Once beyond the abiogenic synthesis and accumulation of a variety of complex organic compounds on Earth took place, the conceivable paths toward life’s emergence have been dominated by two fundamentally different views in origin-of-life research: the genetics- or replication-first approach, and the metabolism-first scenario.
In other words, once upon a time a range of organic compounds spontaneously formed and, in spite of obvious dilution processes, just happened to create a cell. Just how this incredible event could have happened is, of course, unknown, and so as usual evolutionists take sides on equally bizarre hypotheses.
Both schools acknowledge that a critical requirement for primitive evolvable systems (in the Darwinian sense) is to solve the problems of information storage and reliable information transmission. Disagreement starts, however, in the way information was first stored.
Yes there is that minor issue of information storage (not to mention information creation). As the paper explains, there are plenty of problems with both the genetics-first and the metabolism-first hypotheses. But of course evolution is a fact, so the evolutionists confidently proceed with the pseodo-science and speculation:
We think that the real question is that of the organization of chemical networks. If (and what a big IF) there can be in the same environment distinct, organizationally different, alternative autocatalytic cycles/networks, as imagined for example by Gánti and Wächtershäuser, then these can also compete with each other and undergo some Darwinian evolution. But, even if such systems exist(-ed), they would in all probability have limited heredity only and thus could not undergo open-ended evolution.
In other words, we have no idea how life could have evolved, but so what, we have “strong reasons to believe.”
We do not know how the transition to digitally encoded information has happened in the originally inanimate world; that is, we do not know where the RNA world might have come from, but there are strong reasons to believe that it had existed.
Of course these “strong reasons” all hinge on the belief that evolution is true. Without the religious fervor the house of cards falls apart. And as usual, the religion leads to junk science, such as this make believe absurdity:
Template-free systems like composomes could only have had the limited role of accumulating prebiotic material and increasing environmental patchiness.
You may wonder why you don’t remember composomes from your high school biology class. That’s because they are a part of the evolutionist’s make believe. Like Flew’s Gardener they are part of the ever-growing evolutionary fiction that evolutionists insist must be a fact.
Religion drives science, and it matters.