From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   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?  We do not know what the first self replicators   
   >> required.  Things like nucleotides are required by the RNA world   
   >> scenario, but that likely came after the first self replicators   
   >> existed.   To 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.  My guess is that   
   >> nucleotides evolved to do what they still do today.  They are a highly   
   >> useful energy coin for the cell.  They store chemical energy and   
   >> transfer the chemical energy.  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.  Lipids could evolve other enzymatic functions as they self   
   >> replicated, different lipids could be made etc.   
   >>   
   >> Chirality would be set by the self replicators.  The enzymatic   
   >> functions of the self replicators would likely work for one chiral   
   >> form or the other.  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.  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.  Simple self replication likely drove the evolution of   
   life on earth.  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.  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.  Other types of lipid bodies would   
   be produced and even new molecules that were not components of the lipid   
   bodies (non lipid products).  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.  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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)