"From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.
“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England said."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...eory-of-life/#

SMP for this one I think.
Where are the plants on Mercury? Venus? Jupiter? The moon?

The energy theory seems lazy. All life will use energy. That doesn't mean that shining energy on something is the salient ingredient in the mix for producing complexity. It's necessarily, but it seems one element of a giant set of what is necessary, so saying that molecules will naturally self organize in order to dissipate energy seems a bit thin - like a kind of begging the question.