Assumptions about RNA Formation

The May 14 issue of Nature reports that scientists, for the first time, have created a building block of RNA (believed by some to be a precursor to DNA) from simple chemicals in an environment that modeled the conditions of early Earth.

 

According to the researchers, the experiment strengthens the RNA World hypothesis which theorizes RNA was the chemical basis for the self-organized structures that led to the formation of the cell.

 

Until now, or so the researchers argue, nobody has demonstrated that RNA could even form in earth's early environment. That's a big problem for RNA World proponents.

 

But does the research actually support their assertion? I say no.

First, the experiment was riddled with John Sutherland's assumptions about the conditions of early life on earth (his words, not mine) and the subsequent chemical reactionary chain that lead from RNA to cells.

Donna Blackmond, a chemist at Imperial College London and a proponent, even admitted, "We don't know if these chemical steps reflect what actually happened, but before this work there were large doubts that it could happen at all."

Robert Shapiro, professor emeritus of chemistry at New York University, believes the experiment was "elegant", but, "it had nothing to do with the origin of life on Earth whatsoever."

And, regarding the sequence of steps Sutherland and his team used to produce the results, James Ferris, of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, said "It’s not as simple as putting compounds in a beaker and mixing it up. It’s a series of steps. You still have to stop and purify and then do the next step, and that probably didn’t happen in the ancient world.”

Second. The experiment was biased! Why hasn't anyone in the scientific community pointed this out? Sutherland even admits his goal - his goal!!! - is "to get a living system (RNA) emerging from a one-pot experiment. We can pull this off. We just need to know what the constraints on the conditions are first."

Aren't self-organzing chemicals and structures supposed to occur spontaneously? Scientific objectivity? What's that? I completely believe he will achieve his goal because he will contrive the conditions and the experiment, to make it so. But that will explain nothing about the actual, natural origins of life in pre-biotic earth.

At best, Sutherland's team described a possible chemical sequence - insight - in which a building block of life emerged, but not life itself.  

Nevertheless, a true believer, and despite his admission that his is only a related chemistry, Sutherland demonstrates his faith is firmly planted in his assumptions, based on speculation when he says:

 “It’s related chemistry,” Sutherland says. “That’s how it must have been in the very beginning — a series of fundamental reactions that could make all four types of RNA molecule.”

 Yeah, it MUST have been that way in the very beginning.

Sutherland's absolute faith in his own assumptions demonstrates he is just as committed to his religion as theists are to theirs.