A friend sends word of a an open-access paper at BioEssays (p. 4, emphasis added):
… there is an open, ongoing debate on whether prebiotic reactions to produce the first biomolecules, the basic building blocks for life (e.g., amino acids, lipids, nucleosides), should resemble current metabolic pathways or be completely different. This resonates with some classical controversies among defenders of the heterotrophic versus autotrophic nature of the first metabolisms. The question may not have an “all-or-none” answer….In principle, nobody can refute the possibility that the beginnings were, indeed, very different. However, it is harder to prove that case, because one must demonstrate, on top of the geological likelihood of such a divergent, primitive chemistry, what would be, then, the sequence of evolutionary steps required to converge towards extant biochemical pathways. The common justification that “natural selection would do the job, one way or another” is not tenable as a scientific argument, and less so the further away the corresponding chemistries stand from each other.
Nino Lauber, Christoph Flamm, Kepa Ruiz-Mirazo, “Minimal metabolism”: A key concept to investigate the origins and nature of biological systems, 23 August 2021
From the conclusions (p. 9):
Understanding subsequent transitions towards genetically-instructed metabolisms (i.e., real, much more robust and efficient, full-fledged metabolisms) will not be easy, either. How on earth could these complex systems (complex but natural systems, after all) bring about a translation apparatus, for instance (with ribosomes, genetic code, etc.)… is simply mind-blowing. Nevertheless, what appears crystal clear to us is that a translation apparatus would make, literally, no sense without metabolism.
Nino Lauber, Christoph Flamm, Kepa Ruiz-Mirazo, “Minimal metabolism”: A key concept to investigate the origins and nature of biological systems, 23 August 2021
Imagine these kinds of objections being made to origin of life claims in a science journal!: “The common justification that “natural selection would do the job, one way or another” is not tenable as a scientific argument, and less so the further away the corresponding chemistries stand from each other.” Isn’t this heresy? Natural selection is supposed to be omnicompetent.