Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 122 references

When did Life Likely Emerge on Earth in an RNA-First Process?

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A single moon-sized impactor may have set the most probable date for RNA-based life at 4.36 ± 0.1 billion years ago.

desk verdict A well-cited review with a catchy date that is an assumption, not a derivation; the Moneta scenario is worth discussing, the 4.36 Ga number is not. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11327 v1 pith:AW3MNRQL submitted 2019-08-29 astro-ph.EP physics.bio-phphysics.chem-phphysics.geo-ph

Steven A. Benner , Elizabeth A. Bell , Elisa Biondi , Ramon Brasser , Thomas Carell , Hyo-Joong Kim , Stephen J. Mojzsis , Arthur Omran
show 2 more authors
Matthew A. Pasek Dustin Trail
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPphysics.bio-phphysics.chem-phphysics.geo-ph
keywords RNAworldoriginoflifeHadeanlateveneergiantimpactreducingatmosphereprebioticchemistrygeochemistry
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that if life began with RNA, the most probable time for RNA to have formed on Earth is 4.36 ± 0.1 billion years ago. The argument starts from a paradox: the Hadean mantle, at a redox state near modern Earth's, would have outgassed an atmosphere too oxidized to make the reduced nitrogen compounds (hydrogen cyanide, cyanoacetylene, and relatives) that every RNA-building path requires. The paper's resolution is a single ~$10^{23}$ kg impactor, named Moneta, whose molten iron core reduced the atmosphere for a few hundred million years while leaving the mantle oxidized. Combining the decay of that reducing atmosphere with the gradual emergence of cool, dry land yields a peak probability for RNA formation roughly 120 million years after the impact. If right, the result ties the origin of life to a specific, datable geological event and predicts that RNA-based Darwinian evolution began about 250 million years before the oldest disputed biogenic carbon.

What carries the argument

The Moneta impactor — a ~$10^{23}$ kg body with its own iron core, large enough to deliver the observed siderophile (iron-loving) 'late veneer' in one impact but too small to re-form Earth's core — is the central device. Its core shatters on oblique impact, raining molten iron that reduces water to H2 (up to ~90 bar) and CO2/N2 to CO, CH4, and NH3, converting the atmosphere into a factory for reduced RNA precursors. The complementary machinery is the 'window of opportunity': a decaying exponential of atmosphere productivity (40 Myr half-life) multiplied by an increasing function of sub-aerial land, whose maximum is taken at three half-lives, ~120 Myr after t0 = 4.48 Ga.

What would settle it

Compute, from first principles, the time-dependent H2 mixing ratio after a Moneta-sized impact; if the interval during which the atmosphere yields more than about one percent HCN production is not roughly 40–200 million years, the 4.36 ± 0.1 Ga peak shifts beyond its error bar.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a chronology: assuming an RNA-first origin and a single Moneta-sized impactor that delivered the late veneer and was the last globally sterilizing event, the most probable date for RNA formation is 4.36 ± 0.1 Ga, or ~120 ± 100 Myr after the impact. The date emerges from the intersection of two competing time-dependent factors: the productivity of the impact-generated reducing atmosphere, which decays as H2 escapes with a modeled 40 Myr half-life, and the availability of sub-aerial land cool enough and dry enough to accumulate and concentrate the precipitating precursors. The authors stress that the inference is non-analytic, but argue that the error bar cannot be much larger because atmosphere restoration times are physically bounded.

Load-bearing premise

The 4.36 Ga date depends on the modeling choice that the atmosphere's productive window peaks after three 40-million-year half-lives; if the real decay is faster or slower, or the peak occurs at a different fraction, the most probable date moves by hundreds of millions of years.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • RNA-based life, if it began this way, emerged ~4.36 Ga, about 250 million years before the 4.1 Ga zircon with isotopically light carbon; a biosphere would have had that much time to become detectable.
  • The productive atmosphere would have continued to rain reduced organics for roughly 200 million years, supplying 'food from the sky' while RNA-based Darwinian evolution got started.
  • Any impactor after Moneta that was globally sterilizing would shift the origin to a later, shorter window; the paper estimates only ~1 ± 1 such Vesta-sized events occurred, so the Moneta window is the best integrated probability.
  • If the model is right, the probability of life on exoplanets is lowered whenever origin requires contingent events like this impact.
  • The date and its ~±0.1 Ga uncertainty are set by H2 escape physics, not by the uncertainty in the impact date itself, which is larger.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct consequence the authors do not spell out: if RNA life began at ~4.36 Ga, a habitable exoplanet whose mantle is oxidized and whose late veneer arrives as many small bodies instead of one Moneta may lack a sufficient window for an RNA world — a selection effect testable with future exoplanet atmosphere surveys.
  • The 'three half-lives' peak is a convention, not a measurement; the paper's own ±0.1 Ga absorbs one-half-life shifts, but a non-exponential decay of atmospheric productivity would move the peak more, so the 4.36 Ga figure is best treated as a scenario-dependent estimate rather than a precise astrobiological clock.
  • A testable follow-up: search for Hadean zircons or detrital minerals formed between 4.36 and 4.2 Ga that record atmospheric or surface redox; a return to oxidizing conditions by ~4.2 Ga would support the window's closure, while evidence of a sustained reducing surface would weaken the need for Moneta.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that, under an RNA-first origin-of-life scenario, most prebiotic synthetic routes require a reducing atmosphere, whereas the Hadean mantle redox state inferred from zircons (FMQ −0.5 ± 2.3) and the resulting oxidatively neutral CO2–N2–H2O atmosphere cannot supply the reduced nitrogen compounds (HCN, HCCCN, H2NCN, etc.) needed for RNA building blocks. To resolve this, the authors invoke a single ~10^23 kg impactor (Moneta) that is independently proposed to explain the late veneer's siderophile budget; its metallic core would have reduced the atmosphere and opened a 'window of opportunity' for RNA precursor synthesis on subaerial land. Combining an assumed 40 Myr half-life exponential decay of atmospheric productivity with a peak placed, 'arbitrarily', at three half-lives after impact, and taking t0 = 4.48 Ga from the authors' own chronology (Mojzsis et al. 2019), they conclude that RNA formation was most probable at about 4.36 ± 0.1 Ga. The paper acknowledges that the inference is non-analytic and includes a section discussing ways it might be wrong.

Significance. The paper provides a useful synthesis of the chemical requirements of RNA-first path hypotheses, the redox state of the Hadean mantle and atmosphere, and impact-delivery models for the late veneer. If the specific date were robust, it would be a remarkable and memorable claim that connects the origin of life to a single impact event. The authors are also commendably explicit about the non-analytic nature of the estimate and about the main uncertainty (subaerial land); the 'Ways in which these time/date inferences might be wrong' section is a model of fair caveat reporting. However, the headline number is not actually derived: the peak time is imposed via the arbitrary 'three half-lives' assumption, the ±0.1 Ga error bar is not propagated from the stated sources, and the land-growth uncertainty—named as the largest—is shown in the paper's own Fig. 7 to be capable of eliminating or shifting the peak outside the quoted range. The quantitative date therefore functions as an illustration of the scenario rather than as a result supported by the model as presented.

major comments (4)
  1. [Balancing factors for a view of the most probable time for RNA formation after Moneta's impact; Fig. 8] The maximum probability is imposed, not derived: the text states that atmosphere productivity is 'modeled with a half-life of 40 Myr' and that 'after (arbitrarily) three half-lives' the window closes, so the 120 Myr peak time is an assumption. No equation defines P_RNA(t); the advertised date is therefore 4.48 Ga minus 120 Myr = 4.36 Ga by construction. A peak at two or five half-lives would shift the headline date to roughly 4.40 Ga or 4.28 Ga, well outside the quoted ±0.1 Ga. This should be fixed either by replacing the arbitrary peak with a concrete model (for example, a product of a decreasing precursor flux and an increasing land or temperature function) or by removing the quantitative date from the abstract and summary.
  2. [The absolute date for the most likely formation of RNA under this impact scenario; Fig. 8 caption] The ±0.1 Ga uncertainty is not propagated. The abstract states that uncertainties are driven by rates of productive atmosphere loss and amounts of sub-aerial land, but the paper performs no error propagation from either source; the Fig. 8 caption asserts that 'the variance on the window of opportunity is surprisingly small (± 100 Myr)' with no calculation. Given that t0 itself is constrained only as 'no earlier than 4.48 Ga, no later than 4.45 Ga' in the section on the absolute date, the final ±0.1 Ga appears inconsistent with a ~30 Myr uncertainty in t0 combined with additional uncertainties in cooling time and land availability. The authors should either provide a quantitative uncertainty estimate or remove the error bar from the headline claim.
  3. [Subaerial land that is intermittently dry is required; Fig. 7] The manuscript names sub-aerial land as the largest uncertainty, yet Fig. 7 shows several published continental-growth models that 'preclude any land-based RNA formation prior to 3.8 Ga' (blue curves), which cannot yield a 4.36 Ga peak on land, and yellow/green curves that 'drive that date towards the end of the window of atmospheric productivity.' Thus the stated peak at 4.36 Ga is conditional on a specific, unnamed land-growth model. The claim in the Fig. 8 caption that different land assumptions move the date 'only modestly' is not supported by the figures or by a quantitative sensitivity analysis anywhere in the text.
  4. [The absolute date for the most likely formation of RNA under this impact scenario; Summary and Outlook] The input t0 = 4.48 Ga is taken from Mojzsis et al. (2019), a paper with overlapping authorship (co-authors Brasser and Mojzsis), and the output date of 4.36 Ga is essentially t0 plus 120 Myr. The paper should either demonstrate t0 from independent observations (the ~4.45 Ga upper bound from the absence of reset ages is mentioned and could serve this purpose) or explicitly flag that the absolute date inherits all of the uncertainty and any potential bias in that particular chronology. As written, the dependence of the headline result on the authors' own prior model is understated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 8 caption] The caption twice refers to 'Moneta 1025 kg impact' (i.e., 10^25 kg), which is inconsistent with the ~10^23 kg mass used throughout the text and with Table 4 (7.4 × 10^22 kg). Please correct the exponent.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] There is a typo: 'carbohydrate synthesiss' should be 'synthesis'.
  3. [Fig. 8 caption / Balancing factors] The phrase 'the variance on the window of opportunity is surprisingly small' is ungrammatical; consider 'the uncertainty in the window of opportunity is surprisingly small'.
  4. [Table 1] Minor formatting issue: in the NCCN row, 'purine precursors' needs a comma, and 'precursor for cyanate' reads awkwardly; consider 'precursor to cyanate'.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The headline date 4.36 ± 0.1 Ga is the assumed three-half-life peak restated arithmetically; the paper's own text labels the peak and its error bar as arbitrary/non-analytic.

  1. self definitional [Summary and Outlook (p.16); Fig. 8 caption and 'Balancing factors' (pp.10-13)]
    "The cartoon in Fig. 8 models this as a single exponential with a 40 Myr half-life. After (arbitrarily) three half-lives, the atmosphere would have returned to a redox state unproductive... Assuming a maximum at three half-lives (each 40 Myr) for the subsequent decline in productivity of the atmosphere, this suggests that the most probable date for RNA to have been formed is ca. 4.36 ± 0.1 Ga."

    The maximum probability time is not computed from any stated P_RNA(t) or optimization; it is imposed by the phrase 'after (arbitrarily) three half-lives'. Since 3 × 40 Myr = 120 Myr and t0 = 4.48 Ga, the claimed peak is 4.48 Ga − 0.12 Ga = 4.36 Ga by arithmetic. The headline 'prediction' is therefore the input peak-time assumption restated, not a derived result.

  2. other ['Balancing factors for a view of the most probable time for RNA formation after Moneta's impact' (p.12-13); Fig. 8 caption]
    "Here, a maximum likelihood for RNA formation is estimated non-analytically to occur at about 120 ± 100 million years after the Moneta impact (t0), under a model where the half-life for atmosphere productivity decay is 40 Myr."

    The ±100 Myr range is not obtained by propagating uncertainties in the 40 Myr half-life, land-growth curves, or solar/outgassing rates; the text later concedes the error bar 'is not analytic'. Because the peak is fixed at exactly three half-lives, the quoted uncertainty is an attached assumption rather than a computed confidence interval. Figure 7 itself shows land models that move the peak by more than 100 Myr or preclude land-based RNA before 3.8 Ga, so the 'surprisingly small' variance is not derived from the stated model.

full rationale

The qualitative Moneta scenario is a review-level synthesis of external geochemistry (siderophile veneer ratios, Hadean zircon redox proxies) and prebiotic chemistry, and that part is not circular. The central quantitative claim, however, is: t0 = 4.48 Ga, a 40 Myr exponential decay, and a peak assumed 'after (arbitrarily) three half-lives'. The paper itself calls the model a 'cartoon' and the inference 'non-analytic', and the Summary makes the arithmetic explicit: 3 × 40 Myr after 4.48 Ga gives 4.36 Ga. No equation defines the time-dependent probability of RNA formation, and no calculation produces the ±0.1 Ga error bar; both are asserted. The largest stated uncertainty, subaerial land, is shown in Fig. 7 to be capable of moving the peak later (blue curves preclude land-based RNA before 3.8 Ga), so the headline date is not a robust output of the model. The t0 = 4.48 Ga input is partly from the authors' own Mojzsis et al. (2019) chronology, but it has independent geochronological support in the paper (e.g., Pb-Pb ages of 4480 Ma), so I do not count that self-citation as the main circularity. Because the paper's flagship number reduces by construction to an arbitrary peak-time assumption, the score is 7 rather than lower; the broader scenario retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central scenario rests on a chain of external models, several from the authors themselves: a Moon-sized Moneta impactor, an FMQ mantle, an oxidatively neutral background atmosphere, and a 40 Myr exponential recovery. The paper's own contribution is the temporal synthesis, but the date is not derived from first principles; it is set by the chosen half-life and peak time.

free parameters (4)
  • Atmospheric productivity decay half-life = 40 Myr
    Used as a simple exponential for H2 loss and precursor productivity decay; taken from Genda et al. (2017), but the central date scales linearly with it.
  • Peak time in half-lives = 3 half-lives (120 Myr)
    The paper states 'after (arbitrarily) three half-lives' in the Fig. 8 caption, so the central 120 Myr delay is an input, not a derived output.
  • Moneta impact date t0 = 4.48 Ga
    Assumed from Mojzsis et al. (2019) and reset ages; the absolute date of the RNA window is t0 minus the 120 Myr peak delay.
  • Uncertainty in peak time = ±100 Myr
    Stated as non-analytic; no propagation from underlying uncertainties is presented.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption RNA was the first biopolymer to support Darwinian evolution (RNA-First hypothesis).
    The whole date estimate applies only under RNA-First; the paper acknowledges alternative metabolism-first and grandfather's-axe scenarios but does not model them.
  • domain assumption All considered prebiotic path-hypotheses require substantial reduced primary precursors (HCN, HCCCN, H2NCN, etc.) produced in the atmosphere.
    Stated in the redox sections and Table 1; if alternative atmospheric or extraterrestrial sources supplied these precursors, the Moneta window is unnecessary.
  • domain assumption Hadean mantle redox was near FMQ -0.5 ± 2.3 and outgassed an oxidatively neutral CO2-N2-H2O atmosphere.
    Uses Trail et al. (2011) zircon Ce data and accretion models; if the mantle were more reducing, no impact-triggered window is needed.
  • domain assumption A single ~10^23 kg Moneta impactor delivered most of the late veneer and was the last sterilizing impact.
    Central premise from Brasser and Mojzsis models; alternatives such as many small impactors, lunar core sequestration, and iron escape are discussed but not adopted.
  • domain assumption Molten iron from Moneta's core reduced the atmosphere to an H2-rich state, yielding up to 90 bars of H2 and productive RNA precursor synthesis.
    From Genda et al. (2017) and Parkos et al. (2018), cited in the impact section; quantitative yields are not derived in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Probability of RNA formation is an increasing function of precursor concentration and subaerial land area, with a peak that can be modeled by an exponential decay.
    The non-analytic product of rising land and falling productivity in Fig. 8 is assumed, not derived; the peak at three half-lives is arbitrary.
invented entities (2)
  • Moneta impactor
    purpose: A hypothesized Moon-sized (~10^23 kg) body that delivered the late veneer of siderophiles and, through its iron core, reduced the Hadean atmosphere to create the RNA precursor window.
    No direct detection; inferred from siderophile veneer ratios and reset ages cited from the authors' prior work. The paper does not make a new falsifiable prediction that could independently confirm Moneta.
  • Window of opportunity for RNA formation
    purpose: A time interval after Moneta when the atmosphere was reducing enough to produce RNA precursors and the surface was cool and dry enough to accumulate them.
    A conceptual scenario, not a measurable entity; its boundaries and peak are set by model assumptions rather than by observations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of When did Life Likely Emerge on Earth in an RNA-First Process?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AW3MNRQL

@misc{pith2026190811327,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: When did Life Likely Emerge on Earth in an RNA-First Process?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AW3MNRQL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11327}
}
read the original abstract

The widespread presence of ribonucleic acid (RNA) catalysts and cofactors in Earth's biosphere today suggests that RNA was the first biopolymer to support Darwinian evolution. However, most "path-hypotheses" to generate building blocks for RNA require reduced nitrogen-containing compounds not made in useful amounts in the CO2-N2-H2O atmospheres of the Hadean. We review models for Earth's impact history that invoke a single ~10^23 kg impactor (Moneta) to account for measured amounts of platinum, gold, and other siderophilic ("iron-loving") elements on the Earth and Moon. If it were the last sterilizing impactor, Moneta would have reduced the atmosphere but not its mantle, opening a "window of opportunity" for RNA synthesis, a period when RNA precursors rained from the atmosphere to land holding oxidized minerals that stabilize advanced RNA precursors and RNA. Surprisingly, this combination of physics, geology, and chemistry suggests a time when RNA formation was most probable, ~120 +/- 100 million years after Moneta's impact, or ~4.36 +/- 0.1 billion years ago. Uncertainties in this time are driven by uncertainties in rates of productive atmosphere loss and amounts of sub-aerial land.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11327 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic for a path-hypothesis that yields RNA nucleotides by direct joining of preformed canonical nucleobases to preformed ribose derivatives via a glycosidic bond (magenta).[11] The stereochemistry of various chiral molecules is arbitrary. This path-hypothesis invokes reservoirs of carbohydrates (red) arising from formaldehyde (HCHO) and traces of glycolaldehyde (HOCH2-CHO) stabilized by SO2 (yellow)[9] emerging… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematics for two representative path-hypotheses forming RNA nucleos(t)ides, but where the bond destined to become the glycosidic bond (magenta) is formed before all of the atoms in the nucleobases are assembled. Adapted from Powner et al. (2009)[4a] and Becker et al. (2016).[4d] Stereochemistry is again entirely arbitrary. Carbohydrate precursors at the oxidation state of HCHO are in red. As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:f… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic showing a path-hypothesis for the formation of advanced building blocks for RNA (here, cytosine and uracil) that involve both oxidized (magenta, note the N-O bond) and reduced (blue) nitrogen species. Other path-hypotheses, not shown, invoke reduced-oxidized mixtures, for example, to support the nitrosation of malonitrile (not shown here).[19] For models for the formation/destruction of various oxidized sp… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The "cyanosulfidic hypothesis" exploits the ability of ferrous iron to sequester cyanide, sulfite from volcanic SO2 to serve as a reductant, and high energy photons, to allow sequential homologation of short linear carbohydrates to longer carbohydrates in a prebiotic a…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Various models for the growth of continental crust, from Korenaga (2018), with permission.[98] While models differ widely, all have the amount of crust increasing over time. The spectrally red models all provide abundant crust at relevant times in the Hadean, and do no…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

122 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    a) H. B. White, J. Mol. Evol. 1976, 7, 101-104; b) C. M. Visser, R. M. Kellogg, J. Mol. Evol. 1978, 11, 163-168; c) C. M. Visser, R. M. Kellogg, J. Mol. Evol. 1978, 11, 171-187; d) W. Gilbert, Nature 1986, 319, 618- 618; e) S. A. Benner, A. D. Ellington, A. Tauer, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1989, 86, 7054-7058

    1976

  2. [2]

    Neveu, H

    M. Neveu, H. J. Kim, S. A. Benner, Astrobiology 2013, 13, 391-403

    2013

  3. [3]

    Briones, M

    C. Briones, M. Stich, S. C. Manrubia, RNA 2009, 15, 743-749

    2009

  4. [4]

    a) M. W. Powner, B. Gerland, J. D. Sutherland, Nature 2009, 459, 239- 242; b) H. J. Kim, A. Ricardo, H. I. Illangkoon, M. J. Kim, M. A. Carrigan, F. Frye, S. A. Benner, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 9457-9468; c) S. A. Benner, H. J. Kim, M. A. Carrigan, Acc. Chem. Res. 2012, 45, 2025- 2034; d) S. Becker, I. Thoma, A. Deutsch, T. Gehrke, P. Mayer, H. Zipse,...

    2009

  5. [5]

    Kitadai, S

    N. Kitadai, S. Maruyama, Geosci. Front. 2018, 9, 1117-1153

    2018

  6. [6]

    a) N. V. Hud, B. J. Cafferty, R. Krishnamurthy, L. D. Williams, Chem. Biol. 2013, 20, 466-474; b) K. A. Lanier, A. S. Petrov, L. D. Williams, J. Mol. Evol. 2017, 85, 8-13; c) C. M. Runnels, K. A. Lanier, J. K. Williams, J. C. Bowman, A. S. Petrov, N. V. Hud, L. D. Williams, J. Mol. Evol. 2018, 86, 598-610; d) D. M. Fialho, K. C. Clarke, M . K. Moore, G. B...

    2013

  7. [7]

    Menor-Salvan, D

    C. Menor-Salvan, D. M. Ruiz-Bermejo, M. I. Guzman, S. Osuna-Esteban, S. Veintemillas-Verdaguer, Chemistry 2009, 15, 4411-4418

    2009

  8. [8]

    Pross, Orig

    A. Pross, Orig. Life Evol. Biosph. 2004, 34, 307-321

    2004

Show all 122 references
  1. [9]

    Kawai, D

    J. Kawai, D. C. McLendon, H. J. Kim, S. A. Benner, Astrobiology 2019, 19, 506-516

    2019

  2. [10]

    Krishnamurthy, S

    R. Krishnamurthy, S. Guntha, A. Eschenmoser, Angew . Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 2000, 39, 2281-2285

    2000

  3. [11]

    a) H. J. Kim, S. A. Benner , Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2017, 114, 11315-11320; b) H. J. Kim, J. Kim, Astrobiology 2019, 19, 669-674

    2017

  4. [12]

    N. G. Holm, M. Dumont, M. Ivarsson, C. Konn, Geochem . Trans. 2006, 7, 7

    2006

  5. [13]

    a) J. A. da Silva, N. G. Holm, J. Colloid. Interface Sci. 2014, 431, 250- 254; b) Y. Furukawa, H. J. Kim, D. Hutter, S. A. Benner, Astrobiology 2015, 15, 259-267; c) H. J. Kim, Y. Furukawa, T. Kakegawa, A. Bita, R. Scorei, S. A. Benner, Angew . Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 2016, 55, 1...

    2014

  6. [14]

    a) C. Reid, L. E. Orgel, Nature 1967, 216, 455; b) I. Parsons, M. R. Lee, J. V. Smith, Proc . Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1998, 95, 15173-15176; c) J. V. Smith, F. P. Arnold, Jr., I. Parsons, M. R. Lee, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1999, 96, 3479 -3485; d) F. Westall, K. Hickman ...

    1967

  7. [15]

    J. L. Bada, J. Korenaga, Life (Basel) 2018, 8

    2018

  8. [16]

    L. E. Orgel, Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2004, 39, 99-123

    2004

  9. [17]

    Trail, E

    D. Trail, E. B. Watson, N. D. Tailby, Nature 2011, 480, 79-82

    2011

  10. [18]

    D. J. Ritson, C. Battilocchio, S. V. Ley, J. D. Sutherland, Nat . Commun. 2018, 9, 1821

    2018

  11. [19]

    Okamura, S

    H. Okamura, S. Becker, N. Tiede, S. Wiedemann, J. Feldmann, T. Carell, Chem. Commun. (Camb.) 2019, 55, 1939-1942

    2019

  12. [20]

    Ranjan, Z

    S. Ranjan, Z. R. Todd, P. B. Rimmer, D. D. Sasselov, A. R. Babbin, Geochem. Geophy. Geosy. 2019, 20, 2021-2039

    2019

  13. [21]

    A. D. Keefe, S. L. M iller, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 1996, 26, 111-129

    1996

  14. [22]

    J. Xu, D. J. Ritson, S. Ranjan, Z. R. Todd, D. D. Sasselov, J. D. Sutherland, Chem. Commun. (Camb.) 2018, 54, 5566-5569

    2018

  15. [23]

    Lohrmann, L

    a) R. Lohrmann, L. E. Orgel, Science 1971, 171, 490 -494; b) M. J. Bishop, R. Lohrmann, L. E. Orgel, Nature 1972, 237, 162-164; c) S. A. Benner, Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 5173

    1971

  16. [24]

    Slebocka-Tilk, F

    H. Slebocka-Tilk, F. Sauriol, M. Monette, R. S. Brown, Can. J. Chem. 2002, 80, 1343-1350. REVIEW 17

    2002

  17. [25]

    J. D. Bernal, The Physical Bas is of Life , Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1951

    1951

  18. [26]

    J. P. Ferris, A. R. Hill, Jr., R. Liu, L. E. Orgel, Nature 1996, 381, 59-61

    1996

  19. [27]

    H. G. Hansma, Orig. Life Evol. Biosph. 2014, 44, 307-311

    2014

  20. [28]

    Oro, Biochem

    a) J. Oro, Biochem . Bioph. Res. Co. 1960, 2, 407-412; b) J. Oro, A. P. Kimball, Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 1961, 94, 217-227

    1960

  21. [29]

    Steinman, R

    G. Steinman, R. M. Lemmon, M. Calvin, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1964, 52, 27-30

    1964

  22. [30]

    a) R. A. Sanchez, J. P. Ferris, L. E. Orgel, Science 1966, 154, 784-785; b) M. P. Robertson, S. L. Miller, Nature 1995, 375, 772-774

    1966

  23. [31]

    Y. L. Wang, H. D. Lee, M. W. Beach, D. W. Margerum, Inorg. Chem. 1987, 26, 2444-2449

    1987

  24. [32]

    a) J. P. Ferris, E. A. Williams, D. E. Nicodem, J. S. Hubbard, G. E. Voecks, Nature 1974, 249, 437- 439; b) R. Hayatsu, M. H. Studier, A. Oda, K. Fuse, E. Anders, Geochim. Cosmochim. Ac. 1968, 32, 175-&

    1974

  25. [33]

    Burcar, M

    B. Burcar, M. Pasek, M. Gull, B. J. Cafferty, F. Velasco, N. V. Hud, C. Menor-Salvan, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 2016, 55, 13249-13253

    2016

  26. [34]

    Saladino, M

    a) R. Saladino, M. Barontini, C. Cossetti, E. Di Mauro, C. Crestini, Orig . Life Evol. Biosph. 2011, 41, 317-330; b) R. Saladino, U. Ciambecchini, C. Crestini, G. Costanzo, R. Negri, E. Di Mauro, Chembiochem. 2003, 4, 514-521

    2011

  27. [35]

    A. M. Schoffstall, R. J. Barto, D. L. Ramos, Orig. Life 1982, 12, 143-151

    1982

  28. [36]

    Gedulin, Arrhenius, G., in Early life on Earth – Nobel symposium 84 (Ed.: S

    B. Gedulin, Arrhenius, G., in Early life on Earth – Nobel symposium 84 (Ed.: S. Bengston), Columbia University Press, New York, 1994, pp. 91- 110

    1994

  29. [37]

    Ricardo, M

    A. Ricardo, M. A. Carriga n, A. N. Olcott, S. A. Benner, Science 2004, 303, 196

    2004

  30. [38]

    Biondi, L

    E. Biondi, L. Howell, S. A. Benner, Synlett. 2018, 29, 256-256

    2018

  31. [39]

    Biondi, Y

    E. Biondi, Y. Furukawa, J. Kawai, S. A. Benner, Beilstein J . Org. Chem. 2017, 13, 393-404

    2017

  32. [40]

    E. W. Ziegler, H. J. Kim, S. A. Benner, Astrobiology 2018, 18, 1159-1170

    2018

  33. [41]

    M. A. Pasek, Geosci. Front. 2017, 8, 329-335

    2017

  34. [42]

    Ferus, F

    M. Ferus, F. Pietrucci, A. M. Saitta, A. Knizek, P. Kubelik, O. Ivanek, V. Shestivska, S. Civis, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2017, 114, 4306-4311

    2017

  35. [43]

    a) A. A. Borisov, Petrology+ 2016, 24, 117-126; b) F. Farges, R. Siewert, G. E. Brown, A. Guesdon, G. Morin, Can. Mineral. 2006, 44, 731-753; c) F. Farges, R. Siewert, C. W. Ponader, G. E. Brown, M. Pichavant, H. Behrens, Can. Mineral. 2006, 44, 755-773

    2016

  36. [44]

    Herschy, S

    B. Herschy, S. J. Chang, R. Blake, A. Lepland, H. Abbott -Lyon, J. Sampson, Z. Atlas, T. P. Kee, M. A. Pasek, Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 1346

    2018

  37. [45]

    Dauphas, Nature 2017, 541, 521-524; b) R

    a) N. Dauphas, Nature 2017, 541, 521-524; b) R. Brasser, N. Dauphas, S. J. Mojzsis, Geophys. Res. Lett. 2018, 45, 5908-5917

    2017

  38. [46]

    Lodders, Space Sci

    K. Lodders, Space Sci. Rev. 2000, 92, 341-354

    2000

  39. [47]

    D. J. Stevenson, Science 1981, 214, 611-619

    1981

  40. [48]

    a) B. J. Wood, A. N. Halliday, Nature 2010, 465, 767-770; b) T. Kleine, J. F. Rudge, Elements 2011, 7, 41-46

    2010

  41. [49]

    a) C. J. Allegre, G. Manhes, C. Gopel, Geochim. Cosmochim. Ac. 1995, 59, 1445-1456; b) M. D. Norman, L. E. Borg, L. E. Nyquist, D. D. Bogard, Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 2003, 38, 645- 661; c) S. Charnoz, C. Michaut, Icarus 2015, 260, 440-463; d) M. Barboni, P. Boehnke, B. Keller, ...

    1995

  42. [50]

    J. Wade, B. J. Wood, Earth Planet. Sc. Lett. 2005, 236, 78-95

    2005

  43. [51]

    T. M. Harrison, E. A. Bell, P. Boehnke, Petrochronology: Methods and Applications 2017, 83, 329-+

    2017

  44. [52]

    a) S. J. Mojzsis, T. M. Harrison, R. T. Pidgeon, Nature 2001, 409, 178- 181; b) A. J. Cavosie, J. W. Valley, S. A. Wilde, Earth Planet. Sc. Lett. 2005, 235, 663-681; c) T. T. Isson, N. J. Planavsky, Nature 2018, 560, 471-475

    2001

  45. [53]

    E. A. Bell, P. Boehnke, T. M. Harrison, W. L. Mao, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2015, 112, 14518-14521

    2015

  46. [54]

    Rasmussen, I

    a) B. Rasmussen, I. R. Fletcher, J. R. Muhling, C. J. Gregory, S. A. Wilde, Geology 2011, 39, 1143 -1146; b) M. Hopkins, T. M. Harrison, C. E. Manning, Geology 2012, 40, E281-E281; c) J. D. Vervoort, A. I. S. Kemp, Chem. Geol. 2016, 425, 65-75; d) M. J. Whitehouse, A. A. Nemch...

    2011

  47. [55]

    Moorbath, Nature 2005, 434, 155

    S. Moorbath, Nature 2005, 434, 155

    2005

  48. [56]

    S. J. Mojzsis, G. Arrhenius, K. D. McKeegan, T. M. Harrison, A. P. Nutman, C. R. Friend, Nature 1996, 384, 55-59

    1996

  49. [57]

    Ohtomo, T

    Y. Ohtomo, T. Kakegawa, A. Ishida, T. Nagase, M. T. Rosing, Nat . Geosci. 2014, 7, 25-28

    2014

  50. [58]

    Sherwood Lollar, T

    B. Sherwood Lollar, T. D. Westgate, J. A. Ward, G. F. Slater, G. Lacrampe-Couloume, Nature 2002, 416, 522-524

    2002

  51. [59]

    Hamano, Y

    K. Hamano, Y. Abe, H. Genda, Nature 2013, 497, 607-610

    2013

  52. [60]

    J. F. Kasting, Science 1993, 259, 920-926

    1993

  53. [61]

    M. M. Hirschmann, Earth Planet. Sc. Lett. 2012, 341, 48-57

    2012

  54. [62]

    H. J. Cleaves, J. H. Chalmers, A. Lazcano, S. L. Miller, J. L. Bada, Orig . Life Evol. Biosph. 2008, 38, 105-115

    2008

  55. [63]

    a) C. E. Harman, J. F. Kasting, E. T. Wolf, Orig. Life Evol. Biosph. 2013, 43, 77-98; b) K. J. Zahnle, Elements 2006, 2, 217-222

    2013

  56. [64]

    J. P. Pinto, G. R. Gladstone, Y. L. Yung, Science 1980, 210, 183-185

    1980

  57. [65]

    D. C. Rubie, D. J. Frost, U. Mann, Y. Asahara, F. Nimmo, K. Tsuno, P. Kegler, A. Holzheid, H. Palme, Earth Planet. Sc. Lett. 2011, 301, 31-42

    2011

  58. [66]

    a) K. J. Zahnle, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos. 1986, 91, 2819- 2834; b) F. Tian, J. F. Kasting, K. Zahnle, Earth Planet. Sc. Lett. 2011, 308, 417- 423

    1986

  59. [67]

    a) C. N. Matthews, R. D. Minard, Faraday Discuss . 2006, 133, 393-401; discussion 427-352; b) B. K. D. Pearce, R. E. Pudritz, D. A. Semenov, T. K. Henning, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2017, 114, 11327-11332

    2006

  60. [68]

    Kurosawa, S

    K. Kurosawa, S. Sugita, K. Ishibashi, S. Hasegawa, Y. Sekine, N. O. Ogawa, T. Kadono, S. Ohno, N. Ohkouchi, Y. Nagaoka, T. Matsui, Orig. Life Evol. Biosph. 2013, 43, 221-245

    2013

  61. [69]

    V. S. Airapetian, A. Glocer, G. Gronoff, E. Hebrard, W. Danchi, Nat. Geosci. 2016, 9, 452-+

    2016

  62. [70]

    Chyba, C

    C. Chyba, C. Sagan, Nature 1992, 355, 125-132

    1992

  63. [71]

    Brasser, S

    a) R. Brasser, S. C. Werner, S. J. Mojzsis, Meteorit . Planet. Sci. 2019, 54; b) S. J. Mojzsis, R. Brasser, N. M. Kelly, O. Abramov, S. C. Werner, Astrophys. J. 2019, 881, 44-56

    2019

  64. [72]

    J. R. Lyons, C. Manning, F. Nimmo, Geophys. Res. Lett. 2005, 32

    2005

  65. [73]

    J. F. Kasting, D. Catling, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astr. 2003, 41, 429-463

    2003

  66. [74]

    a) W. L. Chameides, J. C. Walker, Orig. Life 1981, 11, 291-302; b) S. L. Miller, G. Schlesinger, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 1984, 14, 83-90

    1981

  67. [75]

    J. F. Kasting, Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. 2014, 504, 19-28

    2014

  68. [76]

    S. L. Miller, G. Schlesinger, Adv. Space Res. 1983, 3, 47-53

    1983

  69. [77]

    D. J. Ritson, J. D. Sutherland, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 2013, 52, 5845-5847

    2013

  70. [78]

    J. M. D. Day, A. D. Brandon, R. J. Walker, Rev. Mineral Geochem. 2016, 81, 161-238

    2016

  71. [79]

    R. J. Walker, Chem. Erde-Geochem. 2009, 69, 101-125

    2009

  72. [80]

    Willbold, S

    a) M. Willbold, S. J. Mojzsis, H. W. Chen, T. Elliott, Earth Planet. Sc. Lett. 2015, 419, 168-177; b) J. M. Day, D. G. Pearson, L. A. Taylor, Science 2007, 315, 217-219

    2015

  73. [81]

    a) W. F. Bottke, D. Vokrouhlicky, S. Marchi, T. Swindle, E. R. Scott, J. R. Weirich, H. Levison, Science 2015, 348, 321-323; b) W. F. Bottke, R. J. Walker, J. M. Da y, D. Nesvorny, L. Elkins -Tanton, Science 2010, 330, 1527-1530; c) D. C. Rubie, V. Laurenz, S. A. Jacobson, A. ...

    2015

  74. [82]

    Brasser, S

    R. Brasser, S. J. Mojzsis, S. C. Werner, S. Matsumura, S. Ida, Earth Planet. Sc. Lett. 2016, 455, 85-93

    2016

  75. [83]

    a) R. G. Kraus, S. Root, R. W. Lemke, S. T. Ste wart, S. B. Jacobsen, T. R. Mattsson, Nat. Geosci. 2015, 8, 269-272; b) H. E. Schlichting, E. O. Ofek, R. Sari, E. P. Nelan, A. Gal -Yam, M. Wenz, P. Muirhead, N. Javanfar, M. Livio, Astrophys. J. 2012, 761; c) H. E. Schlichting,...

    2015

  76. [84]

    J. M. D. Day, R. J. Walker, Earth Planet. Sc. Lett. 2015, 423, 114-124

    2015

  77. [85]

    a) R. M. Canup, E. Asphaug, Nature 2001, 412, 708-712; b) H. J. Melosh, Impact Cratering: A Geologic Process. , Oxford University Press, New York, 1989

    2001

  78. [86]

    C. J. Allegre, G. Manhes, C. Gopel, Earth Planet. Sc. Lett. 2008, 267, 386-398

    2008

  79. [87]

    Genda, T

    H. Genda, T. Iizuka, T. Sasaki, Y. Ueno, M. Ikoma, Earth Planet. Sc. Lett. 2017, 470, 87-95

    2017

  80. [88]

    Staudacher, C

    a) T. Staudacher, C. J. Allegre, Earth Planet . Sc. Lett. 1982, 60, 389- 406; b) F. Albarede, J. Martine, Geochim . Cosmochim. Ac. 1984, 48, 207-212

    1982

  81. [89]

    Parkos, A

    D. Parkos, A. Pikus, A. Alexeenko, H. J. Melosh, J. Geophys. Res.- Planet. 2018, 123, 892-909

    2018

  82. [90]

    Toupance, F

    a) G. Toupance, F. Raulin, R. Buvet, Orig. Life 1975, 6, 83 -90; b) F. Raulin, G. Toupance, in Cosmochemical Evolution and the Origins of Life, Springer, Dordrecht, 1974, pp. 91-97

    1975

  83. [91]

    Stribling, S

    R. Stribling, S. L. Miller, Orig. Life Evol. Biosph. 1987, 17, 261-273

    1987

  84. [92]

    H. S. C. O'Neill, H. Palme, in The Earth's Mantle; Composition, Structure, and Evolution. (Ed.: I. Jackson), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998, pp. 3-126

    1998

  85. [93]

    M. A. Pasek, T. P. Kee, D. E. Bryant, A. A. Pavlov, J. I. Lunine, Angew . Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 2008, 47, 7918-7920

    2008

  86. [94]

    Miyakawa, H

    S. Miyakawa, H. J . Cleaves, S. L. Miller, Orig. Life Evol. Biosph. 2002, 32, 195-208

    2002

  87. [95]

    R. P. Welcher, M. E. Castellion, V. P. Wystrach, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1959, 81, 2541-2547

    1959

  88. [96]

    a) M. J. Russell, A. J. Hall, J. Geol. Soc. London 1997, 154, 377-402; b) M. J. Russell, A. J. Hall, W. Martin, Geobiology 2010, 8, 355-371

    1997

  89. [97]

    Wordsworth, R

    a) R. Wordsworth, R. Pierrehumbert, Science 2013, 339, 64- 67; b) R. Wordsworth, Y. Kalugina, S. Lokshtanov, A. Vigasin, B. Ehlmann, J. Head, C. Sanders, H. Wang, Geophys. Res. Lett. 2017, 44, 665-671

    2013

  90. [98]

    Hopkins, T

    a) M. Hopkins, T. M. Harrison, C. E. Manning, Nature 2008, 456, 493- 496; b) M. D. Hopkins, T. M. Harrison, C. E. Manning, Earth Planet . Sc. Lett. 2010, 298, 367-376; c) E. A. Bell, P. Boehnke, T. Mark Harrison, Earth Planet. Sc. Lett. 2017, 473, 237-246

    2008

  91. [99]

    Korenaga, Philos

    J. Korenaga, Philos. Trans. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2018, 376

    2018

  92. [100]

    G. Caro, P. Morino, S. J. Mojzsis, N. L. Cates, W. Bleeker, Earth Planet. Sc. Lett. 2017, 457, 23-37

    2017

  93. [101]

    Korenaga, N

    J. Korenaga, N. J. Planavsky, D. A. D. Evans, Philos. Trans. A Math . Phys. Eng. Sci. 2017, 375

    2017

  94. [102]

    Ribas, G

    I. Ribas, G. F. P. de Mello, L. D. Ferreira, E. Hebrard, F. Selsis, S. Catalan, A. Garces, J. D. do Nascimento, J. R. de Medeiros, Astrophys . J. 2010, 714, 384-395

    2010

  95. [103]

    Arney, S

    a) G. Arney, S. D. Domagal -Goldman, V. S. Meadows, E. T. Wolf, E. Schwieterman, B. Charnay, M. Claire, E. Hebrard, M. G. Trainer, REVIEW 18 Astrobiology 2016, 16, 873-899; b) G. N. Arney, Astrophys. J. Lett. 2019, 873; c) G. N. Arney, V. S. Meadows, S. D. Domagal -Goldman, D....

    2016

  96. [104]

    Shapiro, Proc

    R. Shapiro, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1999, 96, 4396-4401

    1999

  97. [105]

    Guttenberg, N

    N. Guttenberg, N. Virgo, K. Chandru, C. Scharf, I. Mamajanov, Philos . Trans. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2017, 375

    2017

  98. [106]

    W. R. Kuhn, S. K. Atreya, Icarus 1979, 37, 207-213

    1979

  99. [107]

    a) A. S. G. Roth, B. Bourdon, S. J. Mojzsis, J. F. Rudge, M. Guitreau, J. Blichert-Toft, Geochem. Geophy. Geosy. 2014, 15, 2329-2345; b) T. M. Harrison, Annu. Rev. Earth Pl. Sc. 2009, 37, 479-505; c) J. W. Valley, A. J. Cavosie, T. Ushikubo, D. A. Reinhard, D. F. Lawrence, D. ...

    2014

  100. [108]

    a) D. J. Che rniak, Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 2010, 72, 827-869; b) D. J. Cherniak, Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 2010, 72, 691-733; c) D. J. Cherniak, A. Dimanov, Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 2010, 72, 641-690

    2010

  101. [109]

    Abramov, D

    O. Abramov, D. A. Kring, S. J. Mojzsis, Chem. Erde-Geochem. 2013, 73, 227-248

    2013

  102. [110]

    N. H. Sleep, K. Zahnle, J. Geophys. Res.-Planet. 2001, 106, 1373-1399

    2001

  103. [111]

    J. D. Sutherland, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 2016, 55, 104-121

    2016

  104. [112]

    X. Z. Yang, F. Gaillard, B. Scaillet, Earth Planet. Sc. Lett. 2014, 393, 210- 219

    2014

  105. [113]

    Moussallam, G

    a) Y. Moussallam, G. Oppenheimer, B. Scaillet, Earth Planet . Sc. Lett. 2019, 520, 260- 267; b) R. W. Nicklas, I. S. Puchte, R. D. Ash, H. M. Piccoli, E. Hanski, E. G. Nisbet, P. Waterton, D. G. Pearson, A. D. Anbar, Geochim. Cosmochim. Ac. 2019, 250, 49-75; c) S. Aulbach, V. ...

    2019

  106. [114]

    N. H. Sleep, Geochem. Geophy. Geosy. 2016, 17, 2623-2642

    2016

  107. [115]

    a) W. Sun, V. C. Bennett, S. M. Eggins, V. S. Kamenetsky, R. J. Arculus, Nature 2003, 422, 294-297; b) J. C. Lassiter, J. Blichert-Toft, E. H. Hauri, H. G. Barsczus, Chem. Geol. 2003, 202, 115-138

    2003

  108. [116]

    Abramov, S

    O. Abramov, S. J. Mojzsis, Geochim. Cosmochim. Ac. 2009, 73, A5-A5

    2009

  109. [117]

    N. E. B. Zellner, Orig. Life Evol. Biosph. 2017, 47, 261-280

    2017

  110. [118]

    S. C. Werner, A. Ody, F. Poulet, Science 2014, 343, 1343-1346

    2014

  111. [119]

    Marchi, W

    S. Marchi, W. F. Bottke, L. T. Elkins -Tanton, M. Bierhaus, K. Wuennemann, A. Morbidelli, D. A. Kring, Nature 2014, 511, 578-582

    2014

  112. [120]

    Abramov, S

    O. Abramov, S. J. Mojzsis, Nature 2009, 459, 419-422

    2009

  113. [121]

    Kleine, M

    T. Kleine, M. Touboul, B. Bourdon, F. Nimmo, K. Mezger, H. Palme, S. B. Jacobsen, Q. Z. Yin, A. N. Halliday, Geochim. Cosmochim. Ac. 2009, 73, 5150-5188

    2009

  114. [122]

    Boehnke, T

    P. Boehnke, T. M. Harrison, Proc . Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2016, 113, 10802-10806. REVIEW 19 Entry for the Table of Contents REVIEW Models for Earth's impact history explain the late delivery of platinum, gold, and other siderophiles via a ~1023 kg impactor (Moneta) ~4.48 bill...

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.