How close are scientists to knowing the origin of life on earth? When, if ever, will we be able to explain the origin of life in purely scientific terms?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

James P. Ferris, a researcher in the chemistry department of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York, has conducted extensive work on the ability of clay minerals to catalyze RNA reactions. He submitted the following response:

"Scientists are not close to knowing the exact processes that took place on the earth which led to the origins of life. They may never know the exact answer because the evidence for this very primitive life has probably been destroyed by the more efficient life which evolved from it. But scientists have made important progress in understanding the types of chemical processes that may have led to the origins of life.

A simple example may help to illustrate this difference between knowledge of the exact answer and possible answers to the question. A friend of mine called to tell me that he is in San Diego; he then asked me to deduce the exact route he followed in getting there from Troy, NY. From the time of my last encounter with him I can guess whether he traveled from Troy by airplane, or car. Then I can try to decide which airline he took or which highways he followed, but I will never know unless I can gain access to the computer systems of all the airlines and can find his reservation, or can travel all the routes from Troy to San Diego, stopping at gas stations and asking if they remember seeing this person. Short of having this detailed information, I will have to be satisfied with developing plausible scenarios based on my knowledge of the starting and ending points and the approximate time it took him to make the trip.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


"We are in a similar predicament with our understanding of the origin of life. Since we don't have detailed information on the exact steps we will have to be content with developing plausible scenarios based on information concerning conditions on the early earth around the time life originated nearly four billion years ago. One plausible scenario holds that the first life on earth was based on ribonucleic acids (RNA), a simpler chemical cousin of DNA. Many researchers have focused on RNA because it can store genetic information and it can catalyze reactions; these are essential processes in living systems. In this scenario, it is proposed that RNA, a polymer (long-chain molecule), arose from the gradual stringing together of repeating chemical units, known as monomers, that naturally arose on the primitive earth.

"Recently it has been shown that it is possible to form RNA from monomers on the surfaces of clays, which can catalyze, or chemically assist, the polymerization reaction. Experiments done in test tubes (in vitro) have shown that RNA with one type of catalytic activity can evolve to an RNA with different catalytic properties. These two sets of experiments suggest that it may be possible to demonstrate how clay minerals could have permitted the formation of complex RNA molecules that are capable of evolving in form. If this inference is correct, then the research provides support for a plausible scenario for the origins of life. But, as with the question concerning the route my friend took from Troy to San Diego, we will never know for sure. Just as my friend may have reached San Diego by flying east to Europe and Japan, life may have evolved by an equally circuitous route.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe