicals floating in a pond to a fully-functioning cell by sheer luck. That would be like throwing a bunch of metal parts into a junkyard and expecting them to randomly assemble into a working airplane. Highly unlikely (Koonin 2007).
And here’s the biggest question of all—what if life somewhere else doesn’t work like life on Earth? Evolution by natural selection is built on the idea that organisms compete, survive, and reproduce. But what if life on another planet doesn’t need reproduction? What if it exists as self-sustaining chemical systems that don’t evolve the way we expect?
That’s where Assembly Theory shakes things up. Instead of asking, ‘How does life evolve?’ it asks ‘How does life build complexity?’ It’s not about who survives, it’s about how something gets made. Assembly Theory doesn’t rely on random mutations and natural selection. Instead, it looks at the steps required to build complexity—and let me tell you, that’s a game-changer (Cronin and Walker 2016).
If evolution is nature’s trial and error, Assembly Theory is nature’s blueprint. It gives us a way to measure how complex something is without assuming it had to evolve the way we did. And that? That opens the door to finding life in places we never even considered (Marshall, Murray, and Cronin 2017).
So why should we care? Well, think about how we search for alien life. Right now, we’re mostly looking for Earth-like conditions—water, oxygen, organic molecules. But what if that’s completely wrong? If we only look for life that looks like us, we might miss something incredible (Ball 2023).
Assembly Theory helps us break free from that bias. Instead of looking for specific molecules, we look for complexity itself—the kind of molecular structures that just shouldn’t exist unless something was putting them together. That means we could detect alien life that doesn’t follow our rules (Zimmer 2024).
Is Assembly Theory Flawless?
Now, before we get too far down the rabbit hole, let’s pause and ask something every good scientist should ask: What are the critics saying?
One of the most vocal critics of Assembly Theory is Dr. Hector Zenil, a researcher in algorithmic complexity and artificial life. He’s written a provocative article titled The 8 Fallacies of Assembly Theory where he argues that many of the claims made by the theory’s creators aren’t as groundbreaking—or even as correct—as they appear (Zenil, 2023).
For instance, Zenil argues that the so-called ‘Assembly Index’—which measures how many steps it takes to build a molecule—isn’t a new concept at all. He says it’s just a rebranding of established ideas from information theory and algorithmic complexity, like Lempel-Ziv compression or Shannon entropy.
Another critique? That the experimental dataset used to validate Assembly Theory is too small and cherry-picked. Zenil and his team analyzed more than 15,000 compounds using algorithmic methods and found that similar conclusions could be reached without inventing a new theory.
He also questions the overreach—Assembly Theory proposes a framework to rethink how we define life, intelligence, and even time. Zenil argues that’s scientifically reckless unless it’s backed by broader data and deeper theoretical rigor.
So why mention this? Because science is supposed to challenge itself. Even if Assembly Theory isn’t perfect—or even if parts of it turn out to be wrong—it’s forcing us to ask better questions about what life really is, and that’s what matters.
Whether you side with the critics or the champions, one thing’s for sure: this conversation is far from over.
Causation, Curiosity, and the Origin of Life
Okay, now listen. Darwinian evolution? It's brilliant—no one’s denying that. It tells us how giraffes got long necks, how bacteria outsmart antibiotics, and why peacocks have ridiculous feathers. It explains how life changes.
But here’s the thing: it doesn’t tell you how life started. That’s not what Darwin was trying to do. Evolution is about what happens after you already have something that can copy itself. So... where did that something come from? That’s the real mystery.
And if you’re like me—someone who can’t leave a question alone—you start poking around at the edges. You start wondering: What had to happen before evolution could even begin? Because evolution isn’t magic—it needs a system that can store information, make decisions, and keep building. That’s not just chemistry anymore. That’s causation.
And that’s where Sara Imari Walker comes in with a whole different way of thinking. She says: “Maybe life isn’t just a thing—it’s a process. A process where matter starts doing memory. Where information gets involved. Where causation loops back on itself and creates this weird, recursive dance.”
And you might be thinking, ‘Whoa, Irais, that’s getting abstract.’ But hang on. It’s not that abstract. Think of it like this: evolution is a bicycle. It’s amazing. But you can’t ride it unless someone built it first. So the real question is: how does the universe build the bicycle in the first place?
Assembly Theory tries to answer that. Instead of just saying, 'this molecule exists,' it asks, 'how many steps did it take to build it?' It looks at complexity not as a happy accident, but as a fingerprint of a causal history.
That’s why I love this theory. It shifts the conversation from, ‘What is life?’ to ‘What had to happen to make life possible?’
It’s not about mystical sparks or lucky lightning bolts. It’s about tracing how the universe organizes itself, step by step, until something starts learning, adapting, and eventually... wondering where it came from.
So yeah—Darwin showed us the ladder. But Assembly Theory? It's showing us how the first rung got there. And to me, that’s the kind of question worth falling in love with."
So here’s the big question—if Darwinian evolution isn’t the only way life can develop, what else is out there? Could we find life that builds itself without evolving in the way we expect? Could complexity itself be a sign of intelligence? That’s what we’ll explore next as we dive into Assembly Theory and how it works.
How Assembly Theory Deviates from Darwinian Evolution
Alright, let’s start with something familiar. Darwinian evolution—it’s the classic story we all know. Life adapts to its environment. The giraffe’s neck gets longer over generations because the ones with short necks didn’t get enough food. The fastest cheetahs survive because, well, the slow ones don’t. It’s all about survival and reproduction. That’s evolution—it’s a reactionary process. Organisms respond to the pressures of their environment, adapting over time to improve their chances of making more copies of themselves (Darwin 1859).
But here’s the thing—this whole framework is built on the idea that life must compete, adapt, and reproduce. What if we’ve been thinking too small? What if life doesn’t need to evolve this way? That’s where Assembly Theory comes in, and let me tell you, it flips the script in a way that’s got scientists paying attention (Cronin and Walker 2016).
Now, imagine life wasn’t just about reacting to the environment, but instead, actively building complexity—layer by layer, like stacking LEGO bricks into something intricate. That’s the core idea of Assembly Theory. Instead of asking ‘how does life adapt?’ we ask ‘how does complexity emerge?’ It’s a different way of thinking—less about who survives and more about how things are put together (Marshall, Murray, and Cronin 2017).
In evolution, the changes happen after the fact—something works, so nature keeps it. But in Assembly Theory, we focus on the construction process itself. If something is extremely complex, needing many precise steps to form, that’s a sign it didn’t just appear randomly. That’s what we call the Assembly Index (AI)—a measure of how many steps it takes to build something. The higher the AI, the more likely that molecule, or system, was built by a process we might recognize as life (Liu et al. 2021).
Now here’s where it gets really fun. Traditional evolution is obsessed with reproduction—pass on your genes, survive another day, repeat. But what if life doesn’t have to reproduce to be considered life? Ever heard of prions? They’re these misfolded proteins that propagate their structure without needing DNA or reproduction, and yet they behave in ways that feel very ‘life-like’ (Prusiner 1997). That’s a clue that we might need to rethink what we mean by ‘life’ in the first place.
Assembly Theory suggests that instead of asking, ‘Does it make copies of itself?’ we should ask, ‘Does it construct complexity beyond what we’d expect from randomness?’ That’s a shift in perspective that could change the way we look for alien life (Ball 2023).
You see, when we go looking for life on other planets, we tend to look for things like water, oxygen, carbon-based molecules—stuff that’s essential for our kind of life. But what if life elsewhere doesn’t breathe, doesn’t need water, and isn’t based on DNA? If we only look for Earth-like conditions, we might miss an entirely different kind of biology (Zimmer 2024).
Assembly Theory gives us a bigger net to catch something truly alien. Instead of focusing on specific molecules like amino acids, it tells us to look for complexity—for structures that shouldn’t form naturally unless something was building them. That means we could detect life even if it’s nothing like what we’ve ever seen before (Cronin and Walker 2016).
Alright, so this isn’t just about alien life—Assembly Theory has some wild implications right here on Earth. Think about artificial intelligence. We’re building machines that process information in increasingly complex ways. If complexity and assembly rules define life, at what point does AI become something more than just code? Could an advanced AI—one that builds complexity on its own—be considered ‘alive’? (Graziano 2014).
And then there’s synthetic biology—where scientists are designing life-like chemical systems from scratch. Assembly Theory helps us understand how to construct life rather than just observe it. This could mean breakthroughs in medicine, self-replicating nanotechnology, and even human-engineered life forms (Marshall, Murray, and Cronin 2017).
So where does this leave us? The way I see it, Assembly Theory is one of the biggest game changers in science today. In the next few decades, we might detect high-complexity molecules on Mars, Europa, or Enceladus—clues that life exists beyond Earth. And if we do, it won’t be because we found DNA—it’ll be because we found structures so complex, they couldn’t have just happened by chance (Liu et al. 2021).
And if we apply this to AI, we may have to start asking—if a system builds its own complexity, at what point does it become alive? That’s not just science—that’s philosophy, ethics, and maybe even the future of humanity.
One thing’s for sure—life, whether it’s on Earth, in space, or inside an artificial system, is more than just its ingredients. It’s about how it comes together, and that’s a whole new way of thinking about what it means to be alive.
Using Assembly Theory to Detect Alien Life
Alright, let’s talk about how we’ve been looking for alien life—because, honestly, we might’ve been doing it wrong this whole time. For decades, our best strategy has been to look for what’s called biosignatures—things like oxygen, methane, or even water. The idea is simple: if we find these molecules on another planet, we might be looking at a place where life exists or once existed. But here’s the problem—these molecules aren’t exclusive to life. You can get methane from cows, sure, but you can also get it from volcanoes and chemical reactions that have nothing to do with biology (Hendrix and Hurford 2019).
Now, imagine if instead of looking for specific molecules, we looked for how complex those molecules are. That’s what Assembly Theory does. Instead of just asking, ‘Is there water?’ we ask, ‘Are there molecules here that shouldn’t exist unless something was actively building them?’ It’s like walking into a forest. If you see a pile of sticks, no big deal. But if you see a log cabin with a fireplace and windows, you don’t think, ‘Oh, the wind must’ve done that.’ You think, ‘Somebody was here.’ That’s the idea—if we find molecular structures that are too complex to have formed randomly, we might just be looking at evidence of life (Cronin and Walker 2016).
Now, let’s talk about where we can actually use this. NASA’s Europa Clipper mission is set to launch in the next few years, heading straight for Jupiter’s moon Europa. Why Europa? Because it’s got a massive ocean hidden beneath an icy shell, and where there’s liquid water, there’s a chance for life. But here’s the twist—Europa Clipper won’t just be looking for water. If we integrate Assembly Theory into the mission, we can analyze the molecules it detects and figure out how complex they are (Schaller 2025).
Think of it like a molecular detective kit. If we find simple molecules—water, methane, ammonia—fine, that’s interesting. But if we find high-complexity molecules with long assembly pathways, that’s a whole different story. That could be our first real sign of alien life. We wouldn’t need to see little green men waving at us—we’d just need to find something that looks too organized to be random (Mann 2017).
Alright, let’s take a quick tour of some of the best places to search for alien life using Assembly Theory.
Europa – This moon is practically screaming ‘Check me out!’ With a deep ocean under its icy shell, warmed by tidal forces from Jupiter, it could have hydrothermal vents—just like the ones where life may have started on Earth. If we send a probe to sample the ice or the plumes shooting into space, we could analyze the complexity of the molecules inside. High-complexity molecules = something interesting happening down there” (Hendrix and Hurford 2019).
Enceladus – Saturn’s icy moon is basically a giant snowball leaking ocean water into space. The Cassini spacecraft already detected organic molecules in these plumes, but they were fairly simple. What if we could go back with Assembly Theory and check for higher-complexity molecules? If we find them, that’s a strong clue that something more than chemistry is at work” (Mann 2017).
Titan – This one’s weird. Instead of water, Titan has lakes and rivers of liquid methane. It’s the only other place in the solar system where you can see liquid flowing on the surface. But Titan is cold—really cold. So, if we find complex molecules here, it definitely means something special is going on. Assembly Theory would help us determine if those molecules were formed naturally or through some unknown biological process” (Sherwood et al. 2018).
Alright, so let’s imagine the day finally comes. We send a spacecraft to Europa, and it samples the plumes. We run the data through our Assembly Theory models, and bam—we find molecules that are way too complex to have formed by chance. What then?
That’s when everything changes. Because at that moment, we would have the first real evidence that life exists beyond Earth. Not because we found oxygen, or water, or methane, but because we found something that was built, piece by piece, into a structure that nature wouldn’t have put together on its own (NASA 2024).
And here’s the emotional part—this wouldn’t just be a scientific breakthrough. This would be a human moment. A moment where we realize we are not alone. A moment where we recognize that life, in some form, is not unique to Earth. It could be microbes under the ice of Europa, or strange methane-based organisms in Titan’s lakes. It might not even look like anything we expect. But finding molecular complexity where there shouldn’t be any? That’s our cosmic breadcrumb trail. That’s the signpost that says, ‘You’re not alone in this universe’ (Hendrix and Hurford 2019).
So where do we go from here? The best thing we can do is push for Assembly Theory to be included in space exploration missions. Right now, we’re still focused on biosignatures. That’s good, but it’s not enough. We need to start treating molecular complexity as a biosignature itself. Imagine a future where every space mission doesn’t just search for water, but for life’s blueprint—for molecules too intricate to be the product of randomness. That may be how we find life in the cosmos—not by seeking familiar signatures, but by identifying molecular complexity that points toward a non-random origin.’
The Implications for AI and Artificial Life
Alright, let’s dive into a fascinating question: Can Assembly Theory, which we’ve been using to understand the complexity of biological life, also help us unravel the mysteries of intelligence? You see, intelligence—whether in humans, animals, or machines—is all about processing information, learning from experiences, and adapting to new situations. At its core, it’s a complex system built from simpler components, much like life itself.
Assembly Theory examines how complex structures are formed through a series of assembly steps. When we apply this to intelligence, we start to see parallels. For instance, artificial neural networks, the backbone of modern AI, consist of layers of interconnected nodes that process information. These networks learn and become more ‘intelligent’ as they form more intricate connections—a process that can be viewed through the lens of Assembly Theory.
This perspective isn’t just theoretical. Researchers like Luc Steels have been pioneers in exploring the intersection of artificial life and intelligence. Steels’ work in behavior-based robotics demonstrates how simple behavioral rules can lead to the emergence of complex, intelligent behaviors in robots, aligning with the principles of Assembly Theory.
Now, here’s a thought-provoking question: Could an AI system ever reach a level of complexity that we’d consider it ‘alive’? Traditionally, we’ve defined life by characteristics like reproduction, metabolism, and response to stimuli. But as our understanding deepens, especially with concepts like Assembly Theory, we’re starting to see life as a spectrum of complexity.
Modern AI systems, such as advanced neural networks, are becoming increasingly complex. They can learn, adapt, and, in some cases, exhibit behaviors that seem eerily lifelike. For example, Google’s DeepMind has developed AI that can predict protein folding—a task once thought to require the nuanced understanding of a living organism. (Hassabis, 2024)
However, even with this complexity, AI lacks certain hallmarks of biological life, such as self-sustaining processes and reproduction. So, while AI can mimic aspects of life, it doesn’t fulfill all the criteria we currently associate with living organisms.
This brings us to some profound ethical considerations. If an artificial system exhibits complexity and behaviors akin to living organisms, does it deserve the same moral considerations? Philosophers like Derek Parfit have delved into related ethical dilemmas, exploring how we value existence and the implications of creating beings with experiences.
Moreover, the field of Biotic Ethics challenges us to value life and its propagation, not just in its current forms but in potential future manifestations. This perspective urges us to consider the moral implications of creating complex artificial systems that could, in some sense, be considered ‘alive’.
As AI continues to evolve, these questions become more pressing. If an AI develops the ability to experience, learn, and perhaps even suffer, our ethical frameworks will need to adapt. We’ll have to grapple with questions about rights, personhood, and the moral responsibilities of creators toward their creations.
Summary
So, what did we learn today? We started by exploring how Darwinian evolution has shaped our understanding of life—but we also saw its limitations. Evolution is a slow, reactionary process, but Assembly Theory gives us a whole new way to think about life—not just as something that adapts, but as something that builds complexity over time. And that changes everything.
Instead of looking for life the way we’ve always done—hunting for water, oxygen, or carbon-based molecules—we now have a tool that lets us recognize life even if it’s nothing like us. By studying how complex molecules form, Assembly Theory could be the key to detecting alien life in the hidden oceans of Europa, the icy plumes of Enceladus, or even the thick atmosphere of Titan.
But we didn’t stop there. We asked a bigger question—does this apply only to biology, or can it help us understand intelligence itself? If complexity is what defines life, then could AI, one day, be considered alive? If a system builds its own intricate structure, learns, adapts, and evolves complexity beyond randomness—at what point does it stop being ‘just a machine’ and become something more? These are the questions that will shape the future of science, technology, and maybe even philosophy.
But here’s where you come in. What do you think? Could Assembly Theory change the way we search for life? Does this mean we’ve been looking in the wrong places all along? And what about AI—could a system become so complex that we have to rethink what it means to be alive? These aren’t just abstract questions; they’re the kind of ideas that push science forward, the kind that could define the next great discovery in human history.
I want to hear from you! Drop a comment on our social media at @Atomicxs.Podcast, send us your questions, or even share what makes you curious about the universe. Because curiosity? That’s where all great discoveries start.
And if today’s episode sparked something in you—if it made you wonder, if it made you look at life a little differently—don’t stop here. Dive deeper! Check out Sara Imari Walker’s research on Assembly Theory, read Leroy Cronin’s work on molecular complexity, or explore NASA’s latest missions that are actively searching for biosignatures in our solar system. I’ll drop some links in the episode notes so you can keep exploring.
That’s it for today, but we’re just getting started. Science isn’t about having all the answers—it’s about asking questions. And if this episode got you thinking, then you’re already on the path to discovery.
Don’t forget to subscribe and join us next time, where we’ll take on another electrifying battle of ideas—Edison vs. Tesla: The Current War. It’s a story of genius, rivalry, and the fight that shaped the future of electricity as we know it. You don’t want to miss this one!
Follow us on Instagram @Atomicxs.Podcast for updates, behind-the-scenes content, and more ways to feed your curiosity. For content in English, find us on Substack as Atomicxs.Podcast.
References
Budin, Itay, and Jack W. Szostak. 2010. “Expanding Roles for Lipid Membranes in the Origin of Life.” Annual Review of Biophysics 39: 245–263. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.biophys.050708.133753.
Darwin, Charles. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London: John Murray.
Davies, Julian, and Dorothy Davies. 2010. “Origins and Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance.” Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 74 (3): 417–433. https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00016-10.
Livermore, David M. 2003. “Bacterial Resistance: Origins, Epidemiology, and Impact.” Clinical Infectious Diseases 36 (S1): S11–S23. https://doi.org/10.1086/344654.
Mutschler, Hannes, et al. 2015. “Self-Replicating Artificial Cells Showing Darwinian Evolution.” Nature Communications 6: 7851. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8851.
Nowak, Martin A., and Karl Sigmund. 2004. “Evolutionary Dynamics of Biological Games.” Science 303 (5659): 793–799. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1093411.
Palumbi, Stephen R. 2001. “Humans as the World’s Greatest Evolutionary Force.” Science 293 (5536): 1786–1790. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.293.5536.1786.
Smith, John Maynard. 1982. Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
World Health Organization (WHO). 2021. “Antimicrobial Resistance.” Accessed March 12, 2025. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/antimicrobial-resistance
Ball, Philip. 2023. “A New Theory for the Assembly of Life in the Universe.” Quanta Magazine, May 4, 2023. https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-theory-for-the-assembly-of-life-in-the-universe-20230504/
Cronin, Leroy, and Sara Imari Walker. 2016. “Beyond Prebiotic Chemistry.” Science 352, no. 6290: 1174-1175. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf6310
Darwin, Charles. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London: John Murray.
Koonin, Eugene V. 2007. “The Biological Big Bang Model for the Major Transitions in Evolution.” Biology Direct 2 (1): 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6150-2-21
Liu, Yu, et al. 2021. “Exploring and Mapping Chemical Space with Molecular Assembly Trees.” Science Advances 7, no. 20: eabg3989. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abg3989
Marshall, Stuart M., Alastair R. G. Murray, and Leroy Cronin. 2017. “A Probabilistic Framework for Identifying Biosignatures Using Pathway Complexity.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 375, no. 2109: 20160342. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0342
Mayr, Ernst. 1963. Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Palumbi, Stephen R. 2001. “Humans as the World’s Greatest Evolutionary Force.” Science 293 (5536): 1786–1790. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.293.5536.1786
Zimmer, Carl. 2024. “A Test for Life Versus Non-Life.” The New York Times, July 31, 2024.
Steels, Luc. “The Artificial Life Roots of Artificial Intelligence.” Artificial Life 1, no. 1-2 (1993): 75-110. https://doi.org/10.1162/artl.1993.1.1_2.75
Parfit, Derek. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/reasons-and-persons-9780198249085
Mautner, Michael N. “Life-Centered Ethics, and the Human Future in Space.” Bioethics 13, no. 3-4 (1999): 188-204. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8519.00150
Hassabis, Demis. “Google DeepMind’s Demis Hassabis on His Nobel Prize: ‘It Feels Like a Watershed Moment for AI’.” Interview by Madhumita Murgia. Financial Times, October 9, 2024. https://www.ft.com/content/72d2c2b1-493b-4520-ae10-41c1a7f3b7e4