What was the first living thing on earth?

Darwin confessed openly that he couldn’t understand why no signs of living organisms could be discovered in the fossil record older than around half a billion years. Then scientists discovered evidence of life that was 3 billion years old. However, the living has already divided from the non-living, and no concrete remnants of this occurrence seem to remain.

That is why the origin of life conundrum, which cannot be explored using fossil materials, is the focus of theoretical and experimental inquiry and is less of a biological issue and more of a geological one. The beginnings of life are, without a doubt, on another planet. The idea isn’t that the earliest biological organisms arrived on Earth from outer space (although such hypotheses are being discussed). It’s only that the early Earth was nothing like what we have now.

The eminent French biologist Georges Cuvier compared a living creature like a tornado, which is a wonderful metaphor for grasping the core of life. Tornadoes have several qualities that make them resemble biological organisms. It keeps its form, moves, grows, absorbs something, and excretes something, which is similar to a metabolism. A tornado has the ability to bifurcate, or multiply, and then modify the surroundings.

However, he only lives as long as the wind blows. The energy flow will cease, and the tornado will lose both its shape and movement. As a result, the hunt for the flow of energy that was able to “start” the biological life process and give the initial metabolic systems dynamic stability, much as the wind supports the creation of a tornado, is a fundamental problem in the study of biogenesis.

“Smokers” who give life

Hot springs at the bottom of the seas, where the water temperature may approach a hundred degrees, are considered the birthplace of life by one set of presently extant theories. Similar sources, known as “black smokers,” may still be found in the rift zones of the ocean bottom. Minerals dissolved to an ionic state in the bowels are carried out by superheated water above the boiling point, where they commonly settle in the form of ore. At first look, this environment seems to be hostile to life, yet bacteria, known as hyperthermophiles, can survive in water that has been chilled to 120 degrees Fahrenheit.

Sulfides of iron and nickel brought to the surface produce a pyrite and greigite precipitate at the bottom, resulting in porous slag-like rock. Some scientists, such as Michael Russell, believe that the cradle of life was formed by micropores (bubbles) soaked rocks. In tiny vesicles, both ribonucleic acids and peptides might develop. As a result, the bubbles became the first cataclavas, where the early metabolic chains were separated and turned into a cell.

Life is made out of energy

So, where is the best spot for it to emerge on this early Earth, which was not well suited for life? Before attempting to address this question, it’s important mentioning that most scientists working on biogenesis issues start with the origin of “life bricks,” or “building blocks,” which are the organic compounds that make up a live cell. Proteins, lipids, DNA, RNA, and carbohydrates are all examples. However, if you place all of these compounds in a vase, nothing will naturally accumulate from them. This isn’t a game. Any organism is a dynamic system that is constantly in contact with its surroundings.

No one can rebuild a live entity from these components, even if you crush down a current living being to molecules. Modern theories of the start of life, on the other hand, are primarily led by the abiogenic synthesis of macromolecules – the progenitors of bioorganic chemicals – and do not provide methods for producing energy to launch and maintain metabolic activities.

The concept of life’s birth in hot springs is intriguing not only for its version of the cell’s formation, its physical isolation but also for the chance to discover the energy foundation of life, to focus study on processes that are defined in terms of physics rather than chemistry.

Potential differences emerged because oceanic water is more acidic, whereas hydrothermal fluids and sediment pore space are more alkaline, vitally necessary for life. After all, all of our cellular processes are electrochemical. They’re linked to electron transport and ion (proton) gradients, both of which result in energy transfer. The bubbles’ semi-permeable walls served as a membrane to sustain the electrochemical gradient.


The disparity in media between below the bottom (where rocks dissolve in super-hot water) and above the bottom (where the water cools) causes a potential difference, resulting in active ion and electron movement. A geochemical battery has even been coined to describe this occurrence.

There is another feature that permits us to regard ocean fluids as the most probable venue for the start of life. In addition to a favorable environment for the production of organic molecules and the existence of energy flow, metals are what they are.

As previously stated, hot springs are found in rift zones, where the ground moves apart and hot lava approaches. Seawater seeps through the gaps, causing incandescent steam to emerge. Basalts dissolve like granulated sugar under extreme pressure and heat, releasing massive amounts of manganese, iron, nickel, copper, zinc, and tungsten. Because of their great catalytic characteristics, all of these metals (and a few others) play a huge role in living organisms.

Enzymes are responsible for the processes that take place in our living cells. These are quite big protein molecules that boost the pace of reaction by many orders of magnitude when compared to equivalent processes outside the cell.

What’s more, for hundreds upon thousands of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and sulfur atoms in the enzyme molecule’s makeup, there are occasionally just 1-2 metal atoms. However, if this pair of atoms is removed, the protein loses its ability to act as a catalyst. That is, in the “protein-metal” duo, the latter emerges as the dominant factor. So why do we need such a huge protein molecule? It manipulates the metal atom on the one hand, “leaning” it toward the reaction site on the other. On the other side, it safeguards it, preventing it from being connected to other components. And this is significant.

Many of the metals that were plentiful on the early Earth, when there was no oxygen, are currently accessible in places where there is no oxygen. Tungsten, for example, is abundant in volcanic springs. However, as soon as this metal reaches the surface and comes into contact with oxygen, it oxidizes and sinks. Iron and other metals behave similarly. The big protein molecule’s task is, therefore, to keep the metal active.

All of this shows that metals have played a crucial role in the evolution of life. The advent of proteins contributed to the maintenance of the primary environment in which metals or their simple compounds preserved their catalytic characteristics, allowing them to be used in biocatalysis.

Intolerable ambiance

The smelting of pig iron in an open-hearth furnace may be compared to the genesis of our planet. Coke, ore, and fluxes all melt in the furnace, and the heavy liquid metal eventually flows down, leaving a solidified froth of slag at the top.

There are also gases and water discharged. The Earth’s metal core was produced in the same manner, “streaming” to the planet’s center. A process known as degassing of the mantle started as a consequence of this “melting.” Active volcanism characterized the Earth 4 billion years ago when life is thought to have begun, in a way that cannot be paralleled to the present.

The radiation flow from the bowels was ten times stronger than it is now. The thin Earth’s crust was continually recycled as a consequence of tectonic processes and heavy meteorite bombardment. Obviously, the Moon, which is in a much closer orbit and uses its gravitational field to massage and heat our planet, also had a role.

The most astounding discovery is that the intensity of the sun’s brightness was around 30% lower in those remote periods. The Earth would be instantaneously covered in ice if the sun started to shine at least 10% weaker in our period. But our planet had a lot more heat back before, and nothing even close to glaciers could be found on its surface.

However, there was a thick atmosphere that kept the space warm. It had a reducing composition, meaning it included almost little unbound oxygen, but it also contained a considerable quantity of hydrogen, as well as greenhouse gases such as water vapor, methane, and carbon dioxide.

Under other words, the earliest life on Earth arose in circumstances where only rudimentary bacteria could live, as opposed to the species that exist today. Water was initially discovered in strata dating back 3.5 billion years, however, it seems to have arrived on Earth in liquid form a bit earlier. The rounded zircons they gained, most likely when in aquatic bodies, indirectly indicate this. When the Earth started to cool, water was generated from water vapor that saturates the atmosphere. Small comets, which battered the Earth’s surface often, also carried water (presumably in a volume of up to 1.5 times the volume of the modern world ocean).

Hydrogen as a medium of exchange

Hydrogenases are the earliest enzymes since they catalyze the most basic chemical reaction: the reversible reduction of hydrogen from protons and electrons. Iron and nickel, which were abundant on the early Earth, are the activators of this process. There was also a lot of hydrogen, which was released during the mantle’s degassing.

Hydrogenases are the earliest enzymes
Hydrogenases are the earliest enzymes

The earliest metabolic systems seem to have used hydrogen as their primary source of energy. Indeed, even in our day and age, bacteria perform the vast majority of their interactions utilizing hydrogen. Hydrogen is the principal source of electrons and protons for microbes, and it serves as a type of energy currency for them.

Life started without the presence of oxygen. To reduce the action of this strong oxidant, the move to oxygen-breathing necessitated drastic alterations in the cell’s metabolic processes. Adaptation to oxygen happened predominantly during photosynthetic evolution. Prior to this, biological energy was based on hydrogen and its simple molecules, such as hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ammonia. However, this is unlikely to be the sole molecular difference between contemporary life and childhood.


Perhaps the first forms of life did not have the same chemical make-up as modern life, with nitrogen, oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus, as the most common fundamental components. The argument is that lighter components that are simpler to “play” with are preferred in life. However, these light elements have a short ionic radius and create excessively strong interactions. And this isn’t required for survival. It must be able to quickly separate these composites. We now have several enzymes for this, but they did not exist at the beginning of life.

Some of these six essential constituents of living things (macronutrients O, C, H, N, S, P) had heavier but also more “convenient” antecedents, we indicated a few years ago. Instead of sulfur, selenium, a macronutrient that rapidly mixes and dissociates, was most likely used. For the same reason, arsenic may have replaced phosphorus. Our case is strengthened by the recent finding of bacteria that utilize arsenic instead of phosphorus in their DNA and RNA.

Furthermore, all of this applies to metals as well as non-metals. Tungsten, along with iron and nickel, played an important part in the evolution of life. As a result, the origins of life should presumably be placed at the bottom of the periodic table.

We should pay particular attention to bacteria thriving in odd conditions, potentially somewhat approximating the Earth in ancient times, to validate or deny claims concerning the primordial composition of biological molecules. For example, Japanese researchers recently discovered uranium crystals in the mucous membranes of one of the bacteria that reside in hot springs.

Why do bacteria build up so much of them? Is it possible that uranium has a metabolic value for them? The ionizing impact of radiation, for example, is employed. Magnetobacteria, which live in aerobic circumstances in relatively cold water and collect iron in the form of magnetite crystals encased in a protein membrane, is another well-known example. They construct this chain when there is a lot of iron in the environment; when there isn’t enough iron, they squander it, and the “handbags” become empty. This is comparable to how vertebrates store fat as a source of energy.

Bacteria grow and thrive to depths of 2-3 km in deep sediments, despite the lack of oxygen and sunshine. Such organisms may be discovered in South African uranium mines, for example. They eat hydrogen, which is plentiful because the radiation intensity is so high that water splits into oxygen and hydrogen.

On the surface of the Earth, no genetic equivalents have been discovered in these creatures. What was the source of these bacteria? What happened to their forefathers and mothers? The hunt for answers to these questions becomes a genuine voyage through time for us, taking us back to the beginnings of life on Earth.

Show More

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button


Your browser could not load this page, use Chrome browser or disable AdBlock