[Tribune7]

The entire point of RNA World Theory is that the earliest molecule of life was RNA . . . I don't see that as necessary. . .I also don't see the necessity to make RNA world protein-free.

RWP. today is a bad day. I just buried my dog. I am sad.

However, RNA World is not my theory (hypothesis, actually.) Those behind it insist on no proteins -- I think to take into account the unlikely probabilities of proteins forming at random then hooking up with RNA forming at random.

And granted some propose an unknown proto nucleic acid but there is no evidence for it.

And I don't mean to make fun of RNA World because it is actually an interesting and pretty cool attempt to solve abiogenesis.

However, it is far, far, far, far from being ascertained, and considering previous claims that the solution to abiogenesis is just around the corner healthy skepticism is called for -- which, in fairness, many of those investigating it have.

Regardless, God exists and Jesus loves you. Really.

[Right Wing Professor]

I'm truly sorry about your dog. It's astonishing how attached one can get. We had a pet ferret die about 18 months ago, and I was incredibly choked up about it.

I think you're imposing a strictures on RNA world that don't really exist. There is evidence RNA preceded DNA. There is evidence the protein synthesis machinery was once much simpler. After that, there isn't much else to go on, yet.

I agree abiogenesis is speculative. If I were teaching it in high-school, I would just mention that we have a couple of scientific ideas, but since no one really knows anything, we're all free to come up with our own favorite hypothesis of how life started.