Intelligent Design Origin Of Life

What? A skeptical view of RNA world? The five-star hotel of origin of life theories?

Spread the love

A friend writes to say he’s surprised it got published where it did:

The hypothesis of an ‘RNA world’ as the font of all life on Earth has been with us now for more than 30 years, the term having been coined by the biologist Wally Gilbert in 1986. You could be forgiven for thinking that it pretty much solves the conundrum of how the replication of DNA could have avoided a chicken-and-egg impasse: DNA replication requires protein enzymes, but proteins must be encoded in DNA. The intermediary RNA breaks that cycle of dependence because it can both encode genetic information and act catalytically like enzymes. Catalytic RNAs, known as ribozymes, play several roles in cells.

It’s an alluring picture – catalytic RNAs appear by chance on the early Earth as molecular replicators that gradually evolve into complex molecules capable of encoding proteins, metabolic systems and ultimately DNA. But it’s almost certainly wrong. For even an RNA-based replication process needs energy: it can’t shelve metabolism until later. And although relatively simple self-copying ribozymes have been made,1 they typically work only if provided with just the right oligonucleotide components to work on. What’s more, sustained cycles of replication and proliferation require special conditions to ensure that RNA templates can be separated from copies made on them. Philip Ball, “Flaws in the RNA world” at Chemistry World

Why is a mere science writer now allowed to dump on the gold standard of OOL theories? Stand by…

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

6 Replies to “What? A skeptical view of RNA world? The five-star hotel of origin of life theories?

  1. 1
    Truthfreedom says:

    PavelU the weirdo in 3,2,1…

  2. 2
    EDTA says:

    Stuart Kauffman said in his book “At Home in the Universe” (published some time ago) that the RNA World hypothesis was bunk, because–his argument not mine–it was too unlikely. I about fell out of my comfy chair at the book store when I read that. So there has been controversy about the hypothesis for some time. It’s just that it seemed like the most popular materialistic one, so people gravitated to it.

  3. 3
    PavelU says:

    That’s just the author’s uneducated opinion, which can be ignored without any implication. He should consult with Dr Craig Venter or Dr Lee Cronin or another candidate for the Evo2.0 $10M prize. They all have figured out the OOL thing pretty well. The author of the article cited by this OP doesn’t understand evolution. He should take basic biochemistry 101 before writing his next article. He’s probably another ID proponent that has been infiltrated into that organization to spread pseudoscientific misinformation.

  4. 4
    Truthfreedom says:

    @3 PVU

    The author of the article cited by this OP doesn’t understand evolution.

    Neither do you. People repeating this (which is reeaally boooring) are usually the most ignorant folks.

  5. 5
    Sebestyen says:

    @PavelU: Very unoriginal troll attempt. 2/10

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Brian Miller – Thermodynamics, the Origin of Life, and Intelligent Design – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAXiHRPZz0s&list=PLS591mpvSTo3vP8g1BNfIMh3wUyrrWzQA&index=10

    Physicist Brian Miller: Two Conundrums for Strictly Materialist Views of Biology – January 2020
    Excerpt: Nothing in nature will ever simultaneously go to both low entropy and high energy at the same time. It’s a physical impossibility. Yet life had to do that. Life had to take simple chemicals and go to a state of high energy and of low entropy. That’s a physical impossibility.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2020/01/physicist-brian-miller-two-conundrums-for-strictly-materialist-views-of-biology/

Leave a Reply