More Evidence for the Origin of Life in Cosmic Ray Reactions
Still not proven but interesting
How cosmic rays may have shaped life | Stanford News
“Nuclear geyser” may be origin of life (cosmosmagazine.com)
Self-Assembling Molecules Offer Clues to Life's Possible Origin | WIRED
So we have two more pieces of evidence: 1. Cosmic rays seem to be the driving force behind the chirality you see with organic molecules and even Pasteur hypothesized that something to do with physics caused the chirality 2. You can create prebiotic molecules under known conditions involving nuclear reactions, but not from purely chemical reactions without a huge amount of radiation. This is not a guarantee of anything but it’s highly suggestive of what I’ve already thought about based on my observations.
That would be a scientific theory that contradicts the prevailing hypothesis of abiogenesis because life molecules are just being assembled from subatomic particles at that point, not from chemical reactions of nonliving molecules. The two things which Schrödinger and others after him considered to be the physical definition of life as negentropy, energy and intelligence, would be present on an electromagnetic level prior to building any molecules, the molecules wouldn’t be the ultimate origin of life, just a more complex form. Life itself can turn nonliving matter into more living matter but that’s not abiogenesis or people and animals eating dirt when they don’t have enough minerals would be an example of abiogenesis, plants turning organic compounds into more plant growth would be an example of abiogenesis, but clearly neither of those things are. However, those are examples of how the tiniest seed of life can turn a lot of dead matter into living matter via negentropy, you don’t need to start out with a lot of living matter to end up with a lot of living matter.
Common arguments against abiogenesis and evolutionary gradualism that are often used to argue for basically just mysterianism and the God of the gaps hypothesis (usually branded as “creation science” or “intelligent design”) are really just true as far as I can tell, but I don’t think those conclusions can be derived from them. For example, irreducible complexity can be explained by the fact a lot of evolution is driven by viruses inserting entire sections of DNA at once. This is the same thing as what GMOs are, except the problem with GMOs in my opinion is they’re almost all designed either to make plants more resistant to pesticides that you shouldn’t be ingesting or to make plants produce more pesticides that you shouldn’t be producing so that commercial farmers can engage in monocropping that doesn’t occur in nature due to causing huge outbreaks of pests and disease. I actually don’t think there’s anything wrong with the GMO technology due to the fact this process already happens in nature, the only thing wrong is what we’re using it for. In fact, the fact it happens in nature makes what it’s being used for much worse, because it’s been observed that sometimes people’s gut bacteria end up producing GMO pesticides due to viruses naturally inserting the GMO pesticide genes from GMO crops into them.
Tara Cook-Littman, Fairfield CT (Attachment) (4).pdf
If Bt genes from GM corn chips, for example, also transfer, it might convert our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories— continually producing Bt-toxin inside of us.
Gene Transfer in the Gastrointestinal Tract - PMC (nih.gov)
On the other hand punctuated equilibrium is more common than gradual evolution because the events which drive evolutionary changes are often relatively sudden on the scale of geological time and the traits which are selected for already pre-exist in the parent population, all that has to happen is for different groups of organisms that qualify as a species to form.
Chiral compounds embedded in a selective process would just be frozen in as left or right on a coin flip, depending on which form was easier to produce on that day or a million other reasons. Why is this such a big question?