Oolers Beat Dead RNA Horses
Evolutionists find it hard to
let go of implausible stories. They
keep them alive with all their “might.”
The RNA World Remains a Figment of the Imagination. It never existed.
We’re long past the Tour Challenge. Nobody had an answer for any one of the five simple questions Dr James Tour asked of ten leading origin-of-life researchers (Oolers) last summer (see his response). Dr Tour does real-world science that is helping mankind, but what has an Ooler done for anybody? The only post-challenge respondent, Lee Cronin, almost backed out of an occasion for dialog at Harvard, and he only had imaginary suggestions about what “might” have happened to get life going. But does “might” make right? This March 4, the storytellers continue to march forth into the media, claiming that imagination can build a bridge across the canyon (see article at Evolution News, 28 Feb 2024).
Modeling the origins of life: New evidence for an “RNA World” (Salk Institute, 4 March 2023). Dr Gerald Joyce, Mr. RNA World himself, is still at it. Now his long-bearded graduate students have cooked up an RNA molecule, using intelligent design, that they claim is able to make more accurate copies of itself than ever before. But does it actually do anything? Of course not. Their simple RNA polymerase just sits there and decays without their constant care and intervention. He knows that without accurate replication, all the information they packed into this molecule will disappear, and nothing interesting will remain.
The findings highlight the critical importance of replication fidelity in making evolution possible. The RNA polymerase’s copying accuracy must exceed a critical threshold to maintain heritable information over multiple generations, and this threshold would have risen as the evolving RNAs increased in size and complexity.
But Joyce and crew think it “might” evolve and become capable of Darwinian natural selection. As intelligent selectors, they apply selection pressure (artificial selection, or intelligent design), and elevate the perhapsimaybecouldness index:
Joyce’s team is re-creating this process in laboratory test tubes, applying increasing selective pressure on the system to produce better-performing polymerases, with the goal of one day producing an RNA polymerase that can replicate itself. This would mark the beginnings of autonomous RNA life in the laboratory, which the researchers say could be accomplished within the next decade.
The scientists are also interested in what else might occur once this mini “RNA World” has gained more autonomy.
Is the molecule safe inside a membrane to protect it? No. Does it perform any metabolic function? No. Does it encode any functional information other than copying itself or breaking itself into smaller pieces? No. Does Joyce care that the RNA World story is a scam? No. Let Dr Tour respond, since the secular media are IGNORING another sauropod in the room.
Joyce and his furry primates published their imaginations in PNAS with the title, “RNA-catalyzed evolution of catalytic RNA.” The paper uses the “perhaps” helper words might, could, may, possibility a dozen times.
For some of the difficulties with the RNA World hypothesis, listen to Dr James Tour and Rob Stadler go into the details (YouTube, Feb 2024).
Scripps Research scientists reveal how first cells could have formed on Earth (Scripps Institute, 29 Feb 2024). This press release by Ramanarayanan Krishnamurthy (Dr Fatbubble) and his team uses “may have” and “could have” a dozen times. Notice that protocells are mythical entities cooked up in their imaginations.
The scientists wanted to mimic plausible prebiotic conditions—the environments that existed prior to the emergence of life. They first identified three likely mixtures of chemicals that could potentially create vesicles, spherical structures of lipids [i.e., fatbubbles] similar to protocells. The chemicals used included fatty acids and glycerol (a common byproduct of soap production that may have existed during early Earth). Next, they observed the reactions of these mixtures and added additional chemicals to create new mixtures. These solutions were cooled and heated on repeat overnight with some shaking to promote chemical reactions.
Having ruled out intelligent design by a Creator, these wizards (calling them “scientists” would be too generous) seek meaning, purpose and significance in bubbling broths of hot chemicals. Doing so, they imagine, will bring them that coveted crystal desired by every naturalistic evolutionist: understanding.
By revealing how protocells formed, scientists can better understand how early evolution could have taken place.
“At some point, we all wonder where we came from. We’ve now discovered a plausible way that phosphates could have been incorporated into cell-like structures earlier than previously thought, which lays the building blocks for life,” says Ramanarayanan Krishnamurthy, PhD, co-corresponding senior author and professor in the Department of Chemistry at Scripps Research. “This finding helps us better understand the chemical environments of early Earth so we can uncover the origins of life and how life can evolve on early Earth.”
And so on and on they go, never having to face the music from James Tour, imagining their way through scenarios that only exist in imaginary fatbubbles and thought bubbles. The intelligently-guided chemistry in their labs has nothing to do with life.
It turns out that fatty acids and glycerol may have undergone phosphorylation to create that more stable, double chain structure. In particular, glycerol derived fatty acid esters may have led to vesicles with different tolerances to metal ions, temperatures, and pH—a critical step in diversifying evolution.
“We’ve discovered one plausible pathway for how phospholipids could have emerged during this chemical evolutionary process,” says Deniz.
Plausible to whom? Did they use an independently produced Plausibility Meter? What are the units of plausibility? Is plausibility a function of the person judging it? Have they read The Design Inference? Can they get anything by “evolution” if they take their grubby hands off the apparatus? No, but they’re all excited inside their imaginations.
“It’s exciting to uncover how early chemistries may have transitioned to allow for life on Earth. Our findings also hint at a wealth of intriguing physics that may have played key functional roles along the way to modern cells.”
See our 2008 article by the late Leslie Orgel to understand the real situation in origin-of-life research. Nothing new has been discovered. These people are still beating a dead horse, and training new grad students in the art of divination with chemical evolution.
If they really wanted to simulate a plausible scenario, they should dump various lab chemicals in a tub and walk away for a million years.