<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[Buttle&#039;s World]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[https://buttle.wordpress.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[clgood]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://buttle.wordpress.com/author/buttle/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[A Bigger Deal than&nbsp;Ida]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>While the &#8220;missing link&#8221; guys are generating and getting all the attention, a quieter development in abiogenesis research may have made a giant step toward understanding <a href="http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=541" target="_blank">how life on earth got started</a>. Steve Novella writes:</p>
<blockquote><p>The chemical details are spelled out in the paper, for those who are interested (there is no link to the full paper, as you need a subscription to download it, but I will give the full reference below).</p>
<p>What this all means is that it is plausible that RNA could have arisen in a prebiotic environment  &#8211; without the machinery of life already in place.</p>
<p>Researchers are slowly putting the pieces of life origins together &#8211; mainly by exploring what plausibly could have happened. The argument from creationists that life arising from non-life is not possible was never credible &#8211; it was nothing more than confusing unexplained with unexplainable. They would have thrown up their hands and given up on this question, so that they could just assume a supernatural explanation.</p></blockquote>
]]></html></oembed>