Mariven on X: "I recently realized that there's a very clear case to be made that our biology is not just consistent w/ an abiogenic origin of life, but—if you examine RNA/proteins in particular—it directly implies a unique explanation for how life arose abiogenically. Explanation follows." / X

x.com · 1,682 words · saved by 1 readers

To view keyboard shortcuts, press question mark View keyboard shortcuts Home Explore Notifications Chat SuperGrok Premium+ Bookmarks Creator Studio Articles Profile More Post yudhister @yudhister_ Post See new posts Conversation Mariven @psychiel I recently realized that there's a very clear case to be made that our biology is not just *consistent* w/ an abiogenic origin of life, but—if you examine RNA/proteins in particular—it *directly implies* a unique explanation for how life arose abiogenically. Explanation follows. So, circa 4.4 billion years ago, the Earth's atmosphere was largely composed of CO2, N2, and water vapor, with a bit of H2, methane, and ammonia; stony meteorites had spent the past hundred million years populating the planet's surface with a variety of aromatic hydrocarbons produced in interstellar reactions. The oceans had also just formed, covering over 90% of the planet, and massive amounts of primordial+radiogenic heat flowing from the mantle powered a ton of hy

Mariven @psychiel I recently realized that there's a very clear case to be made that our biology is not just *consistent* w/ an abiogenic origin of life, but—if you examine RNA/proteins in particular—it *directly implies* a unique explanation for how life arose abiogenically. Explanation follows. So, circa 4.4 billion years ago, the Earth's atmosphere was largely composed of CO2, N2, and water vapor, with a bit of H2, methane, and ammonia; stony meteorites had spent the past hundred million years populating the planet's surface with a variety of aromatic hydrocarbons produced in interstellar r

related reading