As this moment, a particular explanation on how life started out of Earth's primitive banquet some 3.8 billion years ago is the 'RNA world' hypothesis, which introduces that RNA came first, and in due course evolved to DNA, that went on to structured complex life as we recognize it.

However, some expert chemists from the Scripps Research Institute in California have found distinctness about RNA that wouldn't have been able to sustainably transform into DNA, projecting some indications that the two molecules might have, in reality, been created at the same time.

"Even if you believe in an RNA-only world, you have to believe in something that existed with RNA to help it move forward," said lead researcher Ramanarayanan Krishnamurthy.

"Why not think of RNA and DNA rising together, rather than trying to convert RNA to DNA by means of some fantastic chemistry at a prebiotic stage?"

The RNA world hypothesis, RNA (or ribonucleic acid) is widely recognized as the "older molecular cousin" of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid).

While they apportion of pretty identical structures - RNA looks like the other side of DNA's ladder - RNA is more brittle and less receptive than DNA, which is probably why DNA became a factor up forming our genes.

But it's broadly presumed that RNA, in spite of its faults, came first, with many geneticists recommending that it was the first self-replicating molecule on Earth.

Thus, the scientists came up with a substitute theory, saying that instead of forming "chimeras," RNA and DNA may have evolved at the same time.

Unluckily, without a time machine, it would be impossible to know exactly what went on back in the creation of life on Earth. But by trying to figure it out, we might have a better shot of prophesying where we might find life somewhere else in the Universe.