From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/02/2026 4:34 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.   
   >   
   > 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.   
   >   
   > TIME   
   >   
   > How long would this lineage need? One million years? One thousand years?   
   > 100 million years?   
   >   
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   The discussion above is largely model-agnostic, however an RNA world   
   timeline (for example) is given perspective by Totani [1]:   
      
   "A polymer longer than 40–100 nucleotides is necessary to expect a   
   self-replicating activity, but the formation of such a long polymer   
   having a correct nucleotide sequence by random reactions seems   
   statistically unlikely."   
      
   Here, "statistically unlikely" means a negligibly small probability on   
   Earth, and tiny even in the observable universe of approximately 10^22   
   stars. Notably, this calculation is "random reactions" - it may be   
   argued that the processes described improve these odds, but the   
   conclusion is the assembly of a substantial informational polymer of   
   40-100 units will require a very large number of trials, and therefore a   
   long time with an unbroken supply of nucleotides.   
      
      
   [1] Emergence of life in an inflationary universe   
   https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-58060-0   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)