Quote of the Day
The origin of the first living molecules on our planet has long been debated. However, recent experiments are revealing new information about the plausible conditions on the early Earth.
This research provides details on one of the major hypotheses concerning the emergence of life: the RNA world. It suggests that the necessary ingredients, combined with very common minerals and simple hydrological cycles, could have led to the assembly of ribonucleic acid.
Researchers reproduced a plausible environment of the Earth more than four billion years ago in the laboratory. To do this, they mixed the chemical precursors of RNA (namely ribose, a 5-carbon sugar, phosphate, and the four fundamental nucleobases: adenine, guanine, cytosine, and uracil) with specific compounds: borates, present in ancient oceans, and basalt, an ubiquitous volcanic rock.
This mixture was then subjected to repeated wet and dry cycles. These cycles were intended to replicate the transitions our planet experienced in the past near geothermal aquifers and subsurface areas. The team observed that this process allowed for the formation of RNA chains with no other human intervention than placing the ingredients in a test tube.
Cédric DEPOND
January 8, 2026
🌍 The origin of life on Earth could be much simpler than thought
Interesting. Besides the greater implications of the possibility of life spontaneously appearing with common chemicals and conditions, the ubiquitous basalt plays an important role.
Meanwhile, over in another part of the universe, major flaws are found and published WRT evolution. Short version: there simply isn’t enough time to account for the genetic changes and fixation for Darwinian Natural Selection the proponents claim and the fossil record indicates.
https://kurganfiction.substack.com/p/probability-zero
https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Zero-Mathematical-Impossibility-Evolution-ebook/dp/B0GF8RQFY4
Back in the 1970’s, the big hole in the formation of RNA on early Earth was the need of some energy source to drive the reactions. The theories usually looked to lighting or thermal vents as the source.
I still have my copy of Chalotte Avers textbook Evolution
DNA, RNA explained.
“DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) and RNA (Ribonucleic Acid) are both types of nucleic acids essential for all living organisms.
Structure: DNA is a double-stranded molecule with a long chain of nucleotides, while RNA is single-stranded and shorter.
2
Function: DNA serves as the genetic blueprint for an organism, storing and transmitting genetic information, whereas RNA plays a crucial role in protein synthesis and gene expression.
2
Types: DNA has two main types: intranuclear and extranuclear, while RNA includes several types such as mRNA (messenger RNA), tRNA (transfer RNA), and rRNA (ribosomal RNA).
2
Replication: DNA can replicate itself, while RNA is synthesized from DNA when needed.
2
In summary, DNA is primarily responsible for genetic information storage, while RNA is involved in translating that information into proteins.”
Well you got RNA. But you need DNA to provide the blueprint?
So it somehow came up with the perfectly engineered “blueprint” of all the diverse life we have on this planet?
All on it’s own?
It just somehow knew how to arrange trillions of molecules in the prefect order to somehow all on it’s own provide the optimal outcome?
At the same time it was building symbiotic systems inside the same organisms?
Perfectly engineered bones, blood/oxygen, nerve, muscle tissue, brain and waste systems? Not only the ideas of how such works.
But the “blueprints” that it would work.
Then went about happily arranging the sodium, carbon, magnesium, oxygen, Etc., in the prefect manner?
And now that we have found this wonderous new breakthrough.
We run smack into Vox Day’s “Probability Zero” for a timeframe. As the math don’t lie.
You poor evolutionists just can’t catch a break.
But you might think seriously about taking one.
Would you please provide the reference so I can read the article for myself? Origin of life theorists tend to grab at straws. I would like to read and evaluate their experimental evidence and their rationale for claiming plausibility. Thanks in advance for the info.
The link is just below the date.
The origin of life on Earth was billions of years ago. LONG before we happened along. We can postulate all we want. But we weren’t there to actually witness it. So we can NEVER say with 100% certainty HOW it started. And ultimately it really doesn’t matter how it did. Just the fact that it did. The real question being how long before an INTELLIGENT species arrives.