Changes

Another major problem in prebiotic chemistry is '''the water paradox''', the fact that water is essential for all living cells and yet it is very destructive to cellular machinery and components, a balance that is incredibly chemically delicate.<ref name="water paradox">Marshall, Michael (10 December 2020). "How the first life on Earth survived its biggest threat — water". Nature. 588 (7837): 210–213. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-03461-4. "This suggested to many researchers that life arose near the surface of the ocean. But many scientists today say there’s a fundamental problem with that idea: life’s cornerstone molecules break down in water. This is because proteins, and nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA, are vulnerable at their joints. Proteins are made of chains of amino acids, and nucleic acids are chains of nucleotides. If the chains are placed in water, it attacks the links and eventually breaks them. In carbon chemistry, “water is an enemy to be excluded as rigorously as possible”, wrote the late biochemist Robert Shapiro in his totemic 1986 book Origins, which critiqued the primordial ocean hypothesis. This is the water paradox. Today, cells solve it by limiting the free movement of water in their interiors, says synthetic biologist Kate Adamala at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. For this reason, popular images of the cytoplasm — the substance inside the cell — are often wrong. “We are taught that cytoplasm is just a bag that holds everything, and everything is swimming around,” she adds. “That’s not true, everything is incredibly scaffolded in cells, and it’s scaffolded in a gel, not a water bag.” If living things keep water controlled, then the implication, say many researchers, is obvious. Life probably formed on land, where water was only intermittently present.</ref> The prominent origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]] said the origin of life problem was more difficult than he or anyone else had imagined.<ref name="Why Abiogenesis is impossible">[https://web.archive.org/web/20170717223959/https://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html Why Abiogenesis is impossible]</ref>

Another major problem in prebiotic chemistry is '''the water paradox''', the fact that water is essential for all living cells and yet it is very destructive to cellular machinery and components, a balance that is incredibly chemically delicate.<ref name="water paradox">Marshall, Michael (10 December 2020). "How the first life on Earth survived its biggest threat — water". Nature. 588 (7837): 210–213. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-03461-4. "This suggested to many researchers that life arose near the surface of the ocean. But many scientists today say there’s a fundamental problem with that idea: life’s cornerstone molecules break down in water. This is because proteins, and nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA, are vulnerable at their joints. Proteins are made of chains of amino acids, and nucleic acids are chains of nucleotides. If the chains are placed in water, it attacks the links and eventually breaks them. In carbon chemistry, “water is an enemy to be excluded as rigorously as possible”, wrote the late biochemist Robert Shapiro in his totemic 1986 book Origins, which critiqued the primordial ocean hypothesis. This is the water paradox. Today, cells solve it by limiting the free movement of water in their interiors, says synthetic biologist Kate Adamala at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. For this reason, popular images of the cytoplasm — the substance inside the cell — are often wrong. “We are taught that cytoplasm is just a bag that holds everything, and everything is swimming around,” she adds. “That’s not true, everything is incredibly scaffolded in cells, and it’s scaffolded in a gel, not a water bag.” If living things keep water controlled, then the implication, say many researchers, is obvious. Life probably formed on land, where water was only intermittently present.</ref> The prominent origin of life researcher [[Stanley Miller]] said the origin of life problem was more difficult than he or anyone else had imagined.<ref name="Why Abiogenesis is impossible">[https://web.archive.org/web/20170717223959/https://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html Why Abiogenesis is impossible]</ref>

Cells are very optimized entities and appear to be fine tuned. Studies on raw materials used by cells such as the 20 chiral-specific amino acids are the optimal set out of all the possible chemical alternatives.<ref>Ilardo, M., Meringer, M., Freeland, S. et al. Extraordinarily Adaptive Properties of the Genetically Encoded Amino Acids. Scientific Reports 5, 9414 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep09414</ref><ref>Doig, A.J. (2017), Frozen, but no accident – why the 20 standard amino acids were selected. FEBS J, 284: 1296-1305. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.13982</ref>   

[[Cell]]s are very optimized entities and appear to be fine tuned. Studies on raw materials used by cells such as the 20 chiral-specific [[amino acid]]s are the optimal set out of all the possible chemical alternatives.<ref>Ilardo, M., Meringer, M., Freeland, S. et al. Extraordinarily Adaptive Properties of the Genetically Encoded Amino Acids. Scientific Reports 5, 9414 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep09414</ref><ref>Doig, A.J. (2017), Frozen, but no accident – why the 20 standard amino acids were selected. FEBS J, 284: 1296-1305. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.13982</ref>   

== Current status ==

== Current status ==