IntegralAnswers Profile picture
Nov 22 12 tweets 4 min read Read on X
1/ How did life begin?

Abiogenesis is the idea that life arose from non-living chemistry on early Earth — step by step, not all at once.

Understanding these steps helps explain why life is the expected outcome of the right conditions. Image
2/ Early Earth Context

Earth 4 billion years ago wasn’t a calm blue world. It was a high-energy chemical laboratory — lightning, volcanoes, intense UV, and oceans full of reactive molecules. The environment constantly pushed chemistry forward. Image
3/ Formation of Simple Organics

When energy hits the right ingredients, simple organic molecules form easily.

We’ve replicated this in labs: spark discharges, UV light, and mineral surfaces all drive the creation of amino acids and basic carbon compounds. Image
4/ Increasing Molecular Complexity

Once simple molecules exist, they start interacting. Wet–dry cycles, mineral surfaces, and heat all promote bonding.

Over countless cycles, chemistry naturally drifts toward more complex, information-rich molecules. Image
5/ Why RNA Matters

Before DNA and proteins, early life likely relied on molecules that could both store information and catalyze reactions. RNA fits that role beautifully — and in modern cells, it still carries out ancient catalytic tasks. Image
6/ The Breakthrough: Replication

Life requires replication, but it doesn’t need perfection at first. Early replicators probably copied themselves poorly, but “good enough” to let variation creep in — and variation is the fuel of natural selection. Image
7/ Chemical Natural Selection

Even before cells existed, chemical systems competed. Some used energy more effectively, persisted longer, or copied with fewer errors. Chemistry doesn’t need intent — natural selection emerges anywhere replication + variation exist. Image
8/ Replication + variation = competition.
Systems that were better at surviving and making copies outcompeted others.

Natural selection began long before the first cell existed. Image
9/ Do scientists have every step solved? No. But we’ve recreated many ingredients in the lab: amino acids, nucleotides, lipid bubbles, simple replicators. Nothing requires magic — just chemistry, energy, and deep time. Image
10/ Abiogenesis doesn’t compete with evolution — it precedes it.

Chemistry → self-replication → selection → cells.

Once the first cell existed, evolution reshaped life endlessly.

Want to explore more? See the reference card below. Image
11/ Overview Sources Image
@LyingWrongAgain let me know how I did in creating a simple overview?

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with IntegralAnswers

IntegralAnswers Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @IntegralAnswers

Nov 20
1/ A document circulating online claims to be a new CDC “revision” about autism and vaccines. This thread reviews those statements and compares them with established evidence from major scientific bodies. Image
2/ Claim: “The statement ‘vaccines do not cause autism’ is not evidence-based.”

Evidence: Large-scale cohort studies repeatedly show no causal association between childhood vaccines and autism.
3/ Examples include studies of 657k+ Danish children, 1.2M children in meta-analysis, and sibling-controlled designs. Across countries and methods, results consistently show no increased autism risk.
Read 29 tweets
Nov 19
Part Three Image
1/ “The largest saline-placebo RCT in medical history.”

The 1954 Salk polio vaccine trial is the clearest evidence that childhood vaccines were tested against true saline placebos — at a scale we still haven’t repeated.

(Francis et al., Am J Public Health 1955; PMC1622829)
2/ 623,972 children were randomized. Half got the polio vaccine. Half got saline placebo. This remains one of the largest RCTs ever performed.
(Francis 1955; PMC1622829)
Read 11 tweets
Nov 19
Part Two Image
1/ Why don’t vaccine trials always use saline placebos? Because once a safe, effective vaccine exists, withholding it is unethical under global medical standards.
(Declaration of Helsinki; DOI:10.1001/jama.2013.281053)
2/ Ethics rule #1: You can only use a placebo if no proven therapy exists. If a child could be harmed by going unprotected, researchers must use a comparator vaccine, not saline.
(WMA Helsinki 2013; DOI:10.1001/jama.2013.281053)
Read 11 tweets
Nov 19
Part One Image
1/ Yes — every childhood vaccine has undergone controlled testing, and many were tested in true saline-placebo RCTs. When comparators were used instead of saline, it was for ethical and scientific reasons, not shortcuts.
(WMA 2013; DOI:10.1001/jama.2013.281053)
2/ Not all placebos are the same. Trials may use:
• Saline placebos (new platforms)
• Active placebos (adjuvant-only)
• Comparator vaccines (when withholding protection is unethical).
(WHO TRS 1004; 2017)
Read 12 tweets
Nov 11
1/ A new viral post claims a “peer-reviewed study” proves COVID-19 vaccine data are biased because deaths in the first 14 days are “counted as unvaccinated.”

Let’s unpack why this is misleading — and how real studies actually work. 👇 Image
2/ The article describes something called “case-counting window bias.”

Sounds technical, but here’s the truth: the 14-day window exists because the immune response hasn’t yet developed — not because scientists are hiding data. Image
3/ Credible studies don’t lump those early days into “unvaccinated.”

They use time-varying exposure models — updating a person’s vaccination status daily.

Deaths in that window are analyzed separately, not hidden. Image
Read 11 tweets
Nov 9
1/ RFK Jr.’s favorite line:
“Show me the placebo-controlled RCT of vaccinated vs unvaccinated children!”

Sure, right after we do a trial where we withhold lifesaving interventions from kids for years.

Let’s unpack why this idea is dead on arrival. 🧵 Image
2/ Randomization

An RCT means randomly assigning children to “vaccine” or “no vaccine.”
Translation: half the kids would be deliberately left unprotected against diseases that can kill or disable them.

That’s not science — that’s a crime against research ethics. Image
3/ Consent Conversation

Picture this conversation:
“Ma’am, your baby may or may not get the vaccine that prevents meningitis or measles — we’ll flip a coin.”

That’s not informed consent. That’s cruelty disguised as curiosity. Image
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(