The "Fatal Flaws" with Richard Carrier's Other Self-Replicator Examples

***Under Construction***

Q's Verdict (Summary)

I recently demonstrated that Richard Carrier’s central, foundational “1 in 10^41” argument for abiogenesis that he has repeatedly asserted for twenty years is absolutely, unequivocally, and indisputably false (See, "The 'Fatal Flaw' with Richard Carrier's '1 in 10^41' Argument for Abiogenesis," and "Q's Open Challenge to Richard Carrier"). The other self-replicator examples Richard gives in his "Biogenesis and the Laws of Evidence" are plagued by similar flaws. Here, I take them in turn.

Richard's RNA Self-Replicator Examples

Richard Carrier cites the following as examples of "self-replicating chain[s] of RNA (which we know exist: Tews & Meyers 2017, Robertson & Joyce 2014, Lincoln et al. 2009, etc.)," and Wachowiusa & Holliger 2019.

A. Tews & Meyers (2017) 

Source citation: Tews, B. A., & Meyers, G. (2017). Self-replicating RNA. RNA Vaccines, 15-35.

Summary: Richard uncritically cites this study because it has "Self-replicating RNA" in the title, when in fact this study has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of life, but concerns the use of "self-replicating" viral RNA in vaccine production. This "self-replicating [viral] RNA" cannot actually replicate itself, but requires a living cell to replicate; which, of course, we would not have prior to the origin of life. The viral RNA can only replicate with the help of proteins and cellular machinery, so it must be transferred into a living cell in a process known as transfection in order to replicate. It is, thus, completely irrelevant to the origin of life and doesn't help Richard's arguments in the least. (Jump to Article).

B. Lincoln & Joyce (2009)

Source citation: Lincoln, T. A., & Joyce, G. F. (2009). Self-sustained replication of an RNA enzyme. Science, 323(5918), 1229-1232.

Summary: This breakthrough study demonstrated for the first time that RNA enzymes that can self-replicate "indefinitely" (with an unending supply of substrates) and without the need for proteins or other cellular components can exist in principle (i.e., self-replicating RNAs are not known to exist in nature). But this "proof of principle"—as important and historic as it is—is not proof of prebiotic plausibility. In fact, no one believes the cross-catalytic self-replicating RNA system Lincoln & Joyce designed is prebiotically plausible, nor did Lincoln & Joyce ever make such a claim, because that was not the point of their research. Their replicating system is not a viable candidate for the origin of life, because for one it is considered too complex to form by spontaneous random assembly. A single round of self-replication requires the spontaneous origin of six molecules—two enzymes and four substrates—totaling 284 nucleotides. But even if such a system did miraculously form, nothing further would happen without a continuous supply of substrates to sustain self-replication "indefinitely." This is the same "fatal flaw" that the "Lee peptide" encounters. In fact, the problem is far worse, because while "Lee peptide" self-replication requires the spontaneous origin of a continuous supply of two, specifically sequenced substrates totaling 32 amino acids, Lincoln-Joyce replication requires the spontaneous origin of a continuous supply of four, specifically sequenced substrates totaling 132 nucleotides—an impossible feat by any standard. Of course, Lincoln & Joyce (2009) never make such an outrageous claim. It is Richard Carrier who is misrepresenting the scope and significance of their research. (Jump to Article).

C. Robertson & Joyce (2014)

Source citation: Robertson, M. P., & Joyce, G. F. (2014). Highly efficient self-replicating RNA enzymes. Chemistry & biology, 21(2), 238-245.

Summary: Richard 

Summary:

D. Wachowiusa & Hollinger (2019)

Source citation: Wachowius, D., & Holliger, P. (2019). Non-enzymatic assembly of a minimized RNA polymerase ribozyme. ChemSystemsChem, 1(1-2), 1.

Summary: This is not a self-replicating RNA! Nor does this 150 nucleotide RNA polymerase ribozyme "assemble automatically" from seven shorter RNA strands, as Richard erroneously states. Six additional RNA strands that serve as scaffolding "splints" are required to correctly sequence and assemble the 150nt ribozyme (and even then it almost never works: a paltry 0.5% yield!). In other words, thirteen RNA strands totaling 280 nucleotides are needed to assemble this 150 nucleotide ribozyme (almost twice as many specifically sequenced nucleotides!). Once again, Richard has not carefully read or understood the research he cites. This is another "proof of concept" study that does not claim to be prebiotically plausible, nor is it prebiotically plausible, nor is it even a self-replicating RNA!

Richard's PNA Self-Replicator Examples

Richard writes: 

"In actual fact it’s more likely RNA is an evolved structure, and that life originated with a simpler molecule like PNA, which is more robust and far easier to assemble in nature (Singhal et al. 2014). Simple self-replicating PNA strands are an established fact (the Lee peptide being just one of them; we now have the Plöger-Kiedrowski peptide, the Singhal-Nielsen peptide, and so on). Indeed PNA automatically assembles in the expected conditions (Leman et al., “Dynamic Chemical Assembly of Peptide Nucleic Acids” in XVIIIth International Conference on Origin of Life 2017; and Rodriguez et al., “Nitrogen Heterocycles in Miller-Urey Spark-Discharge Mixtures: Using Chemical Trends to Elucidate Plausible pre-RNAs on the Early Earth”; and now Liu et al. 2020, Frenkel-Pinter et al. 2020 and Scognamiglio et al. 2021). So the probability of natural biogenesis is very much higher than even Totani calculates. All based on evidence."

Richard, of course, mistakenly calls the "Lee peptide" a PNA, which it is not.

This is, of course, false from the start. A "Lee peptide" is a simple polypeptide string of amino acids, but it is not a Peptide Nucleic Acid (PNA), as already explained in Part 2 of my response. And PNAs are "simpler" than RNA because they lack pentose sugar and phosphate moieties, but they are not simple molecules. Indeed, compared to a "Lee peptide" polypeptide, they are complex. But additionally, and as we will see, none of the examples you cite are single "self-replicating" PNA strands that could "spark" life.

E. Plöger & Kiedrowski (2014)

Plöger & Kiedrowski (2014). A self-replicating nucleic acid. (The "Plöger-Kiedrowski peptide")

Summary:

F. Singhal et al. (2014)

Singhal et al. (2014). Toward peptide nucleic acid (PNA) directed peptide translation using ester based aminoacyl transfer.

Summary:

G. Singhal & Nielsen (2014)

Singhal & Nielsen (2014). Cross-catalytic peptide nucleic acid (PNA) replication based on templated ligation. (The "Singhal-Nielsen peptide")

Summary:

Richard's Chimeric Self-Replicator Examples

H. Liu et al. (2020)

Liu et al. (2020). Spontaneous emergence of self-replicating molecules containing nucleobases and amino acids.

Summary:

Richard's Peptide Self-Replicator Examples

I. Lee et al. (1996)

Lee et al. (1996). Aself-replicating peptide. (The "Lee peptide") 

Summary: