Recent research in support of abiogenesis

[Dan From Smithville]

In 2022, two papers were published on research favoring the RNA World hypothesis of the origin of life on Earth.

In the first paper it was demonstrated that RNA could evolve and diversify leading to ever increasingly complex interactions between replicator molecules.

Evolutionary transition from a single RNA replicator to a multiple replicator network - Nature Communications

This was a long term experiment with RNA from E. coli encased in water-in-oil droplets. Heat and additional nucleotides were provided and over time the original sequences mutated and distinct lineages formed. This mutation and diversification occurred at varying rates indicating variation in fitness for the resultant sequences. Sequences of different lineages interacted with each other in unique ways. This complexification of replicators and the development of complex interactions could eventually lead to the origin of living things.

The second paper deals with the potential RNA to co-evolve with peptides in the first steps leading to living things.

A prebiotically plausible scenario of an RNA–peptide world - Nature

Edit: Thank you @ratiocinator for pointing out that I hadn't linked the first paper.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The second paper establishes the groundwork to address previous criticism that RNA alone couldn't function fully as a basis to establish the first living organisms. In the experiment the researchers show that RNA evolving with proteins could develop the means to be both information storage and replication. In the experiment, non-coding segments of RNA bond with amino acids in often large complexes providing a functional scaffold for the coding regions of RNA to assemble longer sequences of amino acids.

This second paper suggests a synthesis of RNA World hypothesis with peptides--short strings of amino acids--to form the RNA-Peptide World.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It seems that we are growing ever closer to establishing a natural basis for the origin of life. While not necessarily saying this is how it happened, each new line of research brings us ever closer to demonstrating that life could originate from purely natural means.

 

[danieldemol]

Thanks for sharing @Dan From Smithville

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thanks for sharing @Dan From Smithville

I appreciate it. It doesn't seem that there is much interest in these two publications or the significant strides reported in them in the quest to better understand a natural origin for life on Earth.

 

[ratiocinator]

@Dan From Smithville, thanks, it looks interesting but you've linked to the same paper twice, not to two.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I appreciate it. It doesn't seem that there is much interest in these two publications or the significant strides reported in them in the quest to better understand a natural origin for life on Earth.

Are you surprised? This is "Religious" Forums, after all, and all that sciency stuff detracts from the likelihood of the Adam and Eve story.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Dan From Smithville, thanks, it looks interesting but you've linked to the same paper twice, not to two.

Thanks for that. I didn't even notice. Give me moment.

 

[ratiocinator]

I appreciate it. It doesn't seem that there is much interest in these two publications or the significant strides reported in them in the quest to better understand a natural origin for life on Earth.

I'm interested in this sort of thing but I just missed this. It's possible others did too. A problem with not having a 'new topics' section any more.....

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Are you surprised? This is "Religious" Forums, after all, and all that sciency stuff detracts from the likelihood of the Adam and Eve story.

Not really surprised at all.

What we learn through science neither supports nor eliminates the existence of a deity, but does offer powerful evidence against a literal interpretation of some stories from ancient religious texts. I think it is that closed view of religion that knowledge and experience threaten.

In my personal view, which has little relevance to this topic other than to indicate I have one, the universe is the unwritten word of a creator in concert with what we have written about a creator. Ignoring that word of the creation in favor of an ideological position derived from the bias of people demanding a literal interpretation is claiming there is no need to seek or find lessons in that world around us. I see that as a rather short-sighted, egocentric view and an even anti-theistic position.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm interested in this sort of thing but I just missed this. It's possible others did too. A problem with not having a 'new topics' section any more.....

It probably doesn't help that I made this thread when I was about half asleep the other night and didn't offer much cogent commentary to open it with and draw in interest for the papers.

I attribute the omission of the first link by duplicating the second to that state of fatigue. I'm glad you mentioned it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Are you surprised? This is "Religious" Forums, after all, and all that sciency stuff detracts from the likelihood of the Adam and Eve story.

This is 'Evolution vs Creationism' sub-forum. So yes, Adam and Eve theory will naturally be impacted.

.. the bias of people demanding a literal interpretation is claiming there is no need to seek or find lessons in that world around us. I see that as a rather short-sighted, egocentric view and even anti-theistic position.

OK, no literal interpretation, but why blame people if they do not believe in what has no evidence? The atheist crowd in the forum is not going be pro-theist.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is 'Evolution vs Creationism' sub-forum. So yes, Adam and Eve theory will naturally be impacted.

OK, no literal interpretation, but why blame people if they do not believe in what has no evidence? The atheist crowd in the forum is not going be pro-theist.

I don't blame people for rejecting claims without evidence. Neither do I object to people believing without evidence. What I object to is claiming what is believed defeats what can be supported by evidence solely on the basis of an ideological demand to do so.

Of course, this is straying off topic.