Intelligent Design Origin Of Life

So RNA world, the five-star hotel of OOL theories, isn’t panning out?

Spread the love

We were told it was the surest thing in origin of life theories:

Here’s the problem with the RNA-only model (also known as the “RNA world hypothesis”), stated at its most succinct: RNA is too “sticky.”

That means that, like hydrogen for example, RNA bonds and will not detach from other molecules. In evolutionarily modern times, we know RNA is split from its fresh copies by enzymes, but enzymes arose after RNA. How did the first RNA strands come unstuck without help?

One potential answer: chimeric molecules. Today, it’s possible—although vanishingly rare—for humans to be chimeric, meaning they have more than one set of DNA. This is a favorite mechanism for crime TV shows, but only about 100 cases have ever been documented. Caroline Delbert, “It Sure Looks Like the RNA World Hypothesis Is Wrong” at Popular Mechanics

We’re not saying creation is looking better all the time but…it is looking better all the time. 😉

See also: Welcome to RNA World: The five-star hotel of origin-of-life theories

14 Replies to “So RNA world, the five-star hotel of OOL theories, isn’t panning out?

  1. 1
    aarceng says:

    I thought it was pronounced dead by Loren Williams back in 2013.

  2. 2
    aarceng says:

    Gerald Joyce, wrote (‘RNA evolution and the origins of life.’ Nature 338:217–224, 1989):

    The most reasonable assumption is that life did not start with RNA…. The transition to an RNA world, like the origins of life in general, is fraught with uncertainty and is plagued by a lack of experimental data.

  3. 3
    mike1962 says:

    isn’t panning out?

    When did it ever look like it could?

  4. 4
  5. 5
    ET says:

    If you read Nick Lane’s “Life Ascending…”, it’s no problem at all. Alkaline hydrothermal vents did it.

  6. 6
    martin_r says:

    ET @5

    “Life Ascending….” i did read it. A very boring fairy tale book.

  7. 7
    martin_r says:

    in regards to RNA World, DNA World, or Chimera-World…

    Listen, Darwinians.

    Forget about lucky chemical accident…

    Go to your labs, and FINALLY create a working cell.

    Go, make it… create it…. and i don’t expect any lucky chemical accident… just make it, whatever it takes, i don’t care about the way you make it … just make it…


    (Till then, give us a break with you absurd Darwinian fairy tales…)

  8. 8
    EDTA says:

    Stuart Kauffman said in 1996 that the RNA World hypothesis was too unlikely. (In his book _At Home in the Universe_). It may have been the front-runner for a while, but certainly not now.

  9. 9
  10. 10
    mike1962 says:

    “English literature” degree writing about controversial science.


    Trust real science, but don’t trust scientists. And trust pop-sci journalists even less.

  11. 11
    Sven Mil says:

    An entire website of non-scientists writing about controversial science.

  12. 12
    ET says:

    Sven Mil doesn’t know what science is nor what a scientist is.

  13. 13
    mike1962 says:

    Sven Mil: An entire website of non-scientists writing about controversial science.

    Everyone (in a free country) has the right. But I don’t take anyone’s word for anything if I can help it.

  14. 14
    Sven Mil says:

    “Trust real science, but don’t trust scientists”
    How does someone like you, who knows nothing about science, identify “real science”?

    Oh that’s right, “anything that disagrees with your worldview is not real science”
    – the mantra of UD/ID –

Leave a Reply