How is the RNA hypothesis going? Is there another abiogensis hypothesis out there with greater acceptance amongst the biologists? What do you guys think about the origins of life in general?

Hi Adrian, this question relates to one we had a few weeks back:

Paolo Viscardi wrote:

Hi Tisha, how did DNA form is an excellent question and one that is very difficult to answer. I agree that spontaneous generation makes no sense (although there might, however unlikely, be some chemical and physical conditions in which DNA could grow).

This link provides an excellent summary of the theories so far:
http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/ … orgel.html

My personal thoughts are that DNA itself evolved from more simple chemical precursors that it subsequently out-competed. RNA is a good example of a more simple chemical inheritance transmitting chemical. Life had a good 1,000,000,000 years to get started from chemical precursors, without any competition at first. I think that's enough time for a lot of chance events to happen, especially if it only takes one to start the ball rolling.

So the short answer is that we don't know, but we can come up with better ideas than just passing the buck to our cultural way of coping with the unknown (ie. religion and superstition).

At the moment all is still murky in the depths of the primordial soup, but science is all about little steps towards understanding.