On 8/02/2026 4:27 am, RonO wrote:
On 2/6/2026 11:34 PM, MarkE wrote:
The following seems to be a significant challenge for the
naturalistic origin of life. Thoughts?
PROCESS
OoL assumes a progression from simple inorganic chemicals to a
population of protocells and then on to the first population of free-
living cells (pre-LUCA).
Protocells provide encapsulation, replication and heritable
variation, but are not "alive" in that they require feedstock
supplies from the environment. The feedstock dependence tapers from
protocells to pre-LUCA.
ENVIRONMENT
This process of chemical evolution and then Darwinian evolution
requires the environment to supply nucleotides, lipids, sugars, amino
acids, polyphosphates, metal ions, etc, in certain concentrations,
with substantial homochirality, etc.
Who makes this claim?-a We do not know what the first self replicators
required.-a Things like nucleotides are required by the RNA world
scenario, but that likely came after the first self replicators
existed. -a-aTo get everything started the first self replicators would
not just replicate themselves, but do things like make nucleotides in
order to facilitate their self replication.-a My guess is that
nucleotides evolved to do what they still do today.-a They are a highly
useful energy coin for the cell.-a They store chemical energy and
transfer the chemical energy.-a Polymers of nucleotides likely evolved
to store nucleotides inside the cells and keep them from diffusing out
of the cells.
Lipids may have been among the first simple self replicators.
Conglomerations of lipids can have enzymatic activity that makes more
lipid, so the enzymatic lipid structures would get bigger and be able
to split.-a Lipids could evolve other enzymatic functions as they self
replicated, different lipids could be made etc.
Chirality would be set by the self replicators.-a The enzymatic
functions of the self replicators would likely work for one chiral
form or the other.-a Just like many enzymes do today.
Note that I'm not assuming or preferring any particular model here. But
the paper "The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early
evolution of life (except for all the others)" remains the frontrunner
as far as I'm aware, though now extended to "RNA + messy" world. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3495036/
What other options are there? Autocatalytic sets can't provide symbolic
or digital inheritance, which you need make real progress. Peptide
polymers? Again, can't do templated duplication. It seems that RNA/DNA
has to be central and early.
The environment must also provide sufficient temperature stability,
pH, mechanical agitation, structure (e.g. niche separation), wet/dry
cycling, feedstock recycling, waste removal, etc.
LINEAGE
OoL assumes countless locations working in parallel as described,
possibly with localised cross-pollination. However, there must be an
unbroken lineage (or lineages) to from start to finish. Which implies
the persistence and stability of the environmental requirements
described.
There would be no such thing as an unbroken lineage during the origin
of life on earth.-a There is nothing keeping any lineage from joining
with another, splitting and or joining with others.-a There would be no
genetic code, no genome early life was likely a mess of self
replicating molecules.-a Once a shell or membrane formed multiple
replicators could join together as proto cells.-a They could start
assisting each other in replication.-a There would be no cell lineages
until you evolve a genome for the RNA world where you need to maintain
the complementary sequence for the functional RNAs, and even after
that there is no reason that RNA based cells could not fuse and split
off new lineages.-a Horizontal transfer of genetic material occurs today.
What I mean by "unbroken lineage" is this. The pathway from simple
chemicals to LUCA had to be a continuous process, with successive generations of populations of molecules and then presumably protocells.
As I indicated, this may well include cross-pollination between other
local colonies of molecules/protocells. But operative word here is
"local". These incubators must have been delicately balanced systems,
with very limited mobility.
For example, let's say you have a local hot spring system that has given rise to protocell population that has reached RNA replication. How might this genetic information be transferred non-locally? Perhaps a flood
washes these far away? The transported remnant needs to arrive in a new location that immediately provides a similar environment with ready
supply of feedstock etc. Without constant replication replenishment your
RNA quickly degrades. The problem is, a flood event is almost certainly going to do the opposite: disperse the population and deposit what
remains in hostile locations.
What I'm doing here is identifying a point at which prebiotic chemistry necessarily "crosses the Rubicon". After that point, it *must* then constantly replicate to survive. Whether it's RNA or some other polymer
or other complex molecules doesn't matter. Stasis is no longer an
option. Growth and selection are the only mechanism available which can prevent the decomposition of what has been developed to this point.
Do you see how this must be?
TIME
How long would this lineage need? One million years? One thousand
years? 100 million years?
It isn't just one lineage.-a The number of lineages at any one time
would be dependent on what environment the self replicators needed to
replicate.
So the number of lineages vying to develop the RNA world and future
genetic code would be dependent on what environment that those self
replicators existed in.
There could have been trillions of them around a relatively stable hot
spring at any one time.
PROBLEM
What geological situation on the early Earth could provide the
continuous, stable environment required for the duration needed? Even
as little as one thousand years is long for a suitable system of
geothermal ponds that is *uninterrupted* by any sterilisation/reset
events.
Polymers such as RNA break down over hours to decades depending on
environment. Freezing or drying may extend lifetimes but also pause
evolution. In any case, when active, continuous replication is
required for renewal before decomposition.
1,000 years from chemicals to cells seems impossibly short. And
100,000 years for the nursery required seems impossibly long.
Beats me how long it took to evolve the RNA world and subsequent
genetic code, but life seems to have evolved into the LUCA of Archaea
and eubacteria soon after the earth cooled enough to have liquid
water. Just a few hundred million years when the earth's surface was
likely more uniform in terms of the environment that the first life
could evolve in.-a The data is also evidence that life evolved
somewhere else and Archaea and eubacterial lineages were deposited
onto the earth. Only a single lineage of each survive among extant
lifeforms and these single lineages both existed to start diverging
new lineages 3.2 billion years ago.-a Their common ancestor existed
over 4.2 billion years ago, so the genetic code would have had to
evolve by that time, and it is possible that it evolved somewhere else.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-024-02461-1
Ron Okimoto
On 2/7/2026 9:23 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/02/2026 4:27 am, RonO wrote:
On 2/6/2026 11:34 PM, MarkE wrote:
The following seems to be a significant challenge for the
naturalistic origin of life. Thoughts?
PROCESS
OoL assumes a progression from simple inorganic chemicals to a
population of protocells and then on to the first population of
free- living cells (pre-LUCA).
Protocells provide encapsulation, replication and heritable
variation, but are not "alive" in that they require feedstock
supplies from the environment. The feedstock dependence tapers from
protocells to pre-LUCA.
ENVIRONMENT
This process of chemical evolution and then Darwinian evolution
requires the environment to supply nucleotides, lipids, sugars,
amino acids, polyphosphates, metal ions, etc, in certain
concentrations, with substantial homochirality, etc.
Who makes this claim?-a We do not know what the first self replicators
required.-a Things like nucleotides are required by the RNA world
scenario, but that likely came after the first self replicators
existed. -a-aTo get everything started the first self replicators would >>> not just replicate themselves, but do things like make nucleotides in
order to facilitate their self replication.-a My guess is that
nucleotides evolved to do what they still do today.-a They are a
highly useful energy coin for the cell.-a They store chemical energy
and transfer the chemical energy.-a Polymers of nucleotides likely
evolved to store nucleotides inside the cells and keep them from
diffusing out of the cells.
Lipids may have been among the first simple self replicators.
Conglomerations of lipids can have enzymatic activity that makes more
lipid, so the enzymatic lipid structures would get bigger and be able
to split.-a Lipids could evolve other enzymatic functions as they self
replicated, different lipids could be made etc.
Chirality would be set by the self replicators.-a The enzymatic
functions of the self replicators would likely work for one chiral
form or the other.-a Just like many enzymes do today.
Note that I'm not assuming or preferring any particular model here.
But the paper "The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early
evolution of life (except for all the others)" remains the frontrunner
as far as I'm aware, though now extended to "RNA + messy" world.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3495036/
My guess is that no one seriously thinks that RNA came first except
those that might consider some type of really improbable start to life
as some type of wildly lucky initial conditions that had nucleotides
present in the environment.-a My take is that it is much more likely that nucleotides were developed as aids to the primitive metabolism of the
early self replicators.
What other options are there? Autocatalytic sets can't provide
symbolic or digital inheritance, which you need make real progress.
Peptide polymers? Again, can't do templated duplication. It seems that
RNA/DNA has to be central and early.
Your digital inheritance did not have to evolve until the genetic code
could evolve.-a Simple self replication likely drove the evolution of
life on earth.-a You also need the self replication to not be 100%
accurate, so it has to entail more than just single autocatalytic
reactions (you can't just keep making the same simple molecule over and over).
Recently a simple self replication reacton of a lipid was put up on TO. Lipid bodies formed and multiplied as long as the researchers kept
adding the starting components.-a What would likely happen in nature is
that there would be a mix of starting components, and that self
replicating lipid bodies would be produced, but other reactions would
likely also be occuring in the mix.-a Other types of lipid bodies would
be produced and even new molecules that were not components of the lipid bodies (non lipid products).-a This is the type of mess that life as we
know it would have likely sprung from.-a Not your made up required
digital information.
The environment must also provide sufficient temperature stability,
pH, mechanical agitation, structure (e.g. niche separation), wet/dry
cycling, feedstock recycling, waste removal, etc.
LINEAGE
OoL assumes countless locations working in parallel as described,
possibly with localised cross-pollination. However, there must be an
unbroken lineage (or lineages) to from start to finish. Which
implies the persistence and stability of the environmental
requirements described.
There would be no such thing as an unbroken lineage during the origin
of life on earth.-a There is nothing keeping any lineage from joining
with another, splitting and or joining with others.-a There would be
no genetic code, no genome early life was likely a mess of self
replicating molecules.-a Once a shell or membrane formed multiple
replicators could join together as proto cells.-a They could start
assisting each other in replication.-a There would be no cell lineages
until you evolve a genome for the RNA world where you need to
maintain the complementary sequence for the functional RNAs, and even
after that there is no reason that RNA based cells could not fuse and
split off new lineages.-a Horizontal transfer of genetic material
occurs today.
What I mean by "unbroken lineage" is this. The pathway from simple
chemicals to LUCA had to be a continuous process, with successive
generations of populations of molecules and then presumably
protocells. As I indicated, this may well include cross-pollination
between other local colonies of molecules/protocells. But operative
word here is "local". These incubators must have been delicately
balanced systems, with very limited mobility.
My take is that by the time protocells were being routinely created by combinations of self replicating units that the self replicating units
would have been spread over a large portion of the earth.-a Just think
about how life exists around deep sea vents that are constantly emerging
and shutting down across the sea floor.-a Life seems to have originated
on this earth so close to existence of liquid water that such
environments would have likely been a major component of the surface of
the earth at that time.-a There would have been "cross-pollenation"
across the planet.-a This is not linear in your sense.-a There was no genetic code that would determine cell lineages, just bags of self replicating molecules with various other functions besides self
replication.
For example, let's say you have a local hot spring system that has
given rise to protocell population that has reached RNA replication.
How might this genetic information be transferred non-locally? Perhaps
a flood washes these far away? The transported remnant needs to arrive
in a new location that immediately provides a similar environment with
ready supply of feedstock etc. Without constant replication
replenishment your RNA quickly degrades. The problem is, a flood event
is almost certainly going to do the opposite: disperse the population
and deposit what remains in hostile locations.
The whole world was a local hot spring over 4.2 billion years ago.
What I'm doing here is identifying a point at which prebiotic
chemistry necessarily "crosses the Rubicon". After that point, it
*must* then constantly replicate to survive. Whether it's RNA or some
other polymer or other complex molecules doesn't matter. Stasis is no
longer an option. Growth and selection are the only mechanism
available which can prevent the decomposition of what has been
developed to this point.
Do you see how this must be?
It is what would drive the self replicators to evolve better means of
self replication.-a Selection would have been selecting for the self replicators that also did things to facilitate their self replication or they would be out competed for resources.-a The self replicators that
would survive and continue to replicate would be the ones that could
combine their talents (other functions besides self replicating) to
secure the resources that they needed to continue to self replicate. You
are just describing what selective force was in play to produce groups
of self replicating molecules to evolve the RNA world and RNA based self replicators that needed complementary sequences in order to replicate.
RNA likely took over all the cellular functions that the mix of self replicators were performing for the protocells because it likely could
more accurately reproduce those functions using a DNA genome.-a The
genetic code would have evolved because peptides did a better job of reproducing the needed cellular functions, and were likely more
adaptable in terms of producing new functions that would aid cellular reproduction and the function of the existing RNAs.
Ron Okimoto
TIME
How long would this lineage need? One million years? One thousand
years? 100 million years?
It isn't just one lineage.-a The number of lineages at any one time
would be dependent on what environment the self replicators needed to
replicate.
So the number of lineages vying to develop the RNA world and future
genetic code would be dependent on what environment that those self
replicators existed in.
There could have been trillions of them around a relatively stable
hot spring at any one time.
PROBLEM
What geological situation on the early Earth could provide the
continuous, stable environment required for the duration needed?
Even as little as one thousand years is long for a suitable system
of geothermal ponds that is *uninterrupted* by any sterilisation/
reset events.
Polymers such as RNA break down over hours to decades depending on
environment. Freezing or drying may extend lifetimes but also pause
evolution. In any case, when active, continuous replication is
required for renewal before decomposition.
1,000 years from chemicals to cells seems impossibly short. And
100,000 years for the nursery required seems impossibly long.
Beats me how long it took to evolve the RNA world and subsequent
genetic code, but life seems to have evolved into the LUCA of Archaea
and eubacteria soon after the earth cooled enough to have liquid
water. Just a few hundred million years when the earth's surface was
likely more uniform in terms of the environment that the first life
could evolve in.-a The data is also evidence that life evolved
somewhere else and Archaea and eubacterial lineages were deposited
onto the earth. Only a single lineage of each survive among extant
lifeforms and these single lineages both existed to start diverging
new lineages 3.2 billion years ago.-a Their common ancestor existed
over 4.2 billion years ago, so the genetic code would have had to
evolve by that time, and it is possible that it evolved somewhere else.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-024-02461-1
Ron Okimoto
What possible "bags of self replicating molecules"?You show your poor line of reasoning when you demand specific answers
How does this "self-replication" occur?
You're indulging in pure hand-waving, and blithely understating the >requirements of self-replication with inheritance of sufficient
information content and fidelity to support chemical evolution.
Otherwise it's just random garbage turning into difference random garbage.
On 9/02/2026 4:19 am, RonO wrote:
On 2/7/2026 9:23 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/02/2026 4:27 am, RonO wrote:
On 2/6/2026 11:34 PM, MarkE wrote:
The following seems to be a significant challenge for the
naturalistic origin of life. Thoughts?
PROCESS
OoL assumes a progression from simple inorganic chemicals to a
population of protocells and then on to the first population of
free- living cells (pre-LUCA).
Protocells provide encapsulation, replication and heritable
variation, but are not "alive" in that they require feedstock
supplies from the environment. The feedstock dependence tapers from >>>>> protocells to pre-LUCA.
ENVIRONMENT
This process of chemical evolution and then Darwinian evolution
requires the environment to supply nucleotides, lipids, sugars,
amino acids, polyphosphates, metal ions, etc, in certain
concentrations, with substantial homochirality, etc.
Who makes this claim?-a We do not know what the first self
replicators required.-a Things like nucleotides are required by the
RNA world scenario, but that likely came after the first self
replicators existed. -a-aTo get everything started the first self
replicators would not just replicate themselves, but do things like
make nucleotides in order to facilitate their self replication.-a My
guess is that nucleotides evolved to do what they still do today.
They are a highly useful energy coin for the cell.-a They store
chemical energy and transfer the chemical energy.-a Polymers of
nucleotides likely evolved to store nucleotides inside the cells and
keep them from diffusing out of the cells.
Lipids may have been among the first simple self replicators.
Conglomerations of lipids can have enzymatic activity that makes
more lipid, so the enzymatic lipid structures would get bigger and
be able to split.-a Lipids could evolve other enzymatic functions as
they self replicated, different lipids could be made etc.
Chirality would be set by the self replicators.-a The enzymatic
functions of the self replicators would likely work for one chiral
form or the other.-a Just like many enzymes do today.
Note that I'm not assuming or preferring any particular model here.
But the paper "The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the
early evolution of life (except for all the others)" remains the
frontrunner as far as I'm aware, though now extended to "RNA + messy"
world. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3495036/
My guess is that no one seriously thinks that RNA came first except
those that might consider some type of really improbable start to life
as some type of wildly lucky initial conditions that had nucleotides
present in the environment.-a My take is that it is much more likely
that nucleotides were developed as aids to the primitive metabolism of
the early self replicators.
What other options are there? Autocatalytic sets can't provide
symbolic or digital inheritance, which you need make real progress.
Peptide polymers? Again, can't do templated duplication. It seems
that RNA/DNA has to be central and early.
Your digital inheritance did not have to evolve until the genetic code
could evolve.-a Simple self replication likely drove the evolution of
life on earth.-a You also need the self replication to not be 100%
accurate, so it has to entail more than just single autocatalytic
reactions (you can't just keep making the same simple molecule over
and over).
Recently a simple self replication reacton of a lipid was put up on
TO. Lipid bodies formed and multiplied as long as the researchers kept
adding the starting components.-a What would likely happen in nature is
that there would be a mix of starting components, and that self
replicating lipid bodies would be produced, but other reactions would
likely also be occuring in the mix.-a Other types of lipid bodies would
be produced and even new molecules that were not components of the
lipid bodies (non lipid products).-a This is the type of mess that life
as we know it would have likely sprung from.-a Not your made up
required digital information.
The environment must also provide sufficient temperature stability, >>>>> pH, mechanical agitation, structure (e.g. niche separation), wet/
dry cycling, feedstock recycling, waste removal, etc.
LINEAGE
OoL assumes countless locations working in parallel as described,
possibly with localised cross-pollination. However, there must be
an unbroken lineage (or lineages) to from start to finish. Which
implies the persistence and stability of the environmental
requirements described.
There would be no such thing as an unbroken lineage during the
origin of life on earth.-a There is nothing keeping any lineage from
joining with another, splitting and or joining with others.-a There
would be no genetic code, no genome early life was likely a mess of
self replicating molecules.-a Once a shell or membrane formed
multiple replicators could join together as proto cells.-a They could >>>> start assisting each other in replication.-a There would be no cell
lineages until you evolve a genome for the RNA world where you need
to maintain the complementary sequence for the functional RNAs, and
even after that there is no reason that RNA based cells could not
fuse and split off new lineages.-a Horizontal transfer of genetic
material occurs today.
What I mean by "unbroken lineage" is this. The pathway from simple
chemicals to LUCA had to be a continuous process, with successive
generations of populations of molecules and then presumably
protocells. As I indicated, this may well include cross-pollination
between other local colonies of molecules/protocells. But operative
word here is "local". These incubators must have been delicately
balanced systems, with very limited mobility.
My take is that by the time protocells were being routinely created by
combinations of self replicating units that the self replicating units
would have been spread over a large portion of the earth.-a Just think
about how life exists around deep sea vents that are constantly
emerging and shutting down across the sea floor.-a Life seems to have
originated on this earth so close to existence of liquid water that
such environments would have likely been a major component of the
surface of the earth at that time.-a There would have been "cross-
pollenation" across the planet.-a This is not linear in your sense.
There was no genetic code that would determine cell lineages, just
bags of self replicating molecules with various other functions
besides self replication.
What possible "bags of self replicating molecules"?
How does this "self-replication" occur?
You're indulging in pure hand-waving, and blithely understating the requirements of self-replication with inheritance of sufficient
information content and fidelity to support chemical evolution.
Otherwise it's just random garbage turning into difference random garbage.
On 2/9/2026 4:31 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 9/02/2026 4:19 am, RonO wrote:
On 2/7/2026 9:23 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/02/2026 4:27 am, RonO wrote:
On 2/6/2026 11:34 PM, MarkE wrote:
The following seems to be a significant challenge for the
naturalistic origin of life. Thoughts?
PROCESS
OoL assumes a progression from simple inorganic chemicals to a
population of protocells and then on to the first population of
free- living cells (pre-LUCA).
Protocells provide encapsulation, replication and heritable
variation, but are not "alive" in that they require feedstock
supplies from the environment. The feedstock dependence tapers
from protocells to pre-LUCA.
ENVIRONMENT
This process of chemical evolution and then Darwinian evolution
requires the environment to supply nucleotides, lipids, sugars,
amino acids, polyphosphates, metal ions, etc, in certain
concentrations, with substantial homochirality, etc.
Who makes this claim?-a We do not know what the first self
replicators required.-a Things like nucleotides are required by the >>>>> RNA world scenario, but that likely came after the first self
replicators existed. -a-aTo get everything started the first self
replicators would not just replicate themselves, but do things like >>>>> make nucleotides in order to facilitate their self replication.-a My >>>>> guess is that nucleotides evolved to do what they still do today.
They are a highly useful energy coin for the cell.-a They store
chemical energy and transfer the chemical energy.-a Polymers of
nucleotides likely evolved to store nucleotides inside the cells
and keep them from diffusing out of the cells.
Lipids may have been among the first simple self replicators.
Conglomerations of lipids can have enzymatic activity that makes
more lipid, so the enzymatic lipid structures would get bigger and
be able to split.-a Lipids could evolve other enzymatic functions as >>>>> they self replicated, different lipids could be made etc.
Chirality would be set by the self replicators.-a The enzymatic
functions of the self replicators would likely work for one chiral
form or the other.-a Just like many enzymes do today.
Note that I'm not assuming or preferring any particular model here.
But the paper "The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the
early evolution of life (except for all the others)" remains the
frontrunner as far as I'm aware, though now extended to "RNA +
messy" world. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3495036/
My guess is that no one seriously thinks that RNA came first except
those that might consider some type of really improbable start to
life as some type of wildly lucky initial conditions that had
nucleotides present in the environment.-a My take is that it is much
more likely that nucleotides were developed as aids to the primitive
metabolism of the early self replicators.
What other options are there? Autocatalytic sets can't provide
symbolic or digital inheritance, which you need make real progress.
Peptide polymers? Again, can't do templated duplication. It seems
that RNA/DNA has to be central and early.
Your digital inheritance did not have to evolve until the genetic
code could evolve.-a Simple self replication likely drove the
evolution of life on earth.-a You also need the self replication to
not be 100% accurate, so it has to entail more than just single
autocatalytic reactions (you can't just keep making the same simple
molecule over and over).
Recently a simple self replication reacton of a lipid was put up on
TO. Lipid bodies formed and multiplied as long as the researchers
kept adding the starting components.-a What would likely happen in
nature is that there would be a mix of starting components, and that
self replicating lipid bodies would be produced, but other reactions
would likely also be occuring in the mix.-a Other types of lipid
bodies would be produced and even new molecules that were not
components of the lipid bodies (non lipid products).-a This is the
type of mess that life as we know it would have likely sprung from.
Not your made up required digital information.
The environment must also provide sufficient temperature
stability, pH, mechanical agitation, structure (e.g. niche
separation), wet/ dry cycling, feedstock recycling, waste removal, >>>>>> etc.
LINEAGE
OoL assumes countless locations working in parallel as described, >>>>>> possibly with localised cross-pollination. However, there must be >>>>>> an unbroken lineage (or lineages) to from start to finish. Which
implies the persistence and stability of the environmental
requirements described.
There would be no such thing as an unbroken lineage during the
origin of life on earth.-a There is nothing keeping any lineage from >>>>> joining with another, splitting and or joining with others.-a There >>>>> would be no genetic code, no genome early life was likely a mess of >>>>> self replicating molecules.-a Once a shell or membrane formed
multiple replicators could join together as proto cells.-a They
could start assisting each other in replication.-a There would be no >>>>> cell lineages until you evolve a genome for the RNA world where you >>>>> need to maintain the complementary sequence for the functional
RNAs, and even after that there is no reason that RNA based cells
could not fuse and split off new lineages.-a Horizontal transfer of >>>>> genetic material occurs today.
What I mean by "unbroken lineage" is this. The pathway from simple
chemicals to LUCA had to be a continuous process, with successive
generations of populations of molecules and then presumably
protocells. As I indicated, this may well include cross-pollination
between other local colonies of molecules/protocells. But operative
word here is "local". These incubators must have been delicately
balanced systems, with very limited mobility.
My take is that by the time protocells were being routinely created
by combinations of self replicating units that the self replicating
units would have been spread over a large portion of the earth.-a Just
think about how life exists around deep sea vents that are constantly
emerging and shutting down across the sea floor.-a Life seems to have
originated on this earth so close to existence of liquid water that
such environments would have likely been a major component of the
surface of the earth at that time.-a There would have been "cross-
pollenation" across the planet.-a This is not linear in your sense.
There was no genetic code that would determine cell lineages, just
bags of self replicating molecules with various other functions
besides self replication.
What possible "bags of self replicating molecules"?
How does this "self-replication" occur?
You're indulging in pure hand-waving, and blithely understating the
requirements of self-replication with inheritance of sufficient
information content and fidelity to support chemical evolution.
Otherwise it's just random garbage turning into difference random
garbage.
What does this matter when you can't deal with what else is wrong with
your denial?
I do not follow the origin of life research because it holds little scientific interest for me.-a It is one of the weakest of scientific endeavors.-a This does not mean that your gap denial is supported in anyway.-a The existing gap destroys your Biblical inferences.-a It cannot
be filled by the designer described in the Bible unless you claim that
none of the incorrect Biblical descriptions count in any evaluation of creation in terms of your Biblical beliefs.-a You can't do that, and just run from that reality.-a Instead you wallow in the denial in order to maintain your Biblical beliefs that you can't support by that denial.
From what has been put up on the topic on TO some people think that the initial self replicators were not really self replicators, but needed mineral substrates on which to create larger organic molecules.-a No one knows what the first self replicating molecules were made of.-a This
mineral based replication would need to be replaced by self replication
of the organic molecule or conglomeration of organic molecules
(molecules would need to evolve the ability to make the same chemical
bonds facilitated by the mineral substrate.-a If amino acids were used to make peptides, some of the peptides would need to have peptidase
activity and start making peptides from amino acids.-a Some of the
peptides might start making lipids and in some confined space you would
get lipid conglomerates formed and even membrane bubbles.-a If the self replicators had some hydrophobic parts they would associate with the
lipid ball or membrane.-a Once there were hydrophilic self replicators
they would need to be contained within a membrane bubble in order to continue to work together to facilitate each other's replication.-a I've seen the claim that the self replicators may have been confined in
groups in a fine matrix like clay instead of a membrane bubble.-a It
doesn't matter because lipid membrane bubbles eventually evolved.
A recent paper that I saw on the subject had lipids with enzymatic
activity that would produce more of the same lipid when the reactants
were present so that as long as you added the starting components the
lipid balls would replicate and split from time to time and the solution would become full of the lipid balls.-a Lipids have been known to have enzymatic activity for a long time, and I have always wondered why the origin of life guys have not concentrated on this simple fact.-a It means that once you have a self replicating lipid conglomerate it can evolve
other enzymatic activities because with a mix of available components
you expect mistakes to be made and the structure would not perfectly replicate.-a My take is that lipids could have been the first self replicators and these lipid conglomerates would group together in
aqueous solution.-a Since the replication is not perfect you would evolve different enzymatic activities that could facilitate the replication of
the lipid self replicators, and once membrane bubbles formed their
products could be held within the bag.
Hand waving is all that is needed to thwart your denial.-a Your denial doesn't even support your religious beliefs.
Ron Okimoto
SNIP:
On 10/02/2026 4:42 am, RonO wrote:
On 2/9/2026 4:31 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 9/02/2026 4:19 am, RonO wrote:
On 2/7/2026 9:23 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/02/2026 4:27 am, RonO wrote:
On 2/6/2026 11:34 PM, MarkE wrote:
The following seems to be a significant challenge for the
naturalistic origin of life. Thoughts?
PROCESS
OoL assumes a progression from simple inorganic chemicals to a
population of protocells and then on to the first population of >>>>>>> free- living cells (pre-LUCA).
Protocells provide encapsulation, replication and heritable
variation, but are not "alive" in that they require feedstock
supplies from the environment. The feedstock dependence tapers
from protocells to pre-LUCA.
ENVIRONMENT
This process of chemical evolution and then Darwinian evolution >>>>>>> requires the environment to supply nucleotides, lipids, sugars, >>>>>>> amino acids, polyphosphates, metal ions, etc, in certain
concentrations, with substantial homochirality, etc.
Who makes this claim?-a We do not know what the first self
replicators required.-a Things like nucleotides are required by the >>>>>> RNA world scenario, but that likely came after the first self
replicators existed. -a-aTo get everything started the first self >>>>>> replicators would not just replicate themselves, but do things
like make nucleotides in order to facilitate their self
replication.-a My guess is that nucleotides evolved to do what they >>>>>> still do today. They are a highly useful energy coin for the
cell.-a They store chemical energy and transfer the chemical
energy.-a Polymers of nucleotides likely evolved to store
nucleotides inside the cells and keep them from diffusing out of
the cells.
Lipids may have been among the first simple self replicators.
Conglomerations of lipids can have enzymatic activity that makes
more lipid, so the enzymatic lipid structures would get bigger and >>>>>> be able to split.-a Lipids could evolve other enzymatic functions >>>>>> as they self replicated, different lipids could be made etc.
Chirality would be set by the self replicators.-a The enzymatic
functions of the self replicators would likely work for one chiral >>>>>> form or the other.-a Just like many enzymes do today.
Note that I'm not assuming or preferring any particular model here. >>>>> But the paper "The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the
early evolution of life (except for all the others)" remains the
frontrunner as far as I'm aware, though now extended to "RNA +
messy" world. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3495036/
My guess is that no one seriously thinks that RNA came first except
those that might consider some type of really improbable start to
life as some type of wildly lucky initial conditions that had
nucleotides present in the environment.-a My take is that it is much
more likely that nucleotides were developed as aids to the primitive
metabolism of the early self replicators.
What other options are there? Autocatalytic sets can't provide
symbolic or digital inheritance, which you need make real progress. >>>>> Peptide polymers? Again, can't do templated duplication. It seems
that RNA/DNA has to be central and early.
Your digital inheritance did not have to evolve until the genetic
code could evolve.-a Simple self replication likely drove the
evolution of life on earth.-a You also need the self replication to
not be 100% accurate, so it has to entail more than just single
autocatalytic reactions (you can't just keep making the same simple
molecule over and over).
Recently a simple self replication reacton of a lipid was put up on
TO. Lipid bodies formed and multiplied as long as the researchers
kept adding the starting components.-a What would likely happen in
nature is that there would be a mix of starting components, and that
self replicating lipid bodies would be produced, but other reactions
would likely also be occuring in the mix.-a Other types of lipid
bodies would be produced and even new molecules that were not
components of the lipid bodies (non lipid products).-a This is the
type of mess that life as we know it would have likely sprung from.
Not your made up required digital information.
The environment must also provide sufficient temperature
stability, pH, mechanical agitation, structure (e.g. niche
separation), wet/ dry cycling, feedstock recycling, waste
removal, etc.
LINEAGE
OoL assumes countless locations working in parallel as described, >>>>>>> possibly with localised cross-pollination. However, there must be >>>>>>> an unbroken lineage (or lineages) to from start to finish. Which >>>>>>> implies the persistence and stability of the environmental
requirements described.
There would be no such thing as an unbroken lineage during the
origin of life on earth.-a There is nothing keeping any lineage
from joining with another, splitting and or joining with others. >>>>>> There would be no genetic code, no genome early life was likely a >>>>>> mess of self replicating molecules.-a Once a shell or membrane
formed multiple replicators could join together as proto cells.
They could start assisting each other in replication.-a There would >>>>>> be no cell lineages until you evolve a genome for the RNA world
where you need to maintain the complementary sequence for the
functional RNAs, and even after that there is no reason that RNA
based cells could not fuse and split off new lineages.-a Horizontal >>>>>> transfer of genetic material occurs today.
What I mean by "unbroken lineage" is this. The pathway from simple
chemicals to LUCA had to be a continuous process, with successive
generations of populations of molecules and then presumably
protocells. As I indicated, this may well include cross-pollination >>>>> between other local colonies of molecules/protocells. But operative >>>>> word here is "local". These incubators must have been delicately
balanced systems, with very limited mobility.
My take is that by the time protocells were being routinely created
by combinations of self replicating units that the self replicating
units would have been spread over a large portion of the earth.
Just think about how life exists around deep sea vents that are
constantly emerging and shutting down across the sea floor.-a Life
seems to have originated on this earth so close to existence of
liquid water that such environments would have likely been a major
component of the surface of the earth at that time.-a There would
have been "cross- pollenation" across the planet.-a This is not
linear in your sense. There was no genetic code that would determine
cell lineages, just bags of self replicating molecules with various
other functions besides self replication.
What possible "bags of self replicating molecules"?
How does this "self-replication" occur?
You're indulging in pure hand-waving, and blithely understating the
requirements of self-replication with inheritance of sufficient
information content and fidelity to support chemical evolution.
Otherwise it's just random garbage turning into difference random
garbage.
What does this matter when you can't deal with what else is wrong with
your denial?
I do not follow the origin of life research because it holds little
scientific interest for me.-a It is one of the weakest of scientific
endeavors.-a This does not mean that your gap denial is supported in
anyway.-a The existing gap destroys your Biblical inferences.-a It
cannot be filled by the designer described in the Bible unless you
claim that none of the incorrect Biblical descriptions count in any
evaluation of creation in terms of your Biblical beliefs.-a You can't
do that, and just run from that reality.-a Instead you wallow in the
denial in order to maintain your Biblical beliefs that you can't
support by that denial.
-aFrom what has been put up on the topic on TO some people think that
the initial self replicators were not really self replicators, but
needed mineral substrates on which to create larger organic
molecules.-a No one knows what the first self replicating molecules
were made of.-a This mineral based replication would need to be
replaced by self replication of the organic molecule or conglomeration
of organic molecules (molecules would need to evolve the ability to
make the same chemical bonds facilitated by the mineral substrate.-a If
amino acids were used to make peptides, some of the peptides would
need to have peptidase activity and start making peptides from amino
acids.-a Some of the peptides might start making lipids and in some
confined space you would get lipid conglomerates formed and even
membrane bubbles.-a If the self replicators had some hydrophobic parts
they would associate with the lipid ball or membrane.-a Once there were
hydrophilic self replicators they would need to be contained within a
membrane bubble in order to continue to work together to facilitate
each other's replication.-a I've seen the claim that the self
replicators may have been confined in groups in a fine matrix like
clay instead of a membrane bubble.-a It doesn't matter because lipid
membrane bubbles eventually evolved.
A recent paper that I saw on the subject had lipids with enzymatic
activity that would produce more of the same lipid when the reactants
were present so that as long as you added the starting components the
lipid balls would replicate and split from time to time and the
solution would become full of the lipid balls.-a Lipids have been known
to have enzymatic activity for a long time, and I have always wondered
why the origin of life guys have not concentrated on this simple
fact.-a It means that once you have a self replicating lipid
conglomerate it can evolve other enzymatic activities because with a
mix of available components you expect mistakes to be made and the
structure would not perfectly replicate.-a My take is that lipids could
have been the first self replicators and these lipid conglomerates
would group together in aqueous solution.-a Since the replication is
not perfect you would evolve different enzymatic activities that could
facilitate the replication of the lipid self replicators, and once
membrane bubbles formed their products could be held within the bag.
Once upon a time in Lipid World there was sad bag of chemicals... Now
you're just blowing bubbles.
Okay, that's a bit unfair, and I do appreciate your willingness to
seriously tackle topics. Whatever model you care to name, sooner or
later you're going to need templated, genetic polymers doing heavy
lifting. The only realistic candidate for this is RNA or DNA, and these require a constant supply of nucleotides that are sufficiently pure, concentrated, homochiral, and activated. For thousands or millions of
years. Just let that sink in.
Whatever model you care to name -- RNA world, metabolism-first, lipid-
world hybrids, messy world, autocatalytic networks -- none of these
permit you to wave away this requirement.
Hand waving is all that is needed to thwart your denial.-a Your denial
doesn't even support your religious beliefs.
Ron Okimoto
SNIP:
On 10/02/2026 4:42 am, RonO wrote:
On 2/9/2026 4:31 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 9/02/2026 4:19 am, RonO wrote:
On 2/7/2026 9:23 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 8/02/2026 4:27 am, RonO wrote:
On 2/6/2026 11:34 PM, MarkE wrote:
The following seems to be a significant challenge for the
naturalistic origin of life. Thoughts?
PROCESS
OoL assumes a progression from simple inorganic chemicals to a
population of protocells and then on to the first population of >>>>>>> free- living cells (pre-LUCA).
Protocells provide encapsulation, replication and heritable
variation, but are not "alive" in that they require feedstock
supplies from the environment. The feedstock dependence tapers
from protocells to pre-LUCA.
ENVIRONMENT
This process of chemical evolution and then Darwinian evolution >>>>>>> requires the environment to supply nucleotides, lipids, sugars, >>>>>>> amino acids, polyphosphates, metal ions, etc, in certain
concentrations, with substantial homochirality, etc.
Who makes this claim?-a We do not know what the first self
replicators required.-a Things like nucleotides are required by the >>>>>> RNA world scenario, but that likely came after the first self
replicators existed. -a-aTo get everything started the first self >>>>>> replicators would not just replicate themselves, but do things
like make nucleotides in order to facilitate their self
replication.-a My guess is that nucleotides evolved to do what they >>>>>> still do today. They are a highly useful energy coin for the
cell.-a They store chemical energy and transfer the chemical
energy.-a Polymers of nucleotides likely evolved to store
nucleotides inside the cells and keep them from diffusing out of
the cells.
Lipids may have been among the first simple self replicators.
Conglomerations of lipids can have enzymatic activity that makes
more lipid, so the enzymatic lipid structures would get bigger and >>>>>> be able to split.-a Lipids could evolve other enzymatic functions >>>>>> as they self replicated, different lipids could be made etc.
Chirality would be set by the self replicators.-a The enzymatic
functions of the self replicators would likely work for one chiral >>>>>> form or the other.-a Just like many enzymes do today.
Note that I'm not assuming or preferring any particular model here. >>>>> But the paper "The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the
early evolution of life (except for all the others)" remains the
frontrunner as far as I'm aware, though now extended to "RNA +
messy" world. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3495036/
My guess is that no one seriously thinks that RNA came first except
those that might consider some type of really improbable start to
life as some type of wildly lucky initial conditions that had
nucleotides present in the environment.-a My take is that it is much
more likely that nucleotides were developed as aids to the primitive
metabolism of the early self replicators.
What other options are there? Autocatalytic sets can't provide
symbolic or digital inheritance, which you need make real progress. >>>>> Peptide polymers? Again, can't do templated duplication. It seems
that RNA/DNA has to be central and early.
Your digital inheritance did not have to evolve until the genetic
code could evolve.-a Simple self replication likely drove the
evolution of life on earth.-a You also need the self replication to
not be 100% accurate, so it has to entail more than just single
autocatalytic reactions (you can't just keep making the same simple
molecule over and over).
Recently a simple self replication reacton of a lipid was put up on
TO. Lipid bodies formed and multiplied as long as the researchers
kept adding the starting components.-a What would likely happen in
nature is that there would be a mix of starting components, and that
self replicating lipid bodies would be produced, but other reactions
would likely also be occuring in the mix.-a Other types of lipid
bodies would be produced and even new molecules that were not
components of the lipid bodies (non lipid products).-a This is the
type of mess that life as we know it would have likely sprung from.
Not your made up required digital information.
The environment must also provide sufficient temperature
stability, pH, mechanical agitation, structure (e.g. niche
separation), wet/ dry cycling, feedstock recycling, waste
removal, etc.
LINEAGE
OoL assumes countless locations working in parallel as described, >>>>>>> possibly with localised cross-pollination. However, there must be >>>>>>> an unbroken lineage (or lineages) to from start to finish. Which >>>>>>> implies the persistence and stability of the environmental
requirements described.
There would be no such thing as an unbroken lineage during the
origin of life on earth.-a There is nothing keeping any lineage
from joining with another, splitting and or joining with others. >>>>>> There would be no genetic code, no genome early life was likely a >>>>>> mess of self replicating molecules.-a Once a shell or membrane
formed multiple replicators could join together as proto cells.
They could start assisting each other in replication.-a There would >>>>>> be no cell lineages until you evolve a genome for the RNA world
where you need to maintain the complementary sequence for the
functional RNAs, and even after that there is no reason that RNA
based cells could not fuse and split off new lineages.-a Horizontal >>>>>> transfer of genetic material occurs today.
What I mean by "unbroken lineage" is this. The pathway from simple
chemicals to LUCA had to be a continuous process, with successive
generations of populations of molecules and then presumably
protocells. As I indicated, this may well include cross-pollination >>>>> between other local colonies of molecules/protocells. But operative >>>>> word here is "local". These incubators must have been delicately
balanced systems, with very limited mobility.
My take is that by the time protocells were being routinely created
by combinations of self replicating units that the self replicating
units would have been spread over a large portion of the earth.
Just think about how life exists around deep sea vents that are
constantly emerging and shutting down across the sea floor.-a Life
seems to have originated on this earth so close to existence of
liquid water that such environments would have likely been a major
component of the surface of the earth at that time.-a There would
have been "cross- pollenation" across the planet.-a This is not
linear in your sense. There was no genetic code that would determine
cell lineages, just bags of self replicating molecules with various
other functions besides self replication.
What possible "bags of self replicating molecules"?
How does this "self-replication" occur?
You're indulging in pure hand-waving, and blithely understating the
requirements of self-replication with inheritance of sufficient
information content and fidelity to support chemical evolution.
Otherwise it's just random garbage turning into difference random
garbage.
What does this matter when you can't deal with what else is wrong with
your denial?
I do not follow the origin of life research because it holds little
scientific interest for me.-a It is one of the weakest of scientific
endeavors.-a This does not mean that your gap denial is supported in
anyway.-a The existing gap destroys your Biblical inferences.-a It
cannot be filled by the designer described in the Bible unless you
claim that none of the incorrect Biblical descriptions count in any
evaluation of creation in terms of your Biblical beliefs.-a You can't
do that, and just run from that reality.-a Instead you wallow in the
denial in order to maintain your Biblical beliefs that you can't
support by that denial.
-aFrom what has been put up on the topic on TO some people think that
the initial self replicators were not really self replicators, but
needed mineral substrates on which to create larger organic
molecules.-a No one knows what the first self replicating molecules
were made of.-a This mineral based replication would need to be
replaced by self replication of the organic molecule or conglomeration
of organic molecules (molecules would need to evolve the ability to
make the same chemical bonds facilitated by the mineral substrate.-a If
amino acids were used to make peptides, some of the peptides would
need to have peptidase activity and start making peptides from amino
acids.-a Some of the peptides might start making lipids and in some
confined space you would get lipid conglomerates formed and even
membrane bubbles.-a If the self replicators had some hydrophobic parts
they would associate with the lipid ball or membrane.-a Once there were
hydrophilic self replicators they would need to be contained within a
membrane bubble in order to continue to work together to facilitate
each other's replication.-a I've seen the claim that the self
replicators may have been confined in groups in a fine matrix like
clay instead of a membrane bubble.-a It doesn't matter because lipid
membrane bubbles eventually evolved.
A recent paper that I saw on the subject had lipids with enzymatic
activity that would produce more of the same lipid when the reactants
were present so that as long as you added the starting components the
lipid balls would replicate and split from time to time and the
solution would become full of the lipid balls.-a Lipids have been known
to have enzymatic activity for a long time, and I have always wondered
why the origin of life guys have not concentrated on this simple
fact.-a It means that once you have a self replicating lipid
conglomerate it can evolve other enzymatic activities because with a
mix of available components you expect mistakes to be made and the
structure would not perfectly replicate.-a My take is that lipids could
have been the first self replicators and these lipid conglomerates
would group together in aqueous solution.-a Since the replication is
not perfect you would evolve different enzymatic activities that could
facilitate the replication of the lipid self replicators, and once
membrane bubbles formed their products could be held within the bag.
Once upon a time in Lipid World there was sad bag of chemicals... Now
you're just blowing bubbles.
Okay, that's a bit unfair, and I do appreciate your willingness to
seriously tackle topics. Whatever model you care to name, sooner or
later you're going to need templated, genetic polymers doing heavy
lifting. The only realistic candidate for this is RNA or DNA, and these require a constant supply of nucleotides that are sufficiently pure, concentrated, homochiral, and activated. For thousands or millions of
years. Just let that sink in.
Whatever model you care to name -- RNA world, metabolism-first, lipid-
world hybrids, messy world, autocatalytic networks -- none of these
permit you to wave away this requirement.d
Hand waving is all that is needed to thwart your denial.-a Your denial
doesn't even support your religious beliefs.
Ron Okimoto
SNIP:
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 03:56:58 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
4 files (10,048K bytes) |
| Messages: | 203,128 |