The origin of life and information

The short version

1. Life, even at its simplest, runs on a code.

   The smallest free-living cell anyone has built needs 473 genes. The common ancestor of all life is estimated to have had about 2,600 proteins and a genetic code that is very good at limiting errors.

   The evidence ↓
2. Chemistry has climbed real rungs, not the ladder.

   Nucleotides, amino acids, chiral enrichment and small RNAs that copy RNA have all been made in the lab. No one has yet joined the steps without a chemist choosing the conditions, and the origin of translation has no accepted model.

   The evidence ↓
3. The famous odds don't settle it.

   Numbers like 1 in 10⁷⁷ or 10^-1018 swing from "hopeless" to "expected" on one assumption: how much had to come together by chance before natural selection could take over. Nobody knows that number yet.

   The evidence ↓
4. Weighed fairly, the clue is modest: about 1.3 toward a mind.

   The missing road and the coded threshold point one way; life's early start and steady progress point the other. If the skeptic answers with a multiverse, that is the same move as for fine-tuning, and it is counted there.

   The evidence ↓

The question

Given what we know about early-Earth chemistry, what minimal life requires, and seventy-three years of research, is life (with its digital heredity and its translation system) better explained by an intelligent cause or by unguided chemistry?

The bare fact that life exists here can't be the evidence. Under every hypothesis we would find ourselves on a planet where life began; that is observer selection. And the life-friendly physics that chemistry depends on belongs to the fine-tuning page. What is left to weigh here is the record: what minimal life needs, when life appeared, and what the laboratories have and haven't shown.

We compare these hypotheses:

• H, theism. A purposive Mind made a world with life in it, either through the laws and chemistry it set up or by special action. Many Christian scientists hold the first view, so H as a whole does not predict a gap. Only the special-action version (H_s) predicts that no natural pathway exists.
• N1, lawful naturalism. Life arose by unguided chemistry, and given early-Earth conditions that was not wildly unlikely. This is the mainstream research view.
• N2, the fluke. Life arose by unguided chemistry as a very improbable accident.
• N3, the multiverse. In a vast multiverse, improbable origins happen somewhere, and we find ourselves where one did. Koonin argues for this view.¹ We handle it through the fine-tuning page, not here.

Most of the data are predicted about equally well by H and by N1. Two kinds of data separate them: the lasting absence of a pathway (which fits H_s and N2 better), and early emergence plus partial progress (which fit N1 better). The decisive future test is a second, independent origin of life somewhere else.²

Rules of evidence

We fixed these before scoring anything.

1. A demonstrated step is a reaction shown in the lab, from starting materials and in conditions with a geochemical case for early Earth, without purification, timed additions or other choices that stand in for a later step. A step that needs such help is scored shown with intervention. This is the standard insiders use.^3,4
2. A pathway is a chain of demonstrated steps in one compatible setting, ending in a system that copies itself, varies and is selected. Nothing less counts as "solved".
3. What counts against H: every new demonstrated step, every smaller minimal replicator, and any independent origin of life found elsewhere. These are scored, not ignored.
4. What counts for H: only demonstrated obstacles (not missing experiments), and features of minimal life that unguided processes are positively unlikely to produce. "We don't know how" is scored only through an explicit model that asks how likely our ignorance at year 73 is under N1 (below).
5. Probability numbers are admitted only with their full model: sequence length, the fraction of sequences that would work, whether selection could act on precursors, and the number of tries. A number whose verdict flips within the plausible range of any input is reported as undetermined, not as evidence.
6. The null space. Data that cut against H sit in the same tables: early life, partial progress, the code's evolvability, Darwin's confirmed Precambrian prediction, and Koonin's own non-design conclusion.
7. Out of scope. Evolution after the last universal common ancestor (common descent, human evolution) is biology, not this argument; it gets a short note (the Cambrian) only to fix its weight at zero. Consciousness is on the mind page.

The evidence

What chemistry has shown: the ladder

The research record is real and often beautiful. Here are the rungs, in the order a cell would need them. The status column applies rule 1.

The two empty rungs at the top are the point. Steven Benner, one of the field's leading chemists, wrote that the RNA-first model falls short "in part" because "no experiments have joined together those steps without human intervention".³ Every result above is real. Each was reached under conditions a researcher chose.

What life needs: the target has grown

As the chemistry has advanced, the picture of what the first life had to reach has grown, not shrunk.

The caveat that matters. JCVI-syn3 is a modern cell, cut down from a parasite and living in a rich broth. It is a top-down minimum, not a picture of the first cell. The first cells were surely simpler. How much simpler is exactly what nobody knows.

When life appeared

Early life sounds like strong evidence that life starts easily. It is weaker than it sounds: Spiegel and Turner showed that early emergence is "consistent with an arbitrarily low intrinsic probability of abiogenesis for plausible uninformative priors", and that a single independent origin "would provide much stronger evidence".² We still score it (below).

The probability arguments, as published

Both sides have quoted big numbers. Here they are with the assumption that drives each one.

One fact is easy to miss. Mainstream estimates of how rare it is to fold into a specific structure are as small as Axe's, or smaller, for domains of 120 residues or more.³⁴ So "Axe's number is crankery" is not a fair reply. The real dispute is about the premise: did a long, specific fold ever have to be found by blind search, with nothing selectable along the way? Short proteins and short RNAs (QT45) show that function exists in random pools at reachable frequencies.^35,18 The proteins' stability limits on evolution are real, and so are the known ways evolution gets around them.³⁷

The analysis

The argument in its strongest honest form

This is Stephen Meyer's inference to the best explanation,⁴³ with two repairs.

1. Life as we know it depends on a coupled system: digital heredity, a translation system with a near-universal, error-limiting code, and a compartment with a metabolism. The simplest lab-made free-living cell needs about 470 genes, and LUCA was already prokaryote-grade. established
2. Despite real progress on separate steps, there is no demonstrated unguided pathway from early-Earth chemistry to a system that replicates and evolves. established
3. The crucial unknown is the threshold: how much sequence had to be specified at once before natural selection could take over. If it is tens of nucleotides, chance plus selection is enough. If it is a translation system with hundreds of specified positions, chance is hopeless in any finite region. Present data do not fix the threshold. open question
4. Functional information (defined below) is made without minds all the time: by selection acting on a replicator (lab evolution, new genes) and, in small amounts, by chemistry alone (chiral enrichment on magnetite). What nobody has seen is anything other than a mind, or selection on a replicator that already exists, produce the amount a translation system embodies. established as an observation Reading that as "minds are the known cause" is an analogy, and a contested one. contested
5. So if the threshold is large, a mind is the better explanation for crossing it; if it is small, unguided chemistry plus selection is enough. inference
6. Given 2 and 3, the evidence modestly raises the probability of a mind. The margin depends on one's credence that the threshold is large, and that credence should move with the research. inference, modest

The repairs: premise 4 admits that selection, and to a small degree chemistry, does create functional information, so the argument applies only to the first replicator and the origin of translation. Premise 6 says openly that it depends on an open empirical question. And because premise 4's observation is the missing pathway of premise 2 seen from another side, we count it once.

Why the odds don't settle it

Every "1 in 10^x" answers a particular question. Ask how many hits a generous budget of 10⁴⁰ random tries would get, and the published estimates range across more than 110 orders of magnitude:

The numbers are not wrong; they answer different questions. Koonin's famous 10^-1018 shows the same thing. His model assumes one unique 1,800-nucleotide set with no room for variation and nothing selectable on the way. Let only a fraction of the positions matter, as measured redundancy in real RNAs and proteins suggests, and the verdict flips:

Strings tried per region (S)          1.5 x 10^61   (Koonin: ~1.5 x 10^61)
Length with 1 expected hit            101.6 nt      (Koonin: ~102 nt)
n = 1,800, exact 4^n                  log10 E = -1022.5
n = 1,800, Koonin's 4^n ~ 10^0.6n     log10 E = -1018.8   (paper: E < 10^-1018)

Earth only, 0.5 billion years, his rates   S = 7.9 x 10^38;  1 hit at 65 nt
  same, rate 10^6 times lower              S = 7.9 x 10^32;  1 hit at 55 nt
  same, rate 10^12 times lower             S = 7.9 x 10^26;  1 hit at 45 nt

Only part of the 1,800 nt specified:   per region    Earth only
  100%                                 -1022.5       -1044.8
   50%                                  -480.7        -503.0
   20%                                  -155.6        -177.8
   10%                                   -47.2         -69.5
    5%                                    +7.0         -15.3
Flip (E = 1): about 5.6% per region (about 102 nt); about 3.6% on Earth alone (about 65 nt).

QT45: 4^45 = 10^27.1 possible 45-mers; even a unique 45-mer would turn up
about 10^11.8 times on Earth at Koonin's rates.

Early life: weak evidence the other way

In a Spiegel-Turner model, observers exist only if life started by some deadline, and we compare "abiogenesis is easy" with "abiogenesis is very hard". On the secure 3.43-billion-year date (Δt about 0.9 billion years after habitability), early life favours "easy" by a factor of only about 1.1-1.7. If the contested 3.77-4.1 billion-year signs hold, the factor is about 2-7.5. Had a bombardment sterilized Earth around 3.9 billion years ago, the clock would restart and even the secure date would give about 2-3.7; but the evidence is against a full sterilization (above), so we keep that only as a sensitivity.

The "no pathway yet" datum: worth little

Does seventy-three years without a pathway (1953-2026) count for much? Under naturalism, suppose the time needed to reconstruct the pathway is spread evenly on a log scale between some minimum and maximum. Under theism, let q be the chance that the Mind acted specially (then no pathway is guaranteed); otherwise theism expects the same as naturalism.

The result is about 1.0-2.0. It goes higher only if one believes the problem should have been solved within a few decades, and little supports that belief: reconstructing a four-billion-year-old chemical history with no fossils of the process is plausibly among the hardest problems in science. This model is a stated modelling choice, not data.

Combining, and the multiverse coupling

An earlier version of this page gave 1.5. We lowered it because the "minds are the known cause" step, once stated precisely, mostly repeats the missing-pathway datum, and we had been counting it twice. The high end, 3, needs real confidence that the translation system had no selectable precursors; no current paper shows that. The low end, 0.8, is where the trend of the last fifteen years (Sutherland, Carell, Ozturk, Joyce, Holliger) continues to an integrated Darwinian RNA system. Values like 10^x would rest on the probability calculations set aside above. They are not defensible.

The multiverse coupling. In a multiverse with observer selection, any improbability of abiogenesis is absorbed exactly as fine-tuning is. Koonin says so outright: "In an infinite universe (multiverse), emergence of highly complex systems by chance is inevitable."¹ So if the unified model gives naturalism a multiverse to answer fine-tuning, this page's ratio falls toward 1. If the fine-tuning page judges the multiverse costly, that cost has already been paid there and must not be charged again here.

What would change the verdict

Objections

What this shows, and what it doesn't

What we don't claim

• "Abiogenesis is statistically impossible" / "the odds are 1 in 10^40,000 or 10^-1018." Each assumes a unique long sequence assembled at once with no selection. Koonin calls his model "not supposed to be realistic by any account" and concludes for a multiverse, not design.
• "Science will never explain the origin of life." Present ignorance can't show that; no in-principle barrier is known.
• "Origin-of-life researchers admit they have no idea." They admit no integrated pathway, while reporting real steps.
• "Miller-Urey was refuted because the early atmosphere wasn't reducing." Neutral atmospheres also yield amino acids (Cleaves et al. 2008).
• "The primordial soup is a myth." The soup model has been supplemented by cyanosulfidic and vent scenarios, not abandoned.
• "Homochirality is unexplained." Plausible lab mechanisms exist; system-wide homochirality in a natural setting is not demonstrated.
• "No self-replicating molecule has ever been made." False: Lincoln & Joyce 2009 (from designed pieces); QT45 makes its complement and itself (2026). True: nothing yet replicates and evolves on its own from plausible building blocks.
• "Axe proved functional proteins are 1 in 10⁷⁷, so evolution is impossible." It is an extrapolated bound for one kind of fold; it says nothing about short, weakly functional precursors.
• "The genetic code is optimal, one in a million, so designed." It is very good, not optimal, and evolvable.
• "Darwin said the Cambrian would break his theory." That quote is about complex organs. Darwin's real Cambrian worry was a prediction of earlier life, since confirmed.
• "The Cambrian explosion falsifies evolution" / "macroevolution is in crisis" / "many biologists doubt evolution". Unsupported; the Cambrian had Ediacaran precursors and fits selection-compatible rates.
• "The simplest cell needs 473 genes, so the first cell did." JCVI-syn3.0 is a cut-down modern cell, not a model of the first one.
• "LUCA appeared instantly, or certainly at 4.2 billion years." That is a molecular-clock date with wide uncertainty; the earliest secure fossils are 3.43-3.5 billion years old.
• "Tour has proven the origin of life impossible" / "nobody has answered Tour". Tour argues the field is far from a solution, not that one is impossible; responses exist, though not as peer-reviewed rebuttals.
• "Information only comes from a mind" / "nature can't create new information" / "information is conserved, so life's information came from outside." False as stated: open systems driven by energy, and selection above all, make functional information routinely. No conservation law covers "specified" or "meaningful" information.
• "DNA is too small to specify a person (about 1.5 GB against 12.5 TB of brain wiring), so the rest is a soul." The genome's raw capacity is about 0.76 GB (3.055 billion base pairs at 2 bits each),⁴⁹ so "1.5 GB of functional information" is impossible, and only about 8% of it is under selection.⁵⁰ One bit per synapse is storage room, not content. A short rule can write an output vastly larger than itself (an 848-bit program writes 8 million bits). And the brain's wiring is grown by development and learning from the world, not read off the genome. Development does need more than DNA; that shows nothing non-physical.
• "Theism predicts a 'teleological drift' in evolution toward consciousness." No argument derives it and no null model is given, so no result could count against it. We don't use it.
• "Earth itself is finely tuned for life (Rare Earth), an extra factor on top of cosmic fine-tuning." Among 10²² or more stars, a rare kind of planet still turns up, and we could only find ourselves on one. Neither this page nor fine-tuning counts it.
• "The cosmic and planetary timeline was orchestrated." A list of fortunate events, with no probabilities under each hypothesis, is not evidence; and the "Late Heavy Bombardment that ended just before life" is itself now in doubt.²⁸
• Famous quotes we have not checked against the original (Crick's "almost a miracle", Hoyle's "superintellect", and lines attributed to Shapiro and Orgel). We don't use them until verified.

Sources

1. Koonin, E. V. (2007). "The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life." Biology Direct 2: 15. doi:10.1186/1745-6150-2-15
2. Spiegel, D. S., & Turner, E. L. (2012). "Bayesian analysis of the astrobiological implications of life's early emergence on Earth." PNAS 109: 395-400. doi:10.1073/pnas.1111694108
3. Benner, S. A., Kim, H.-J., & Carrigan, M. A. (2012). "Asphalt, water, and the prebiotic synthesis of ribose, ribonucleosides, and RNA." Accounts of Chemical Research 45: 2025-2034. doi:10.1021/ar200332w
4. Tour, J. M. (2016). "Animadversions of a synthetic chemist." Inference: International Review of Science 2(2). inference-review.com (paraphrased, not quoted)
5. Miller, S. L. (1953). "A production of amino acids under possible primitive earth conditions." Science 117: 528-529. doi:10.1126/science.117.3046.528
6. Johnson, A. P., et al. (2008). "The Miller volcanic spark discharge experiment." Science 322: 404. doi:10.1126/science.1161527
7. Cleaves, H. J., Chalmers, J. H., Lazcano, A., Miller, S. L., & Bada, J. L. (2008). "A reassessment of prebiotic organic synthesis in neutral planetary atmospheres." Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres 38: 105-115. doi:10.1007/s11084-007-9120-3
8. Powner, M. W., Gerland, B., & Sutherland, J. D. (2009). "Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions." Nature 459: 239-242. doi:10.1038/nature08013
9. Becker, S., et al. (2019). "Unified prebiotically plausible synthesis of pyrimidine and purine RNA ribonucleotides." Science 366: 76-82. doi:10.1126/science.aax2747
10. Patel, B. H., Percivalle, C., Ritson, D. J., Duffy, C. D., & Sutherland, J. D. (2015). "Common origins of RNA, protein and lipid precursors in a cyanosulfidic protometabolism." Nature Chemistry 7: 301-307. doi:10.1038/nchem.2202
11. Muchowska, K. B., Varma, S. J., & Moran, J. (2019). "Synthesis and breakdown of universal metabolic precursors promoted by iron." Nature 569: 104-107. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1151-1
12. Lane, N., & Martin, W. F. (2012). "The origin of membrane bioenergetics." Cell 151: 1406-1416. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2012.11.050
13. Ozturk, S. F., Liu, Z., Sutherland, J. D., & Sasselov, D. D. (2023). "Origin of biological homochirality by crystallization of an RNA precursor on a magnetic surface." Science Advances 9: eadg8274. doi:10.1126/sciadv.adg8274
14. Lincoln, T. A., & Joyce, G. F. (2009). "Self-sustained replication of an RNA enzyme." Science 323: 1229-1232. doi:10.1126/science.1167856
15. Wochner, A., Attwater, J., Coulson, A., & Holliger, P. (2011). "Ribozyme-catalyzed transcription of an active ribozyme." Science 332: 209-212. doi:10.1126/science.1200752
16. Papastavrou, N., Horning, D. P., & Joyce, G. F. (2024). "RNA-catalyzed evolution of catalytic RNA." PNAS 121: e2321592121. doi:10.1073/pnas.2321592121
17. Attwater, J., et al. (2025). "Trinucleotide substrates under pH-freeze-thaw cycles enable open-ended exponential RNA replication by a polymerase ribozyme." Nature Chemistry 17: 1129-1137. doi:10.1038/s41557-025-01830-y
18. Gianni, E., Kwok, S. L. Y., Wan, C. J. K., Goeij, K., Clifton, B. E., Colizzi, E. S., Attwater, J., & Holliger, P. (2026). "A small polymerase ribozyme that can synthesize itself and its complementary strand." Science 391: 1022-1028. doi:10.1126/science.adt2760; open text PMC7618777
19. Adamala, K., & Szostak, J. W. (2013). "Nonenzymatic template-directed RNA synthesis inside model protocells." Science 342: 1098-1100. doi:10.1126/science.1241888
20. Koonin, E. V., & Novozhilov, A. S. (2009). "Origin and evolution of the genetic code: the universal enigma." IUBMB Life 61: 99-111. doi:10.1002/iub.146
21. Hutchison, C. A., et al. (2016). "Design and synthesis of a minimal bacterial genome." Science 351: aad6253. doi:10.1126/science.aad6253
22. Breuer, M., et al. (2019). "Essential metabolism for a minimal cell." eLife 8: e36842. doi:10.7554/eLife.36842
23. Pelletier, J. F., et al. (2021). "Genetic requirements for cell division in a genomically minimal cell." Cell 184: 2430-2440. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2021.03.008
24. Moody, E. R. R., et al. (2024). "The nature of the last universal common ancestor and its impact on the early Earth system." Nature Ecology & Evolution 8: 1654-1666. doi:10.1038/s41559-024-02461-1
25. Weiss, M. C., et al. (2016). "The physiology and habitat of the last universal common ancestor." Nature Microbiology 1: 16116. doi:10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.116
26. Freeland, S. J., & Hurst, L. D. (1998). "The genetic code is one in a million." Journal of Molecular Evolution 47: 238-248. doi:10.1007/PL00006381
27. Javaux, E. J. (2019). "Challenges in evidencing the earliest traces of life." Nature 572: 451-460. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1436-4
28. Boehnke, P., & Harrison, T. M. (2016). "Illusory Late Heavy Bombardments." PNAS 113: 10802-10806. doi:10.1073/pnas.1611535113
29. Abramov, O., & Mojzsis, S. J. (2009). "Microbial habitability of the Hadean Earth during the late heavy bombardment." Nature 459: 419-422. doi:10.1038/nature08015
30. Allwood, A. C., et al. (2006). "Stromatolite reef from the Early Archaean era of Australia." Nature 441: 714-718. doi:10.1038/nature04764
31. Dodd, M. S., et al. (2017). "Evidence for early life in Earth's oldest hydrothermal vent precipitates." Nature 543: 60-64. doi:10.1038/nature21377
32. Bell, E. A., Boehnke, P., Harrison, T. M., & Mao, W. L. (2015). "Potentially biogenic carbon preserved in a 4.1 billion-year-old zircon." PNAS 112: 14518-14521. doi:10.1073/pnas.1517557112
33. Axe, D. D. (2004). "Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds." Journal of Molecular Biology 341: 1295-1315. doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2004.06.058
34. Tian, P., & Best, R. B. (2017). "How many protein sequences fold to a given structure? A coevolutionary analysis." Biophysical Journal 113: 1719-1730. doi:10.1016/j.bpj.2017.08.039
35. Keefe, A. D., & Szostak, J. W. (2001). "Functional proteins from a random-sequence library." Nature 410: 715-718. doi:10.1038/35070613
36. Neme, R., Amador, C., Yildirim, B., McConnell, E., & Tautz, D. (2017). "Random sequences are an abundant source of bioactive RNAs or peptides." Nature Ecology & Evolution 1: 0217. doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0127
37. Tokuriki, N., & Tawfik, D. S. (2009). "Stability effects of mutations and protein evolvability." Current Opinion in Structural Biology 19: 596-604. doi:10.1016/j.sbi.2009.08.003
38. Lee, M. S. Y., Soubrier, J., & Edgecombe, G. D. (2013). "Rates of phenotypic and genomic evolution during the Cambrian explosion." Current Biology 23: 1889-1895. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.07.055
39. Bobrovskiy, I., et al. (2018). "Ancient steroids establish the Ediacaran fossil Dickinsonia as one of the earliest animals." Science 361: 1246-1249. doi:10.1126/science.aat7228
40. Wood, R., et al. (2019). "Integrated records of environmental change and evolution challenge the Cambrian Explosion." Nature Ecology & Evolution 3: 528-538. doi:10.1038/s41559-019-0821-6
41. dos Reis, M., et al. (2015). "Uncertainty in the timing of origin of animals and the limits of precision in molecular timescales." Current Biology 25: 2939-2950. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2015.09.066
42. Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species, 1st ed., ch. 6 and ch. 9. Project Gutenberg #1228
43. Meyer, S. C. (2009). Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. HarperOne. (The argument as summarized; we do not quote it.)
44. Hazen, R. M., Griffin, P. L., Carothers, J. M., & Szostak, J. W. (2007). "Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity." PNAS 104 (Suppl. 1): 8574-8581. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701744104
45. Carothers, J. M., Oestreich, S. C., Davis, J. H., & Szostak, J. W. (2004). "Informational complexity and functional activity of RNA structures." Journal of the American Chemical Society 126: 5130-5137. doi:10.1021/ja031504a
46. Sober, E. (2007). "What is wrong with intelligent design?" Quarterly Review of Biology 82: 3-8. doi:10.1086/511656
47. Reviews of Signature in the Cell (Fletcher in the TLS, 2009-10; Falk and Ayala at BioLogos), as summarized at Wikipedia: Signature in the Cell (secondary)
48. Lineweaver, C. H., & Davis, T. M. (2002). "Does the rapid appearance of life on Earth suggest that life is common in the universe?" Astrobiology 2: 293-304.
49. Nurk, S., et al. (2022). "The complete sequence of a human genome." Science 376: 44-53. doi:10.1126/science.abj6987
50. Rands, C. M., Meader, S., Ponting, C. P., & Lunter, G. (2014). "8.2% of the human genome is constrained: variation in rates of turnover across functional element classes in the human lineage." PLoS Genetics 10: e1004525. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1004525