Re: Autocatalytic sets: less worse than RNA World?

On 1/12/2025 2:36 AM, MarkE wrote:

Yes/no/maybe? Or possibly as a precursor or complementary mechanism to the RNA world?
 "Autocatalytic sets have been an attractive alternative to the “information-polymer-first” hypothesis since their introduction by Kauffman. It offers a solution to the improbability of the formation of self-replicating RNA. Simply put, forming many short cross-catalytic molecules is statistically more likely than forming one highly efficient self-replicator."
- Sergey Semenov
 "It is consensual that life’s emergence necessitates an early appearance of a self-copying chemical system. One scenario for that is “RNA-first,” whereby life was seeded by a single polymeric self-replicating molecule. Another scheme, conceived by Stuart Kauffman, contends that life was set up by a supramolecular network that occasionally reaches catalytic closure, leading to self-reproduction of an entire “collectively autocatalytic set” (CAS)."
- Doron Lancet
 "Autocatalysis is a particularly remarkable concept in that it allows us to inspect the self-referential paradox in physical-chemical phenomena. Cellular life is the epitome of material self-reference. Several authors (including Kauffman, Dyson, Eigen, Schuster, Rosen, Ganti, Prigogine, Maturana, and Varela) posited some form of collective autocatalysis or chemical closure as central in the origins of life (OoL)."
- Joana Xavier
 "It is true that some major researchers in the origin of life field have given up in despair. I was stunned to learn this. The field is badly fragmented. There is no overarching view around which many of us disparate workers can think to organize work...If as a field, some number of us could coordinate around creating such small molecule collectively autocatalytic sets de novo, seeing how these might co- evolve to include lipids, peptides, and RNA, then seeing how these richer systems might co-evolve to template replication and coding, we might find a pathway many of us could work on."
- Stuart Kauffman
 Quotes above from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S2666386423004022
 _________
  Regardless, there appear to be several compelling reasons why autocatalytic sets won't work for OoL:
 The concept of autocatalytic sets has been widely discussed as a potential mechanism for the origin of life, particularly in the context of abiogenesis. These sets consist of networks of molecules in which each molecule is catalyzed by others in the set, allowing self- sustaining chemical processes. While the concept has theoretical appeal, it has also faced significant criticisms and challenges. Below are some of the key criticisms:
 1. Lack of Experimental Evidence
Criticism: Despite theoretical models, there is limited experimental evidence demonstrating that autocatalytic sets can arise spontaneously in prebiotic conditions and maintain stable, self-sustaining behavior.
- Implications: Without experimental validation, the plausibility of autocatalytic sets as a pathway to life remains speculative.
 2. Fragility of Autocatalytic Networks
Criticism: Autocatalytic sets are often considered fragile. If one or more critical components are lost or degraded, the entire network may collapse, raising doubts about their robustness in fluctuating prebiotic environments.
- Implications: Early Earth conditions were dynamic and potentially hostile, with UV radiation, hydrolysis, and other destructive forces, making the stability of such networks questionable.
 3. Complexity and Probability
Criticism: The formation of an autocatalytic network capable of self- sustaining replication and evolution requires a sufficiently diverse and complex set of molecules. The likelihood of such complexity arising spontaneously is debated.
- Implications: Critics argue that even with favorable conditions, the emergence of complex networks through random chemical interactions may be implausibly rare.
 4. Lack of Information Encoding
Criticism: Autocatalytic sets, as described in many models, do not inherently encode information in a manner analogous to nucleic acids like DNA or RNA.
- Implications: Without a mechanism for hereditary information transfer, it is unclear how such sets could undergo Darwinian evolution and give rise to life.
 5. Transition to Modern Biochemistry
Criticism: Autocatalytic sets may explain early chemical self- organization, but it remains unclear how such systems could transition into modern biochemistry, which relies on templated replication (e.g., RNA, DNA) and complex metabolic pathways.
- Implications: This "gap" between autocatalytic chemistry and the RNA/ protein world challenges their role as a comprehensive solution to abiogenesis.
 6. Energy Constraints
Criticism: Autocatalytic sets require energy to drive chemical reactions. The source, concentration, and consistency of energy in prebiotic environments remain speculative.
- Implications: Without a clear energy source or mechanism for energy coupling, it is difficult to see how autocatalytic networks could sustain themselves over time.
 7. Dependence on Specific Conditions
Criticism: Some models of autocatalytic sets depend on idealized conditions, such as specific concentrations of reactants, catalysts, or environmental factors.
- Implications: Critics argue that these requirements may be too restrictive or unlikely to have been consistently met on the early Earth.
 8. Circular Logic
Criticism: The concept of autocatalytic sets assumes that catalysis and molecular diversity already exist, but it does not fully explain how these features arise in the first place.
- Implications: This creates a circular argument, where the existence of an autocatalytic network presupposes the conditions needed to form it.
 9. Compartmentalization Challenge
Criticism: For autocatalytic sets to evolve, they need to be physically isolated to prevent the dilution of components and maintain localized reactions (e.g., in vesicles or compartments). However, how such compartmentalization occurred prebiotically is not well understood.
- Implications: Without compartmentalization, maintaining coherence and identity in an autocatalytic set seems unlikely.
 10. Lack of Specificity in Catalysis
Criticism: Most models assume generalized catalytic properties for molecules in the set, but real-life catalytic activity often depends on precise molecular structures and environmental conditions.
- Implications: The assumption of broad catalytic activity may oversimplify the challenges of forming and maintaining autocatalytic networks.
 

None of this should matter to you.  The origin of life (#3 of the ID perp's Top Six best evidences for the ID creationist scam) is not Biblical.  It does not support your religious beliefs.  Even if some god is responsible for the origin of life on earth it would not be the god that you want to worship.  In order to make #3 support your religious beliefs you have to acknowledge that the Bible is just plain wrong about nature, and that you have no idea of how life arose on this planet. Biblical creationists like Denton have acknowledged that fact, and Denton acknowledges that life could have arisen by natural processes, but that everything needed was all set up by his god before it happened.   His god created this universe so that life could arise within it.
There is absolutely no reason for you to continue to wallow in the denial.
The god responsible for the origin of life would be the false god that creationist posters like Ray would worry about existing.  For guys like Ray other creationists that accepted things like biological evolution and how life arose on this planet were atheists.  They did not believe in the god of his Bible.  The Top Six killed the ID scam on TO because they were given to the rubes in their order simply reflecting the order in which they must have occurred in this universe, and how they had occurred in this universe and their order was not Biblical.  Any ID science that demonstrated designer involvement in the Top Six is just more science that they would need to deny.
Ron Okimoto