Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

All together now, the chorus once again: Chemical origins of life focus of current edition of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B

arroba Email
Current Issue Cover

Can we look at contemporary biology and couple this with chemical insight to propose some plausible mechanisms for the origin of life on the planet? In what follows, we examine some promising chemical reactions by which the building blocks for nucleic acids might have been created about a billion years after the Earth formed. This could have led to self-assembling systems that were based on an all-RNA metabolism, where RNA is both catalytic and informational. We consider the breadth of RNA enzymes presently existing in biology, and to what extent these might have covered a wider range of chemistry in the RNA world. Ultimately, the RNA world would probably have given way to protein-based life quite quickly, and the origins of peptidyl transferase activity are discussed below.

Is there a “might have”/”could have” index that could be applied to science papers, as a rough guide to how much is science and how much is imagination?

Hat tip: Pos-Darwinista

I agree, it's pathetic. They will keep taking colossal pains to try to persuade themselves that this is plausible. No divine foot in the door, at all costs. Eugene S
"might have been created" "could have led to" "to what extent these might have covered..." "the RNA world would probably have" But chances are far better that the building blocks for nucleic acidss might not have been created by chance. Chances are far greater - about 100% I would think - that natural cause could not have led to self-assembling systems. Chances are the RNA enzymes might not have covered a wide range of chemistry in the imaginary RNA world. And the probability that an RNA world would have given way to protein based life is near 0. Evolution is ultimately a faith-based hypothesis. tjguy

Leave a Reply