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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
8/ Replication + variation = competition.
Systems that were better at surviving and making copies outcompeted others.
Natural selection began long before the first cell existed.
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.
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.
11/ Overview Sources
@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
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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. 👇
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.
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.
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. 🧵
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.
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.