| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 38:12:46 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
22 files (29,767K bytes) |
| Messages: | 173,683 |
Q: "As you guide the next generation of young investigators and assist
new laboratories to set up their experimental simulations and field
work, what is your best-case scenario for the state of the inquiry into
the origin of life a decade or two from today?"
David Deamer: "I would guess we know maybe 1% of what is necessary to understand how life can begin. The other 99%...well, wherever you look
in origins of life research, there are vast gaps of ignorance that are within the reach of anyone who wants to try their hand. I identified
some of these gaps in Chapter 11 of my book, Assembling Life. For
example, how did life become homochiral? How were polymers synthesized non-enzymatically for life to begin? How did metabolism begin? How was
light captured in primitive versions of photosynthesis? Where did
ribosomes come from and how did the genetic code emerge?"
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/9/2/36
An elder statesman of OoL summing up 50 years of research he has
witnessed: "wherever you look in origins of life research, there are
vast gaps of ignorance..."
Prediction for the next 50 years of OoL research: the "vast gaps" will actually increase, making even more room for the God-of-the-ever- widening-gulfs.
Q: "As you guide the next generation of young investigators and assist
new laboratories to set up their experimental simulations and field
work, what is your best-case scenario for the state of the inquiry into
the origin of life a decade or two from today?"
David Deamer: "I would guess we know maybe 1% of what is necessary to understand how life can begin. The other 99%...well, wherever you look
in origins of life research, there are vast gaps of ignorance that are within the reach of anyone who wants to try their hand. I identified
some of these gaps in Chapter 11 of my book, Assembling Life. For
example, how did life become homochiral? How were polymers synthesized non-enzymatically for life to begin? How did metabolism begin? How was
light captured in primitive versions of photosynthesis? Where did
ribosomes come from and how did the genetic code emerge?"
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/9/2/36
An elder statesman of OoL summing up 50 years of research he has
witnessed: "wherever you look in origins of life research, there are
vast gaps of ignorance..."
Prediction for the next 50 years of OoL research: the "vast gaps" will actually increase, making even more room for the God-of-the-ever-widening-gulfs.
Q: "As you guide the next generation of young investigators and assist
new laboratories to set up their experimental simulations and field
work, what is your best-case scenario for the state of the inquiry into
the origin of life a decade or two from today?"
David Deamer: "I would guess we know maybe 1% of what is necessary to >understand how life can begin. The other 99%...well, wherever you look
in origins of life research, there are vast gaps of ignorance that are >within the reach of anyone who wants to try their hand. I identified
some of these gaps in Chapter 11 of my book, Assembling Life. For
example, how did life become homochiral? How were polymers synthesized >non-enzymatically for life to begin? How did metabolism begin? How was
light captured in primitive versions of photosynthesis? Where did
ribosomes come from and how did the genetic code emerge?"
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/9/2/36
An elder statesman of OoL summing up 50 years of research he has
witnessed: "wherever you look in origins of life research, there are
vast gaps of ignorance..."
Prediction for the next 50 years of OoL research: the "vast gaps" will >actually increase, making even more room for the >God-of-the-ever-widening-gulfs.
On 2025-09-08 13:01:55 +0000, MarkE said:
Q: "As you guide the next generation of young investigators and assist
new laboratories to set up their experimental simulations and field
work, what is your best-case scenario for the state of the inquiry
into the origin of life a decade or two from today?"
David Deamer: "I would guess we know maybe 1% of what is necessary to
understand how life can begin. The other 99%...well, wherever you look
in origins of life research, there are vast gaps of ignorance that are
within the reach of anyone who wants to try their hand. I identified
some of these gaps in Chapter 11 of my book, Assembling Life. For
example, how did life become homochiral? How were polymers synthesized
non-enzymatically for life to begin? How did metabolism begin? How was
light captured in primitive versions of photosynthesis? Where did
ribosomes come from and how did the genetic code emerge?"
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/9/2/36
An elder statesman of OoL summing up 50 years of research he has
witnessed: "wherever you look in origins of life research, there are
vast gaps of ignorance..."
Apart from creationists who think that god-did-it is a sufficient
scientific hypothesis to explain anything you want, no serious person
thinks that the problem of the original of life is simple and that it's
near to being solved. There is lots of work to do, but that doesn't mean that god-did-it.
Prediction for the next 50 years of OoL research: the "vast gaps" will
actually increase, making even more room for the God-of-the-ever-
widening-gulfs.
Ah, the favourite creationist response to the identification of an intermediate form: you haven't filled a gap, you've created two new
ones. What's the logic, if any, behind your "prediction"?
On 9/09/2025 12:39 am, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2025-09-08 13:01:55 +0000, MarkE said:
Q: "As you guide the next generation of young investigators and assist
new laboratories to set up their experimental simulations and field
work, what is your best-case scenario for the state of the inquiry into >>> the origin of life a decade or two from today?"
David Deamer: "I would guess we know maybe 1% of what is necessary to
understand how life can begin. The other 99%...well, wherever you look
in origins of life research, there are vast gaps of ignorance that are
within the reach of anyone who wants to try their hand. I identified
some of these gaps in Chapter 11 of my book, Assembling Life. For
example, how did life become homochiral? How were polymers synthesized
non-enzymatically for life to begin? How did metabolism begin? How was
light captured in primitive versions of photosynthesis? Where did
ribosomes come from and how did the genetic code emerge?"
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/9/2/36
An elder statesman of OoL summing up 50 years of research he has
witnessed: "wherever you look in origins of life research, there are
vast gaps of ignorance..."
Apart from creationists who think that god-did-it is a sufficient
scientific hypothesis to explain anything you want, no serious person
thinks that the problem of the original of life is simple and that it's
near to being solved. There is lots of work to do, but that doesn't
mean that god-did-it.
Prediction for the next 50 years of OoL research: the "vast gaps" will
actually increase, making even more room for the God-of-the-ever-
widening-gulfs.
Ah, the favourite creationist response to the identification of an
intermediate form: you haven't filled a gap, you've created two new
ones. What's the logic, if any, behind your "prediction"?
I draw your attention to another gap: reality vs naive, misguided, misleading claims, as sampled below. I've got bad news for you too:
it's only going to get worse as the accumulating scientific evidence
makes it harder and harder to dodge and deny the magnitude of this
reality.
REALITY
-------
"I would guess we know maybe 1% of what is necessary to understand how
life can begin. The other 99%...well, wherever you look in origins of
life research, there are vast gaps of ignorance..."
NAIVE, MISGUIDED, MISLEADING CLAIMS
-----------------------------------
Jack W. Szostak (Nobel laureate; protocell/OoL pioneer)
rCL[He] hopes that in the next 5rCo10 years they will develop a good
nucleic acid replication system and a functioning rCyartificial
cell.rCO rCyI think that is a feasible goal in the time I have left,rCO Szostak said.rCY
https://nesacs.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/szostak.pdf
Lee Cronin (University of Glasgow; abiogenesis/synthetic life)
Reported soon after his TED talk on rCLinorganic liferCY: rCLHe still
hopes to rCycreate liferCO in the next year or two.rCY (profile feature summarizing CroninrCOs own stated timeline). https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jul/21/chemputer-that-prints-out-drugs?utm_source=chatgpt.com
E||rs Szathm|iry & the ERC MiniLife team (OoL/evolutionary biology)
The grouprCOs aim is near-term and explicit: rCL[Their] aim is to
create, for the first time, a living system from completely abiotic componentsrCarCY within a six-year project window (ERC Synergy grant rCLMiniLiferCY). https://www.rug.nl/research/stratingh/news/sijbren-otto-awarded-an-erc-synergy-grant?lang=en&utm_source=chatgpt.com
Gerald F. Joyce (Salk; RNA world/OoL)
On their 2024 RNA-replicase advance enabling Darwinian-like variation,
Joyce said, rCLWerCOre chasing the dawn of evolution,rCY in a release
that also states the work brings researchers rCLone step closer to re-creating RNA-based life in the laboratory.rCY https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/03/240304195250.htm?utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://www.salk.edu/news-release/modeling-the-origins-of-life-new-evidence-for-an-rna-world/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
On 2025-09-08 23:38:42 +0000, MarkE said:
On 9/09/2025 12:39 am, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2025-09-08 13:01:55 +0000, MarkE said:
Q: "As you guide the next generation of young investigators and
assist new laboratories to set up their experimental simulations and
field work, what is your best-case scenario for the state of the
inquiry into the origin of life a decade or two from today?"
David Deamer: "I would guess we know maybe 1% of what is necessary
to understand how life can begin. The other 99%...well, wherever you
look in origins of life research, there are vast gaps of ignorance
that are within the reach of anyone who wants to try their hand. I
identified some of these gaps in Chapter 11 of my book, Assembling
Life. For example, how did life become homochiral? How were polymers
synthesized non-enzymatically for life to begin? How did metabolism
begin? How was light captured in primitive versions of
photosynthesis? Where did ribosomes come from and how did the
genetic code emerge?"
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/9/2/36
An elder statesman of OoL summing up 50 years of research he has
witnessed: "wherever you look in origins of life research, there are
vast gaps of ignorance..."
Apart from creationists who think that god-did-it is a sufficient
scientific hypothesis to explain anything you want, no serious person
thinks that the problem of the original of life is simple and that
it's near to being solved. There is lots of work to do, but that
doesn't mean that god-did-it.
Prediction for the next 50 years of OoL research: the "vast gaps"
will actually increase, making even more room for the God-of-the-
ever- widening-gulfs.
Ah, the favourite creationist response to the identification of an
intermediate form: you haven't filled a gap, you've created two new
ones. What's the logic, if any, behind your "prediction"?
I draw your attention to another gap: reality vs naive, misguided,
misleading claims, as sampled below. I've got bad news for you too:
it's only going to get worse as the accumulating scientific evidence
makes it harder and harder to dodge and deny the magnitude of this
reality.
REALITY
-------
"I would guess we know maybe 1% of what is necessary to understand how
life can begin. The other 99%...well, wherever you look in origins of
life research, there are vast gaps of ignorance..."
NAIVE, MISGUIDED, MISLEADING CLAIMS
-----------------------------------
Jack W. Szostak (Nobel laureate; protocell/OoL pioneer)
|ore4+o[He] hopes that in the next 5|ore4rCL10 years they will develop a good
nucleic acid replication system and a functioning |ore4-Lartificial
cell.|ore4rao |ore4-LI think that is a feasible goal in the time I have
left,|ore4rao Szostak said.|ore4-Y
https://nesacs.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/szostak.pdf
Lee Cronin (University of Glasgow; abiogenesis/synthetic life)
Reported soon after his TED talk on |ore4+oinorganic life|ore4-Y: |ore4+oHe still
hopes to |ore4-Lcreate life|ore4rao in the next year or two.|ore4-Y (profile
feature summarizing Cronin|ore4raos own stated timeline).
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jul/21/chemputer-that-prints-
out-drugs?utm_source=chatgpt.com
E|a-|rs Szathm|a-iry & the ERC MiniLife team (OoL/evolutionary biology)
The group|ore4raos aim is near-term and explicit: |ore4+o[Their] aim is to >> create, for the first time, a living system from completely abiotic
components|ore4-a|ore4-Y within a six-year project window (ERC Synergy grant
|ore4+oMiniLife|ore4-Y).
https://www.rug.nl/research/stratingh/news/sijbren-otto-awarded-an-
erc-synergy-grant?lang=en&utm_source=chatgpt.com
Gerald F. Joyce (Salk; RNA world/OoL)
On their 2024 RNA-replicase advance enabling Darwinian-like variation,
Joyce said, |ore4+oWe|ore4raore chasing the dawn of evolution,|ore4-Y in a release
that also states the work brings researchers |ore4+oone step closer to re- >> creating RNA-based life in the laboratory.|ore4-Y
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/03/240304195250.htm?
utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://www.salk.edu/news-release/modeling-the-origins-of-life-new-
evidence-for-an-rna-world/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
You're confusing two things: how life actually started on earth; how
nucleic acid replication (etc.) might be mimicked with synthetic
components. The examples you quote do not begin to justify your "prediction", which you just made up on the basis of no data.
So far as the cases you mention go, I'm inclined to believe that E||rs Szathm|iry may succeed in what he's trying to do, because knows and understands a great deal, and after his long collaboration with John
Maynard Smith he has a very good grasp of biological ideas. However,
success wouldn't tell us how life actually began in prebiotic conditions.
As for the others, we'll believe it when we see it.
On 9/09/2025 10:54 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2025-09-08 23:38:42 +0000, MarkE said:
On 9/09/2025 12:39 am, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2025-09-08 13:01:55 +0000, MarkE said:
Q: "As you guide the next generation of young investigators and assist >>>>> new laboratories to set up their experimental simulations and field >>>>> work, what is your best-case scenario for the state of the inquiry into >>>>> the origin of life a decade or two from today?"
David Deamer: "I would guess we know maybe 1% of what is necessary to >>>>> understand how life can begin. The other 99%...well, wherever you look >>>>> in origins of life research, there are vast gaps of ignorance that are >>>>> within the reach of anyone who wants to try their hand. I identified >>>>> some of these gaps in Chapter 11 of my book, Assembling Life. For
example, how did life become homochiral? How were polymers synthesized >>>>> non-enzymatically for life to begin? How did metabolism begin? How was >>>>> light captured in primitive versions of photosynthesis? Where did
ribosomes come from and how did the genetic code emerge?"
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/9/2/36
An elder statesman of OoL summing up 50 years of research he has
witnessed: "wherever you look in origins of life research, there are >>>>> vast gaps of ignorance..."
Apart from creationists who think that god-did-it is a sufficient
scientific hypothesis to explain anything you want, no serious person >>>> thinks that the problem of the original of life is simple and that it's >>>> near to being solved. There is lots of work to do, but that doesn't
mean that god-did-it.
Prediction for the next 50 years of OoL research: the "vast gaps" will >>>>> actually increase, making even more room for the God-of-the- ever-
widening-gulfs.
Ah, the favourite creationist response to the identification of an
intermediate form: you haven't filled a gap, you've created two new
ones. What's the logic, if any, behind your "prediction"?
I draw your attention to another gap: reality vs naive, misguided,
misleading claims, as sampled below. I've got bad news for you too:
it's only going to get worse as the accumulating scientific evidence
makes it harder and harder to dodge and deny the magnitude of this
reality.
REALITY
-------
"I would guess we know maybe 1% of what is necessary to understand how
life can begin. The other 99%...well, wherever you look in origins of
life research, there are vast gaps of ignorance..."
NAIVE, MISGUIDED, MISLEADING CLAIMS
-----------------------------------
Jack W. Szostak (Nobel laureate; protocell/OoL pioneer)
|ore4+o[He] hopes that in the next 5|ore4rCL10 years they will develop
a good nucleic acid replication system and a functioning
|ore4-Lartificial cell.|ore4rao |ore4-LI think that is a feasible goal
in the time I have left,|ore4rao Szostak said.|ore4-Y
https://nesacs.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/szostak.pdf
Lee Cronin (University of Glasgow; abiogenesis/synthetic life)
Reported soon after his TED talk on |ore4+oinorganic life|ore4-Y:
|ore4+oHe still hopes to |ore4-Lcreate life|ore4rao in the next year or >>> two.|ore4-Y (profile feature summarizing Cronin|ore4raos own stated
timeline).
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jul/21/chemputer-that-prints-
out-drugs?utm_source=chatgpt.com
E|a-|rs Szathm|a-iry & the ERC MiniLife team (OoL/evolutionary biology)
The group|ore4raos aim is near-term and explicit: |ore4+o[Their] aim is >>> to create, for the first time, a living system from completely abiotic
components|ore4-a|ore4-Y within a six-year project window (ERC Synergy
grant |ore4+oMiniLife|ore4-Y).
https://www.rug.nl/research/stratingh/news/sijbren-otto-awarded-an-
erc-synergy-grant?lang=en&utm_source=chatgpt.com
Gerald F. Joyce (Salk; RNA world/OoL)
On their 2024 RNA-replicase advance enabling Darwinian-like variation,
Joyce said, |ore4+oWe|ore4raore chasing the dawn of evolution,|ore4-Y
in a release that also states the work brings researchers |ore4+oone
step closer to re- creating RNA-based life in the laboratory.|ore4-Y
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/03/240304195250.htm?
utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://www.salk.edu/news-release/modeling-the-origins-of-life-new-
evidence-for-an-rna-world/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
You're confusing two things: how life actually started on earth; how
nucleic acid replication (etc.) might be mimicked with synthetic
components. The examples you quote do not begin to justify your
"prediction", which you just made up on the basis of no data.
They're not same thing, agreed, but they have sufficient overlap and interconnection to support my point.
Indeed, Deamer has in mind problems directly related to how nucleic
acid replication (etc.) might be mimicked with synthetic components:
"For example, how did life become homochiral? How were polymers
synthesized non-enzymatically for life to begin?"
So far as the cases you mention go, I'm inclined to believe that E||rs
Szathm|iry may succeed in what he's trying to do, because knows and
understands a great deal, and after his long collaboration with John
Maynard Smith he has a very good grasp of biological ideas. However,
success wouldn't tell us how life actually began in prebiotic
conditions.
As for the others, we'll believe it when we see it.
I've appreciated listening to some of Szostak's lectures. But the fact
that a leading light on OoL and Nobel laureate can be so wrong is
telling.
Szostak "hopes that in the next 5-10 years they will develop a good
nucleic acid replication system and a functioning artificial cell."
The reality is the opposite. In the next 5-10 years they will begin to acknowledge just how far away is the development of "a good
nucleic acid replication system and a functioning artificial cell".
I've appreciated listening to some of Szostak's lectures. But the fact
that a leading light on OoL and Nobel laureate can be so wrong is
telling. Szostak "hopes that in the next 5-10 years they will develop a
good nucleic acid replication system and a functioning artificial cell."
The reality is the opposite. In the next 5-10 years they will begin to >acknowledge just how far away is the development of "a good
nucleic acid replication system and a functioning artificial cell".
On 2025-09-09 14:26:47 +0000, MarkE said:
On 9/09/2025 10:54 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2025-09-08 23:38:42 +0000, MarkE said:
On 9/09/2025 12:39 am, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2025-09-08 13:01:55 +0000, MarkE said:
Q: "As you guide the next generation of young investigators and
assist new laboratories to set up their experimental simulations
and field work, what is your best-case scenario for the state of
the inquiry into the origin of life a decade or two from today?"
David Deamer: "I would guess we know maybe 1% of what is necessary >>>>>> to understand how life can begin. The other 99%...well, wherever
you look in origins of life research, there are vast gaps of
ignorance that are within the reach of anyone who wants to try
their hand. I identified some of these gaps in Chapter 11 of my
book, Assembling Life. For example, how did life become
homochiral? How were polymers synthesized non-enzymatically for
life to begin? How did metabolism begin? How was light captured in >>>>>> primitive versions of photosynthesis? Where did ribosomes come
from and how did the genetic code emerge?"
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/9/2/36
An elder statesman of OoL summing up 50 years of research he has
witnessed: "wherever you look in origins of life research, there
are vast gaps of ignorance..."
Apart from creationists who think that god-did-it is a sufficient
scientific hypothesis to explain anything you want, no serious
person thinks that the problem of the original of life is simple
and that it's near to being solved. There is lots of work to do,
but that doesn't mean that god-did-it.
Prediction for the next 50 years of OoL research: the "vast gaps" >>>>>> will actually increase, making even more room for the God-of-the- >>>>>> ever- widening-gulfs.
Ah, the favourite creationist response to the identification of an
intermediate form: you haven't filled a gap, you've created two new >>>>> ones. What's the logic, if any, behind your "prediction"?
I draw your attention to another gap: reality vs naive, misguided,
misleading claims, as sampled below. I've got bad news for you too:
it's only going to get worse as the accumulating scientific evidence
makes it harder and harder to dodge and deny the magnitude of this
reality.
REALITY
-------
"I would guess we know maybe 1% of what is necessary to understand
how life can begin. The other 99%...well, wherever you look in
origins of life research, there are vast gaps of ignorance..."
NAIVE, MISGUIDED, MISLEADING CLAIMS
-----------------------------------
Jack W. Szostak (Nobel laureate; protocell/OoL pioneer)
|a-o|orCU-4|arCL[He] hopes that in the next 5|a-o|orCU-4|ore4+o10 years they will
develop a good nucleic acid replication system and a functioning
|a-o|orCU-4|i+oartificial cell.|a-o|orCU-4|orCR-o |a-o|orCU-4|i+oI think that is a feasible
goal in the time I have left,|a-o|orCU-4|orCR-o Szostak said.|a-o|orCU-4|e-Y
https://nesacs.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/szostak.pdf
Lee Cronin (University of Glasgow; abiogenesis/synthetic life)
Reported soon after his TED talk on |a-o|orCU-4|arCLinorganic life|a-o|orCU-4|e-Y:
|a-o|orCU-4|arCLHe still hopes to |a-o|orCU-4|i+ocreate life|a-o|orCU-4|orCR-o in the next year
or two.|a-o|orCU-4|e-Y (profile feature summarizing Cronin|a-o|orCU-4|orCR-os own
stated timeline).
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jul/21/chemputer-that-
prints- out-drugs?utm_source=chatgpt.com
E|a|A|e-|rs Szathm|a|A|e-iry & the ERC MiniLife team (OoL/evolutionary biology)
The group|a-o|orCU-4|orCR-os aim is near-term and explicit: |a-o|orCU-4|arCL[Their] aim
is to create, for the first time, a living system from completely
abiotic components|a-o|orCU-4|e-a|a-o|orCU-4|e-Y within a six-year project window
(ERC Synergy grant |a-o|orCU-4|arCLMiniLife|a-o|orCU-4|e-Y).
https://www.rug.nl/research/stratingh/news/sijbren-otto-awarded-an-
erc-synergy-grant?lang=en&utm_source=chatgpt.com
Gerald F. Joyce (Salk; RNA world/OoL)
On their 2024 RNA-replicase advance enabling Darwinian-like
variation, Joyce said, |a-o|orCU-4|arCLWe|a-o|orCU-4|orCR-ore chasing the dawn of
evolution,|a-o|orCU-4|e-Y in a release that also states the work brings >>>> researchers |a-o|orCU-4|arCLone step closer to re- creating RNA-based life in
the laboratory.|a-o|orCU-4|e-Y
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/03/240304195250.htm?
utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://www.salk.edu/news-release/modeling-the-origins-of-life-new-
evidence-for-an-rna-world/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
You're confusing two things: how life actually started on earth; how
nucleic acid replication (etc.) might be mimicked with synthetic
components. The examples you quote do not begin to justify your
"prediction", which you just made up on the basis of no data.
They're not same thing, agreed, but they have sufficient overlap and
interconnection to support my point.
Indeed, Deamer has in mind problems directly related to how nucleic
acid replication (etc.) might be mimicked with synthetic components:
"For example, how did life become homochiral? How were polymers
synthesized non-enzymatically for life to begin?"
So far as the cases you mention go, I'm inclined to believe that
E|a-|rs Szathm|a-iry may succeed in what he's trying to do, because knows >>> and understands a great deal, and after his long collaboration with
John Maynard Smith he has a very good grasp of biological ideas.
However, success wouldn't tell us how life actually began in
prebiotic conditions.
As for the others, we'll believe it when we see it.
I've appreciated listening to some of Szostak's lectures. But the fact
that a leading light on OoL and Nobel laureate can be so wrong is
telling.
Maybe he's wrong, maybe he isn't, but what's your evidence for "can be
so wrong"? How do you know?
I heard Jack Szostak give a plenary lecture at the FEBS meeting in St Petersburg in 2013. He clearly knows his chemistry (it would be very
strange as a Nobel prizewiner if he didn't), but I was astonished at his apparent ignorance of some basic biochemistry and enzymology. As far as
I could tell he knew nothing of the theory of induced fit, dating from
1958, when he was a little lad of 5, which has long been understood to
be an essential component of enzyme specificity.
-aSzostak "hopes that in the next 5-10 years they will develop a good
nucleic acid replication system and a functioning artificial cell."
The reality is the opposite. In the next 5-10 years they will begin to
acknowledge just how far away is the development of "a good
nucleic acid replication system and a functioning artificial cell".
As I said, that's irrelevant, because either way it'll tell us nothing
about how life on earth actually started.
Getting back to E||rs Szathm|iry, he has a pretty good idea of what life
is. I'm not sure that the others have. They seem to think it has
something to do with nucleic acids.
On 10/09/2025 2:12 am, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2025-09-09 14:26:47 +0000, MarkE said:
On 9/09/2025 10:54 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2025-09-08 23:38:42 +0000, MarkE said:
On 9/09/2025 12:39 am, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2025-09-08 13:01:55 +0000, MarkE said:
Q: "As you guide the next generation of young investigators and >>>>>>> assist new laboratories to set up their experimental simulations >>>>>>> and field work, what is your best-case scenario for the state of >>>>>>> the inquiry into the origin of life a decade or two from today?" >>>>>>>
David Deamer: "I would guess we know maybe 1% of what is
necessary to understand how life can begin. The other 99%...well, >>>>>>> wherever you look in origins of life research, there are vast
gaps of ignorance that are within the reach of anyone who wants >>>>>>> to try their hand. I identified some of these gaps in Chapter 11 >>>>>>> of my book, Assembling Life. For example, how did life become
homochiral? How were polymers synthesized non-enzymatically for >>>>>>> life to begin? How did metabolism begin? How was light captured >>>>>>> in primitive versions of photosynthesis? Where did ribosomes come >>>>>>> from and how did the genetic code emerge?"
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/9/2/36
An elder statesman of OoL summing up 50 years of research he has >>>>>>> witnessed: "wherever you look in origins of life research, there >>>>>>> are vast gaps of ignorance..."
Apart from creationists who think that god-did-it is a sufficient >>>>>> scientific hypothesis to explain anything you want, no serious
person thinks that the problem of the original of life is simple
and that it's near to being solved. There is lots of work to do,
but that doesn't mean that god-did-it.
Prediction for the next 50 years of OoL research: the "vast gaps" >>>>>>> will actually increase, making even more room for the God-of-the- >>>>>>> ever- widening-gulfs.
Ah, the favourite creationist response to the identification of an >>>>>> intermediate form: you haven't filled a gap, you've created two
new ones. What's the logic, if any, behind your "prediction"?
I draw your attention to another gap: reality vs naive, misguided,
misleading claims, as sampled below. I've got bad news for you too: >>>>> it's only going to get worse as the accumulating scientific
evidence makes it harder and harder to dodge and deny the magnitude >>>>> of this reality.
REALITY
-------
"I would guess we know maybe 1% of what is necessary to understand
how life can begin. The other 99%...well, wherever you look in
origins of life research, there are vast gaps of ignorance..."
NAIVE, MISGUIDED, MISLEADING CLAIMS
-----------------------------------
Jack W. Szostak (Nobel laureate; protocell/OoL pioneer)
|a-o|orCU-4|arCL[He] hopes that in the next 5|a-o|orCU-4|ore4+o10 years they will
develop a good nucleic acid replication system and a functioning
|a-o|orCU-4|i+oartificial cell.|a-o|orCU-4|orCR-o |a-o|orCU-4|i+oI think that is a feasible
goal in the time I have left,|a-o|orCU-4|orCR-o Szostak said.|a-o|orCU-4|e-Y
https://nesacs.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/szostak.pdf
Lee Cronin (University of Glasgow; abiogenesis/synthetic life)
Reported soon after his TED talk on |a-o|orCU-4|arCLinorganic life|a-o|orCU-4|e-Y:
|a-o|orCU-4|arCLHe still hopes to |a-o|orCU-4|i+ocreate life|a-o|orCU-4|orCR-o in the next
year or two.|a-o|orCU-4|e-Y (profile feature summarizing Cronin|a-o|orCU-4|orCR-os
own stated timeline).
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jul/21/chemputer-that-
prints- out-drugs?utm_source=chatgpt.com
E|a|A|e-|rs Szathm|a|A|e-iry & the ERC MiniLife team (OoL/evolutionary >>>>> biology)
The group|a-o|orCU-4|orCR-os aim is near-term and explicit: |a-o|orCU-4|arCL[Their]
aim is to create, for the first time, a living system from
completely abiotic components|a-o|orCU-4|e-a|a-o|orCU-4|e-Y within a six-year
project window (ERC Synergy grant |a-o|orCU-4|arCLMiniLife|a-o|orCU-4|e-Y).
https://www.rug.nl/research/stratingh/news/sijbren-otto-awarded-an- >>>>> erc-synergy-grant?lang=en&utm_source=chatgpt.com
Gerald F. Joyce (Salk; RNA world/OoL)
On their 2024 RNA-replicase advance enabling Darwinian-like
variation, Joyce said, |a-o|orCU-4|arCLWe|a-o|orCU-4|orCR-ore chasing the dawn of
evolution,|a-o|orCU-4|e-Y in a release that also states the work brings >>>>> researchers |a-o|orCU-4|arCLone step closer to re- creating RNA-based life
in the laboratory.|a-o|orCU-4|e-Y
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/03/240304195250.htm?
utm_source=chatgpt.com
https://www.salk.edu/news-release/modeling-the-origins-of-life-new- >>>>> evidence-for-an-rna-world/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
You're confusing two things: how life actually started on earth; how
nucleic acid replication (etc.) might be mimicked with synthetic
components. The examples you quote do not begin to justify your
"prediction", which you just made up on the basis of no data.
They're not same thing, agreed, but they have sufficient overlap and
interconnection to support my point.
Indeed, Deamer has in mind problems directly related to how nucleic
acid replication (etc.) might be mimicked with synthetic components:
"For example, how did life become homochiral? How were polymers
synthesized non-enzymatically for life to begin?"
So far as the cases you mention go, I'm inclined to believe that
E|a-|rs Szathm|a-iry may succeed in what he's trying to do, because
knows and understands a great deal, and after his long collaboration
with John Maynard Smith he has a very good grasp of biological
ideas. However, success wouldn't tell us how life actually began in
prebiotic conditions.
As for the others, we'll believe it when we see it.
I've appreciated listening to some of Szostak's lectures. But the
fact that a leading light on OoL and Nobel laureate can be so wrong
is telling.
Maybe he's wrong, maybe he isn't, but what's your evidence for "can be
so wrong"? How do you know?
I heard Jack Szostak give a plenary lecture at the FEBS meeting in St
Petersburg in 2013. He clearly knows his chemistry (it would be very
strange as a Nobel prizewiner if he didn't), but I was astonished at
his apparent ignorance of some basic biochemistry and enzymology. As
far as I could tell he knew nothing of the theory of induced fit,
dating from 1958, when he was a little lad of 5, which has long been
understood to be an essential component of enzyme specificity.
-aSzostak "hopes that in the next 5-10 years they will develop a good
nucleic acid replication system and a functioning artificial cell."
The reality is the opposite. In the next 5-10 years they will begin
to acknowledge just how far away is the development of "a good
nucleic acid replication system and a functioning artificial cell".
As I said, that's irrelevant, because either way it'll tell us nothing
about how life on earth actually started.
Getting back to E||rs Szathm|iry, he has a pretty good idea of what life
is. I'm not sure that the others have. They seem to think it has
something to do with nucleic acids.
I'll look into E||rs Szathm|iry's work based on that recommendation.