Abiogenesis
The origin of life is unsolved, and is a separate question from evolution, which begins once replication exists.
6 min readUpdated
Abiogenesis is the origin of life from non-living chemistry. It is unsolved. No experiment has produced a self-replicating cell from simple chemicals, and the pathway from prebiotic chemistry to the first organism is not known.
It is also a separate question from evolution. Evolutionary theory describes what happens to populations that already reproduce with variation, and would remain the explanation for the diversity of life whether the first replicator arose chemically or otherwise.
This page sets out what has been established, what has not, and where the disagreements are.
What is known
| Step | Status | Key evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Organic molecules form without life | Established | Miller-Urey (1953) produced amino acids from simple gases and electrical discharge. Reanalysis of the sealed samples in 2008 found 22 amino acids |
| Organics are abundant off Earth | Established | The Murchison meteorite contains over 90 amino acids, most absent from terrestrial biology. Comet 67P showed glycine and phosphorus |
| Nucleotide bases form abiotically | Established | Adenine forms from concentrated hydrogen cyanide. Powner, Gerrard and Sutherland (2009) synthesised activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides under plausible conditions |
| Lipids self-assemble into vesicles | Established | Fatty acids spontaneously form bilayer compartments that grow and divide |
| RNA can catalyse reactions | Established | Ribozymes are known; the ribosome's catalytic core is RNA, which is difficult to explain unless RNA catalysis preceded protein enzymes |
| RNA can copy RNA | Partial | Engineered polymerase ribozymes copy substantial sequences but do not yet self-replicate fully |
| Metabolism arises from geochemistry | Contested | Alkaline hydrothermal vents produce proton gradients resembling those cells use |
| A full self-replicating system | Not achieved | No laboratory has produced one |
The main hypotheses
RNA world. RNA served as both genetic material and catalyst before DNA and proteins divided the roles. The strongest support is the ribosome: the machine that makes proteins is itself catalysed by RNA, which is hard to explain if proteins came first. The principal difficulty is that RNA is chemically fragile and prebiotic synthesis of intact ribose is problematic.
Metabolism first. Self-sustaining chemical cycles preceded genetic molecules. Günter Wächtershäuser proposed reactions on iron-sulfur mineral surfaces; Nick Lane and Michael Russell propose alkaline hydrothermal vents, where natural proton gradients across mineral membranes resemble the mechanism all cells use to make ATP. The difficulty is explaining heredity without a template molecule.
Lipid world. Compartments came first, providing enclosed environments where chemistry could concentrate.
These are not exclusive, and current work generally treats compartmentalisation, catalysis, and replication as having developed together rather than in strict sequence.
What the difficulty actually is
The gap is not producing biological molecules — that is routine. The gap is producing a system that copies itself with enough fidelity for selection to operate, from components that plausibly co-occurred.
Two specific problems are widely acknowledged:
- The concentration problem. Prebiotic reactions in open water are dilute. Proposed solutions include mineral surfaces, evaporating pools, and thermal gradients in porous rock.
- The chirality problem. Life uses left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars almost exclusively. Abiotic synthesis produces both. Partial mechanisms are known, including circularly polarised light and crystal-surface amplification, but the origin of the bias is unsettled.
Common objections
"Evolution can't be true if it can't explain how life started"
Evolution does not attempt to. It describes what happens to populations that already reproduce with variation, and Darwin explicitly set the origin of life aside.
The theories are logically independent. If the first cell had been created directly, common descent would still be the explanation for the pattern of life that followed, and the evidence for it — nested hierarchy, shared errors, fossil succession — would be unchanged.
The conflation runs in both directions and is worth avoiding regardless of one's position.
"The probability of a cell forming by chance is effectively zero"
Fred Hoyle's comparison of a tornado assembling a Boeing 747 from a junkyard is the best-known version, and the calculations produce very small numbers.
They calculate the assembly of a modern cell in a single random event. No origin-of-life researcher proposes that. The first replicator would have been far simpler than any living cell, and the proposed route is stepwise chemistry with each stage selected or retained.
The calculations also assume one target. Where the size of the functional space has been measured, functional sequences are far more common than a single-target assumption implies.
The honest statement is that we cannot yet calculate the probability, because we do not know the pathway. That is different from having calculated it to be negligible.
"Miller-Urey used the wrong atmosphere, so the result is meaningless"
A legitimate criticism. Miller and Urey assumed a strongly reducing atmosphere of methane, ammonia, and hydrogen. The current view is that the early atmosphere was more neutral, dominated by carbon dioxide and nitrogen, which yields fewer organics.
The specific conditions were wrong, and this is acknowledged in the field.
Two things limit the objection. Later experiments using more realistic atmospheres, particularly with volcanic gases, still produce amino acids — the 2008 reanalysis of Miller's own volcanic-apparatus samples found a wider range than originally reported. And the question is moot for supply, since amino acids arrive ready-made in meteorites: Murchison contains over 90.
Availability of building blocks is not where the problem lies.
"Scientists have been working on this for 70 years and failed"
Accurate. The problem is genuinely hard and has resisted sustained effort.
Difficulty is not evidence for an alternative explanation unless that alternative makes testable predictions. "It was created" is compatible with any laboratory outcome, so no experimental result confirms or disconfirms it.
The field has also not been static. Sutherland's 2009 synthesis solved a step considered a serious barrier for decades, and protocell and ribozyme work has advanced substantially since 2000.
"Information in DNA requires a mind"
Stephen Meyer's argument in Signature in the Cell (2009): the sequence specificity of DNA is the kind of thing only intelligence is known to produce.
The argument assumes the first replicator used DNA and a genetic code. Most origin-of-life work proposes it did not — an RNA or peptide system with direct chemical catalysis requires no code, and the code is treated as a later development.
The general treatment of information claims is in Genetic Information.
What the evidence shows
The chemical building blocks of life form without biological input, both in laboratories and in space, and this is not seriously disputed.
The step from those building blocks to a self-replicating system has not been reproduced, and no accepted pathway exists. Several competing hypotheses are under investigation.
This is an open problem rather than a settled question in either direction. It is not evidence against evolution, which addresses a different question, and it is not evidence for design, since an unsolved problem does not by itself support any particular alternative.