RNA world & the origin of life

As far as I know, we've never been able to synthesize stable RNA polymer chains under anything other than extremely controlled laboratory conditions.

Supposedly, meteorites contain nucleobases, and RNA world must have existed prior to 3.8 billion years ago when the earth was being heavily bombarded with meteors. That might be the source of the four nucleobases.

But it's a long way from a simple nucleobase to stable chain polymers of nucleotides that make up RNA. Even if we figure out RNA polymerization we are still light years from fully comprehending abiogenesis.

It's still a mystery, and that's what makes science so fun.

Not science. The Theory of Abiogenesis is religion. It is not falsifiable.

It also has a couple of problems.

Assuming that a cell DOES somehow come into existence, what's it going to eat? Photosynthesis requires complex structures.
If it can't eat, it dies. It is the ONLY way to gain enough energy to reproduce.

Assuming that TWO cells somehow come into existence nearly simultaneously, one can eat the other. That should gain sufficient energy to divide. You again have two cells. Now what?

There happens to be a law in thermodynamics that is ignored by the Theory of Abiogenesis. It is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The Theory of Abiogenesis reduces entropy, in direct violation of this law.
 
Comparative anatomy,
I have a hand, a bird has a wing. Comparative anatomy.
cladistic analysis,
Based on assumptions.
and genetics show that DNA based life is tied by a similar genetic strand way back into the remote past, at least to the Cambrian.
How do you know? Were you there?
The fact we have been attempting, and failing to synthesize life, or even DNA molecules, from inert chemicals under controlled laboratory conditions for 70 years, suggests that it's not that easy for cellular life to get kick started.
To say the least. The Theory of Abiogenesis has several problems to overcome, not just this one.
The consensus in the scientific community is that all species alive today and in the past are tied together to a common genetic legacy.
Science is not a community. Consensus is not used in science. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a religion. There is no common genetic legacy except by cloning.
 
Explanation:
Rocks tell us a great deal about the Earth's history.
Not much.
Igneous rocks tell of past volcanic episodes
The definition of an igneous rock. Volcanic rock.
and can also be used to age-date certain periods in the past.
Void reference fallacy.
Sedimentary rocks often record past depositional environments (e.g deep ocean, shallow shelf, fluvial)
No, they don't. You are speculating.
and usually contain the most fossils from past ages.
Fossils are just images of animals or plants in stone. That does not give an age. You are speculating.
Metamorphic rocks tells us about plate tectonic movements
No, they don't. You are speculating.
and how the continents were shoved together and pulled apart.
No. You are speculating.
Meteorites from space are among the oldest rocks in the solar system
How do you know? You are speculating.
and tells us the age and formation of the early Earth.
No, they don't. You are speculating.
Glad to see you asking questions
Do some reading about it
It’s fascinating
No doubt you find your religion fascinating.
And can make your decision making based in fact instead of propaganda
Learn what 'fact' means. It does NOT mean 'Universal Truth'.

YOU are spewing propaganda.
Religion is not science and is not a proof.
 
The consensus is that all species who ever lived trace their genetic legacy back to the first prokaryotes of the remote past.
The consensus of your religion. Science doesn't use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.
If anyone wants to hypothesize that completely separate and independent lines of life emerged on Earth repeatedly through geologic history,
Not a hypothesis. A theory. Not a theory of science.
they need to provide convincing evidence for it.
Oddly enough, a theory does not require evidence for it. However, since YOU are placing this requirement upon people, let's examine your religion as evidence:
You claim to know the age of rocks
You claim to know the genetics of all history.
You claim to know that life arrived on this Earth through a series of unspecified events.
You claim to know the composition of the atmosphere millions of years ago.

All of your evidence is on what YOU claim. You HAVE NO EVIDENCE. Therefore, by your own rules, the Theory of Abiogenesis is bogus.
Because that discovery would earn them a Nobel prize,
Science isn't a prize. Science isn't a 'discovery'.
and would be one of the most stunning scientific discoveries of the century.
Science isn't a 'discovery'.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all. It is not people. It has no politics. It has no religion. It has no voting bloc. It does not use consensus. It is not a community. It has no theories about past unobserved events. It is not a research, study, discovery, or or evidence. It is not a prize. It is not money. It is not fame. It is not a scientist or any group of scientists. It is not people at all.

The Theory of Abiogenesis is NOT a theory of science. It is a nonscientific theory, and a religion.
 
We have the physical evidence --> fossils of prokaryotes in 3.5 billion year old rock.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Only religions use supporting evidence.
You are attempting to prove the age of a rock by stating the age of a rock. Attempted proof by circular argument.
 
.
How life could have arisen on an ‘RNA world’

New evidence suggests RNA and peptides may have helped build each other on early Earth

11 MAY 2022 - Current Event, News Release on Cutting Edge Scientific Research

It’s the ultimate chicken-and-egg conundrum. Life doesn’t work without tiny molecular machines called ribosomes, whose job is to translate genes into proteins. But ribosomes themselves are made of proteins. So how did the first life arise?

Researchers may have taken the first step toward solving this mystery. They’ve shown that RNA molecules can grow short proteins called peptides all by themselves—no ribosome required. What’s more, this chemistry works under conditions likely present on early Earth.

“It’s an important advance,” says Claudia Bonfio, an origin of life chemist at the University of Strasbourg who was not involved in the work. The study, she says, provides scientists a new way of thinking about how peptides were built.

Researchers who study the origin of life have long considered RNA the central player because it can both carry genetic information and catalyze necessary chemical reactions. It was likely present on our planet before life evolved. But to give rise to modern life, RNA would have had to somehow “learn” to make proteins, and eventually ribosomes. “At the moment, the ribosome simply falls from the heavens,” says Thomas Carell, a chemist at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich.


https://www.science.org/content/art...e chicken-and,themselves are made of proteins.

Science is a good thing huh
 
Don't know, but there is always a range of uncertainty in scientific investigations, and the professional scientist will always identify, and if possible, quantify the uncertainty.

One thing we know with certainty, the atmosphere of the early Earth was virtually oxygen-free and the first prokaryotes evolved in the absence of atmospheric free oxygen.

Are any of these "prokaryotes" of that time actually preserved and available?

How do you know the earth was oxygen-free?
 
Last edited:
Are any of these "prokaryotes" actual reproducible, tangible things?

It's hard to reproduce. I've heard some scientists say that they can basically recreate the conditions of early earth in a lab - but the one factor that's missing is time. It might have taken millions of years from the time that conditions were favorable until a single cell started replicating.
 
Back
Top