Addendum No. 1- A CAVERNOUS DOUGHNUT AT THE GARDEN: The description of the origin of life opens new horizons for Biology. As we have seen, life is a quality intrinsic to a specific class of matter that was organized at the origin of our Solar System. As much as I was moving forward in the analysis of the synthesis of biomolecules that gave origin to the first organisms, I discovered that those molecules were synthesized into the fast-moving spiraling warm cloud of interplanetary material around Earth.

The most interesting point is that each line can be traced as a succession of directional arrows. If we draw all possible arrows, we would obtain something similar to a furry ball; besides, we would find that there are many central regions where we could not delineate any arrows, as if they were vortexes of twisters.

We cannot know the dominating conditions at the core of that nebula, but I think that the conditions in the inner space were different from the conditions at the periphery of the ringed nebula. Besides, I inferred that the planetary clouds were constructed by a twistable material that formed coils and whirlpools, as those observed in Saturn’s rings. As we know, the temperature at the margins of the nebula was awfully elevated due to the bombardment of energy and particles expelled by a violent juvenile Sun. High temperatures also modified the innermost center of the cloud, the Earth, to a variable phase; consequently, we cannot consider the external layers of the nebula or the core of the planetary nebula as realistic locations for the production of biomolecules. That’s why the temperatures would be higher at the core of Earth than at the periphery of the planetary cloud. Values of temperature would be distributed progressively, starting from the terrestrial surface where temperature arrows would be higher than 100°C, toward the center where heat liquefied all kind of materials. But at the spinning layer between Earth's surface and the outer layer of the planetary cloud, the temperatures would be below 100°C. In addition, the cold space left in the midst of the external layer of the dusty cloud and the Earth’s surface would help to fasten the chilling of the Earth’s surface as much as the heat of the cloud was eliminated to the deep space. (See Fig. 1)

The layer of particles A, which was linked with the terrestrial surface, would possess temperatures over 100° C; while the layer of the center, or layer B, would have a temperature smaller than 100° C, even smaller than 70° C. The upper layer, or layer C, would have temperatures over 100° C, and the most external layer, or layer D, would maintain random temperatures, but always far above the 100° C.

About 1.5 billion years later, the layer A would give rise to the current troposphere. The layer B would give rise to both stratosphere and ozonosphere; the layer C would generate the mesosphere, and the layer D would generate the thermosphere.

The present troposphere gets colder as it gets away from the Earth’s surface. The stratosphere gets warmer as it gets away from the troposphere (from -73° C to -53° C). The ozonosphere is warm (25° C).  The mesosphere is frozen, but it gets warmer as it gets away from the stratosphere (from -93° C to -83° C).  Finally, the thermosphere is extremely hot (from 727° C to 1227° C). Unquestionably, the existing characteristics of Earth’s atmosphere are a dim echo from those conditions that dominated in the primeval cloud of water vapor and dust. (See Fig. 1)

Now I am going to portray another frame more plausible than the precedent, imagine a doughnut with a massive sphere in its center (if it had not a hole it would be not a doughnut, but a pancake). The bread symbolizes the planetary cloud adopting a ringed figure that was revolving around Earth, and the massive sphere corresponds to Earth. At each point of both, the surface of the doughnut and the surface of the sphere, the temperature is different from zero. Is it possible for that place to have a field of vectors departing at each point from the inner wall of the doughnut that could have moderate temperatures? Yes, it is possible: it would be a central tubular hollow where temperatures would diminish below 100 degrees Celsius.

The elastic central space of the doughnut would be a comfy-cold cavernous core (however, we should not think on a compressed body, but on a blurry cloud formed by many particles). Baking a doughnut, you will notice that the pervasive heat of the oven will toast the outer layer, while the core of the doughnut will stay reasonably cooked, far from being charred. But it is a doughnut, with a hole in its center. If you twist the doughnut, the hole will change its shape, but the hole will continue there. To demolish the hole, you must to cut or fragment the doughnut. Got the idea? (It wouldn't happen if my sister had cooked the doughnut). (See Fig. 2)

The strongest point of this model is that the particles of dust and drops of water would be arranged from the smallest to the largest in diameter particles, starting from the external layer's wall in front of Earth’s surface. The smallest particles would rotate close to the surface of Earth while the heaviest fractions would shape the external wall of the ring (the side associated with the outer space).

In the ringed model, the layer A would generate the Moon and the terrestrial crust. The layer B would generate the troposphere, the stratosphere and the ozonosphere. The cavernous inner tubular core of the cloud would give rise to the mesosphere.

By the same epoch, 3.9 to 4 billion years ago, the Moon was formed from the heaviest material of this cloud. That's why the Moon also have water and Oxygen.

Perhaps, the synthesis of biomolecules was not possible at the outer layer of the cloud of dust and water vapor as a result of the extraordinary pervasive heat and the cosmic radiation expelled by our Sun (temperature boosted over 1500° C), as it was impossible at the outer layer of the early Earth by its temperature higher from 100°C; but, it was possible there, at the cavernous inner structure of the planetary cloud of dust and gases. It was possible at any point into the core of the Earth’s ringed nebula, except at the inner surface. The cloud of dust and vapors functioned as a shell against solar radiation for the new-synthesized biomolecules; while the cavernous or hollowed tubular inner space of the cloud of dust and vapors acted as a breeding room where biomolecules flourished. Remember that microspheres were synthesized into the cavities of dust grains filled with liquid water. It only was possible at a gaping tubular core of a bulky halo, similar to Saturn’s rings. This is perfectly consistent with the observation of organic compounds at distant Interstellar Nebulas (Interstellar Medium). (See Fig. 2)


Addendum No. 2- WHERE THE HOLE IS? Ordinary matter was created some 15 billion years ago from energy fluctuations of the gravitational field. About 10 billion years ago our galaxy formed. Some 5 billion years later our Solar System originated. About 1.2 billion years later, living beings appeared on Earth, again, due to energy fluctuations of the gravitational field. The later occurred when the cloud of dust, water vapor and gases revolving around the primitive Earth suffered modifications of its shape when high temperatures prevailed at the gravitational field.

The ring-like cloud of gases and dust twisted and compressed, i.e. its topology was altered, as the Earth’s atmosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, and biosphere were being formed. Where did the hole of the circled cloud go to? It must be somewhere, wherever a hole could be hidden at the Earth’s system (See Fig. 3). I think that the hole was divided and each part was placed at least at three locations, the North and South Poles and the Equator. Those locations show low and high temperature extremes.

Given that a doughnut-like structure cannot be transformed into a sphere without deeply altering its shape, it may modify its shape by ripping its topological arrangement; the doughnut of gases and dust extended over the Earth’s surface structuring its crust and atmosphere. For this could happen, the ringed tubular cloud of dust, gases and water ice changed deeply its topology by ripping its structure; it was then when it missed its hole.

As the ringed tubular cloud lost its original shape, it was divided into two vast masses which, at earlier states, rotated at a speed equal to the rotational speed of the Earth. Then, the angular momentum of the fragments which were forming the doughnut-like cloud diminished considerably until being precipitated on the Earth’s surface. Due to a stronger Earth’s gravity, the heaviest materials from the two masses were placed suddenly on the Earth’s surface and were distributed irregularly; for the meantime, all organic and inorganic molecules and the water vapor settled slowly on the Earth’s surface for structuring the terrestrial soil and atmosphere. When Earth cooled down, its crust solidified and the water vapor at the upper atmosphere can condensed and precipitated on Earth as rain to form rivers, ponds, lakes and oceans.

The remnants of the materials of the cloud which conserved a slightly-higher angular momentum than Earth’s spinning collided violently and fused one to another until constructing our Moon, which conserved its angular momentum. This is the reason by which our Moon still is going away from Earth with a velocity of four centimeters per year. If that mass of planetary fractals had not acquired a greater angular moment that that of Earth’s spinning by increasing its mass, then we currently would be walking on Moon at Earth. As it was formed from the more external fragments of the ringed cloud and due to furious collisions with other interplanetary remnants, our Moon was almost melted.

Almost all rocks brought to Earth from the Moon by NASA astronauts seem to have an age of 4.6 billion years. This does not agree with the oldest terrestrial rocks ages, which hardly are more than 3 billion years old. This information contradicts the hypothesis on the moon ripped away from the Earth due to a devastator impact of a colossal celestial body against Earth (hypothesis of the Impact). Co-accretion hypothesis cannot be true because it says that both the Moon and the Earth were formed simultaneously from materials from the Solar Nebula; nevertheless, the lunar rocks are older than the Earth’s rocks. The latter discovery provides evidence that the Moon was created before than the Earth and, consequently, the Moon had the benefit of a longer period to consolidate its surface than the Earth. Thus it is asserted by the theory of the Ring-like Tubular Cloud.

Most scientists accept the Impact Hypothesis, despite the evidence shown by the explorations of the Moon. The Moon and the Earth are not “daughter and mother”, respectively, because there are substantial differences between Moon and Earth:

Moon’s soil composition:Earth’s soil composition:

42% Oxygen 46.6% Oxygen
19.6% Silicon27.7% Silicon
18.7% Magnesium 2.1% Magnesium
  9.3% Iron       5% Iron
  4.3% Calcium3.6% Calcium
  4.2% Aluminum    8.1% Aluminum
  1.9% Zinc and other elements 6.9% Sulfur and other elements

We suppose that the Moon has that abundance of Oxygen because it has changed a little since its formation, remember that there are not plants (producers of Oxygen), erosion, liquid water or atmosphere on Moon. If Earth had had a concentration of 46.6% of Oxygen from its origins, then it had not been possible the evolution of living beings on Earth, because it would imply a higher proportion of atmospheric Oxygen.

Other enlightening Facts:


Mass (10 e24 kg)      0.073495.9736
Volume (10 e10 km3)      2.1958     108.321
Equatorial radius (km)   1738.1  6378.1
Polar radius (km)     1736.0  6356.8
Ellipticity (Flattening)           0.0012  0.00335
Density (kg/m e3)    3350     5515
Surface gravity (m/s e2)       1.62       9.80
Surface acceleration (m/se2)      1.62       9.78
Escape velocity (km/s)         2.38    11.2
GM (x 106 km e+3/s e2) 0.0049  0.3986

Do you think that an impact with a Mars-like body would not destroy the Earth? Why Earth’s did not change its orbit around the Sun? Why the Moon was not moved to another orbit instead of orbiting Earth? A collision of such magnitude, had not moved both bodies far away one from another? Why the Moon has not the aspect of a big rock? Let me show you some evidence:

Mars’ mass = 6.42 x 10e+23 Kg
Earth’s mass = 5.97 x 10e+24 Kg
Relation MM: ME = 10.75%

If the astral body was like Mars, as the "collisionists" say, then the mass removed from Earth would be of 3.678 x 10e+24 Kg, just 61.608% the Earth mass! If this mass was part of the early Earth, then the primitive Earth would have a mass of 9.65 x 10e+24 Kg, something odd for a planet in the third position from the Sun. Besides, where are some other fragments of Earth? Where that enormous body was gone to? We can see a Moon, the supposed fragment of Earth started by the body that supposedly collided with Earth, but we do not see a single trace of the cosmic body that supposedly motivated the whole issue. If that cosmic body completely crumbled by the collision, why the Earth was not pulled to pieces? Where did the cosmic crusher come from? Yea… I know, it’s easier to find a big body than a doughnut hole, that’s why I think the collision hypothesis is over.

Another fact against the Impact Hypothesis (IH) is that the Moon has not a global magnetic field, although some of its surface rocks exhibit poor magnetism. If the Moon were split off from Earth, then it would have a magnetic field, similar to Earth’s magnetic field.

Another thing in opposition to IH is that by its spherical shape the Moon does not seem to be a fragment of another planetary body, as we can see in the moons of Mars, Phobos and Deimos, which give the impression of being asteroids trapped by the planet.

The last point against IH is its lack of versatility:

While the theory of the ringed tubular terrestrial nebula (RTTN) explains that the Moon has its near hemisphere (respecting Earth) smoother than its far hemisphere because of Moon’s gravity attracted the slighter materials of one half of the interior tube of the ringed cloud, the IH identifies this reality as a great mystery.

IH does not explain why the oldest rocks of the surface from the Moon are older than the oldest rocks from the surface of Earth. RTTN explains that Moon's surface was chilled earlier than the surface of Earth because the Moon formed before the conclusion of intensive collisions of the nebular materials against Earth. While the Moon formed with fragments that did not involve the reduction of the angular momentum, the materials which precipitated on Earth had to diminish their angular momentum for falling down on Earth. Thus, some 600 million years had to pass for the surface of Earth could be chilled.

IH does not clarify if the Moon was split up in a melted phase or if it was uprooted from a solid Earth. RTNT explains that the primitive Moon was almost completely melted in the course of its formation because of the heat generated by the violent collisions with rocks and meteorites during the formation of the Moon.


Addendum No. 3- There is a wealth of knowledge in the moons of the giant planets, for example Titan, Phoebe and Europe. By studying the characteristics of these natural satellites, we could know how our solar system was formed and, more significantly, it may help us to understand how the first living beings arose on Earth.

Titan and Phoebe are natural satellites of Saturn. Titan’s atmosphere contains Ammonia, Acetylene and Ethane. Cassini-Huygens mission has shown that Titan have water ice and Methane. Phoebe’s contains water ice, minerals and Carbon Dioxide. All of this is a clear demonstration that wandering comets did not bring the fundamental components of the primitive Earth. On the contrary, it indicates that those organic compounds were produced in the solar nebula. After that, the gravitational field of each planet retained those essential compounds. We know that comets could have contributed a little in the formation of the planets, but just wonder... how many comets had been necessary to structure the soils and atmospheres of all the planets, asteroids and moons of our solar system? Would not it be  easier to infer that comets retain still -as well as all the bodies of the Solar System- the ingredients of the primitive Solar Nebula?


Addendum No. 4- When I assessed meticulously on the issue of the meaning of life, I found that life can never be transferred, but continued by the structures that descend from other still-living structures. It has been occurring ever since the first protobiont appeared on Earth.

Life is not something that can be transferred from one system to another, but a energy state of a particular organization of the matter, which is maintained by the descendants of the biosystems.

We do not have a direct definition of life, but from direct and indirect observations of the thermal state of the living structures, we can say that:

Life is a delay of the spontaneous diffusion or dispersion of the internal energy of the biomolecules towards more potential microstates.

Thus, life is a thermal property inherent to a definite group of particles that maintain a particular energy state which allows those individual particles to be organized into structures that can increase their complexity, acquiring the capability of capturing and manipulating the energy from the cosmos for being conserved in a thermal state of maximum no-equilibrium and a stable density of energy.

The structures that array on this energy state maintain a limited macrostructural order which permits them to reproduce and to conserve the thermal property by means of a progeny.

Life is an energy state of a specific organization of structurally ordered matter. Because life is an energy state, life cannot be transferred, induced, embedded or infused to inert structures. Life can only be maintained. Consequently, all living beings have to replicate by division of themselves (unicellular organisms) or of their cells (multicellular organisms) for growing (in the quantity of individuals or in the complexity of one individual), as to be genetically perpetuated. Viruses are not cells, even when they perpetuate their genomes when the true cells identify the viruses like their own material. In this case, the true cells defer the control on the replication of the genetic material and the synthesis of some structural proteins to the viruses. But it does not mean that the viruses be living beings, if there is not an autonomous exchange and organization of the acquired energy, then the thermodynamic system will be an inert thermodynamic system. Viruses cannot acquire, exchange, neither organize the energy. What happens in the cells affected by viruses is purely a mistake in the decoding of the genetic information carried out by the same cells.

Biologists have demonstrated that complete molecules of DNA, or even pieces of DNA, isolated from the whole living structure, are not living matter. When they are not integrated into a living biocomplex, they are not living but inert molecules. We could place into a flask all the ingredients needed for the construction of a living being, and we could add heat, electricity, UV radiation, gamma radiation, or any other elements we think could generate life in our mixture but we will never obtain the simplest living form. What we need is to find a process which can cause the energy state which would carry to those inert structures into the quantity of energy needed for life. Photons are the key to do this.

The difference between the maintenance of life in the offspring of a single cell and the maintenance of life in the offspring of a multicellular organism is that the unicellular organism divides its whole living body to continue its life in another unicellular living being; in contrast, the multicellular organism contributes with one, or two kinds of living cells (gametes) to perpetuate life in a new living organism. The similarity between the reproduction of a unicellular organisms and that of multicellular organisms comes through the process of gametogenesis (generation of gametes) through meiosis and after the fusion of two different gametes (spermatozoids and ovules), when the egg begins to divide for growing and development, or when the gametes of parthenogenetic organisms divide to develop into a complete individual (for example in Daphnia pulex).

Sooner or later, life stops of being maintained by a biosystem, but life is preserved by its progeny. This is why we could give consideration to the persistence of life in the Universe. Always there will be living beings in the Universe, whenever the Universe possess sufficient available energy for the living beings.




Any molecular array that possesses the necessary qualities to remain in the Quantity of energy needed for life receives the name of Biosystem. The living beings only proceed from other living beings.  This is the first axiom of Biology, so called Biogenesis.

The minimum qualities necessary for a biosystem to transitorily persist with a smallest quantity of energy needed for life are:

A) To possess a well-constituted structural order. 
B) To have the capacity of self-replication. 
C) To hold the potential to evolve.

Life, as one of the energy states of the ordered molecular systems, cannot be transferred, imparted or induced to an inert system, even when it were a previously alive system, but life can only be maintained through the reproductive sequence of a biosystem that still be situated in the Quantity of energy needed for life.  This is the second axiom of Biology, or of the no transference of Life.

Once the peculiar energy state of a biosystem is disturbed, it will be impossible to restore it, whether for natural mechanisms or through the known biotechnological mechanisms.  This obeys to the irreversibility of the arrow of time, to which every increment in the global entropy of the Universe is tied. This is the third axiom of Biology, or Irreversibility of Life.

Life occurs during the formation of stellar systems events (for example, at some stage in the evolution of our Solar System) due to a specific positioning of the particles (evidently, photons) in the points of reciprocity (cooperation) of two or more waves pertaining to one of the known fields of energy.

Once the distortion in the trajectories of the particles accelerated has been given, that variation will only stand viable if the adequate systems exist for maintaining it.

As far as the cosmic place where occurred the distortion of the particles’ trajectories becomes stable and the density of energy diminishes, the possibilities that the values of the distortion of the fields be different from zero also decrease. This process will continue until the probabilities that the value of the distortion in those places be maintained positive are reduced to zero.

If in that place an inorganic synthesis of protobionts occurs, then, in that place, the probabilities that the energy state could be maintained in those specialized structures would enlarge.

If the place of the stellar system where protobionts appeared had environmental conditions favorable for the integrity of the molecular structure of those living systems, then the energy state would temporarily be prolonged as those protobionts remain in the Quantity of energy needed for life.

If a biosystem found exhibiting the biological energy state had the capacity to auto-replicate, then the distortion in the trajectories of the particles (I repeat, evidently photons) would continue in each one of the genetic successors of that biosystem.

If the biosystem that suffered the lost of its energy state did not have the capacity of auto-replication, then the energy state of that individual would finalize in a given period and the continuity of the distortion would be lost.

When the biosystem possesses all its biological capacities, but eventually it suffers a delicate modification in its micro or macrostructure order or state, then its energy state would be deeply modified and the biosystem would disappear (death of the biosystem).

When a species faces a severe modification in the environment where the species take refuge, and if that species does not possess the essential characteristics to confront that modification, then the energy distortion will finalize on returning to its original state of particles’ equilibrium and the species will be suppressed (extinction).

If any biosphere in the Universe modified the stability of its thermal state, then that whole biosphere would disappear. Life (thermal state of no-equilibrium) at that place would be modified and all the biosystems existing in that biosphere would disappear.


ADDENDUM No. 6- SIZE AND KIND OF ARCHEOBIONTS. How large were the Archeobionts? Were Archeobionts tiny or giant cells? It is hard to know how big they were, but we can deduce their size from fossils of Nummulites. As Nummulites, many Archeobionts might have fused to form enormous and successful colonies. The only way for those first living cells to improve the possibilities for surviving on a very hostile primitive Earth was through the assemblage of millions of archeobionts, forming many self-protective lots of living matter, which could have 10-300 cm in diameter. Did you know that ovules are giant cells? Currently, eggs of birds are the biggest cells.

For holozoic archeobionts to survive on the primitive Earth, if they were isolated cells, we would have to put them at deep oceanic floors, where they would have not survived by the enormous pressure exerted by huge volumes of water. No, if archeobionts were tiny isolated cells, they should be a kind of suspended delicate organisms that would not survive to solar radiation, deadly atmospheric gases, heat and other hostile factors. The first Archeobionts had not own movements. Waves and flows of water constantly moved them at random.

Perhaps, Archeobionts were holozoic organisms, although we cannot exclude the possibility that Archeobionts had embedded chromomicrospheres of chlorophyll and other photoreceptors.

Off the record, it sounds more coherent that archeobionts had been holophytic-holozoic (myxotrophic) protists than only-holozoic protists. Evolution is an enhancer process, but it not always occurs towards the greater complexity of the structures, for example viruses.

Evolution usually progress on the road to specialization in spite of a setback of the structural complexity. Evolution can also occur through the missing of a function or a structure in favor of the development or the collapse of a metabolic process that would promote the survival of any individual facing a specific destructive force of the environment.

But, it does not. It was not like this because someone “thought” that it was impossible for chlorophyll and other pigments to come out with their modern molecular complexity. I do not agree on this, because ribozymes emerged with a ready-to-work high level of complexity. Besides, the oldest fossils of living beings found are cyanobacteria (around 3.4 billion years ago), which possessed chlorophyll and other reacting-to-light pigments.

Why do I think that the archeobionts on Earth were holophytic organisms? There are many facts sustaining this hypothesis: Holophytic organisms were the first land organisms on Earth. Plants invaded land 30 million years before than animals did it. The oldest aquatic animal fossils have been found at strata from 570 million years ago, about 3 billion years latter than the emergence of cyanobacteria. From where did we deduce that archeobionts were holozoic organisms? Why do most scientists believe that holozoic archeobionts emerged earlier than holophytic archeobionts? Do not the cell walls of cyanobacteria confer them a better resistance against UV radiation, heat, saline water and other aggressive environmental conditions?

Holophytic organisms could survive even in small ponds and lakes, especially if holophytic archeobionts fused for developing bulky complex masses of protoplasm. Cyanobacteria can do it at present, and cyanobacteria are primitive, holophytic, wall-celled bacteria. The facts are out there, why have we overlooked them thus far?



The experiment Deep Impact of NASA on the comet Tempel 1 has given surprising results that in part confirm my theory on the origin of life. It is not yet the time to advance a definitive conclusion, therefore we still lack of a conclusive interpretation from NASA scientists, although I already have progressed a bit on the correlation between my theory and the first data provided by NASA. Let us see the reinforcements in favor of my theory:

1. The comet is not an ice block. On my theory I insist on which the water ice was in the hollows of fractals. It seems to be the case on comets because comets formed at the same time that planets and by the same dynamics.

2. The comet is covered by a fine dust that was blown up during the impact. In my theory I indicate that the greatest portion of the ring-shaped dust cloud surrounding to the protoplanets originated the surface and the atmosphere of the planets. So, it seems that it has been confirmed by this experiment, therefore being a body not affected by atmospheric and water erosion, it does not experience great alterations on its features since its origin in the Solar System. This fact means that the dust of planets and comets has been a component of the solar nebula since the origin of the Solar System and that it was deposited on the surfaces of planets, natural satellites, planetoids and comets. At present, at least ten tons of interplanetary dust fall every year on Earth.

3. The surface is not as smooth as we thought before the Deep Impact experiment. This corroborates what I say on my theory about the possibility that the prebiotic molecules synthesized in the frozen water into the cavities and fissures of the fractals. I want to make clear that the comets are fractals that, by their momentums, were placed on eccentric orbits, although they consolidated also from the amalgamation by collision between fractals.

4. We would have to consider comets as planetoids because the process that consolidated them is the same process that consolidated the planets. There is something that contradicts, in principle, the classic theory on Earth’s origin. One is the structural similarities between rocky planets and comets. This means that some features (atmosphere and soil) of the planets in our Solar System were generated by the same dynamics that gave origin to comets.

I wish to express my gratitude to NASA and its distinguished team of scientists -specially to Dr. Tony Phillips, editor of, who always has tolerated my requests of materials for my conferences and has never ignored any of my messages. The work of NASA scientists, like Dr. Phillips' work, is very important for us, "scientists on Earth". (See Fig. 1)

Nasif Nahle






TO QUOTE THIS ARTICLE COPY AND PAST: Nahle, N. (2004). Addenda to the Theory of Abiogenesis. Obtained on (month) (day), (year), from
Copyright© 2004 by Biology Cabinet Organization