Reevaluation of a Pillar of My Talks on Evidences for God. The Odds of Making a Functional Protein (a little bit technical)
December 12, 2024
Written ByRobert DiSilvestro
This is a little technical, though the general ideas can be followed by a broad audience.
I view the origin of life as a strong argument for God. Yet, I see Internet chatter saying the origin of life has been solved except for minor details. I don’t know where these people come up with that idea. Many reputable sites say the whole issue remains a mystery. For example, look at the first paragraph here: https://news.uchicago.edu/explainer/origin-life-earth-explained.
When I have done talks on evidences for God’s existence, I have almost always mentioned one particular issue related to the life’s beginning. The issue is the amazing odds against making a functional protein from a random linking of amino acids (even with major assumptions like having a way to link them). Exact estimates vary, but I have used 1 in 1064. This comes from work by Hubert Yockey on the protein cytochrome c (1). I have said that purely natural pre-life processes could not have made such rare amino acid sequences. However, I recently began wondering if such projections really make a strong case.
Background. When I say protein, you may think of drinks like Ensure or muscle contraction proteins. However, a huge number of proteins function in a lot of ways in living beings. Many act as enzymes that stimulate all kinds of chemical reactions. Other proteins build structures, act as antibodies, and do many other jobs. Proteins are composed of chains of amino acids (usually combinations of 20 of them). One can think of the order of amino acids like the order of letters in writing. Some orders are meaningless while others portray meaning. So, xDefgmZe tells nothing because it has complexity but no order. AAAAA also tells nothing because it has order but no complexity. On the other hand, the following Shakespeare quote has order and complexity; this writing contains understandable communication.
For proteins, the question is: how rare are amino acid sequences that have functional ordered complexity? Some people, including me, have stated how incredibly rare these sequences are. If this is true, then before life, it would be virtually impossible to get this right by randomly linking amino acids.
So, what’s the matter with this thinking? First off, some advocates of both divine creation and natural origin of life have said the whole issue is irrelevant. For the latter, some say an RNA world came before proteins. I discard that objection because of all the problems with proposing a pre-life RNA world (see this writing and this one). And, even if an RNA world did exist, proteins would get made eventually.
On the divine creation side, some scientists call attention to pre-life chemistry. They say this chemistry could never get to a situation where the right 20 amino acids in the right geometry would have the right machinery to link them correctly. Even today, when proteins are made in a laboratory, they are usually assembled using biological systems. In addition to this problem, even if functional proteins were made pre-life, a huge chasm still exists to get to actual cellular life.
I agree that arguments can be made for a life creator without discussing the rarity of functional amino acid sequences. Even so, I still wanted to revisit whether this consideration still holds. One objection to the tiny odds projections is that any particular protein doesn’t need only one exact amino acid sequence to function. For instance, a rat hemoglobin has some different amino acids from a human version. To reuse the writing analogy, small changes can retain an idea:
To be or not to be, that is the question (original) To be or not to be, this is the question. To be vs not to be, that is the question
For proteins, some substitutions don’t mess up the function. However, the Yockey calculation given above already accounts for that. Moreover, proteins can have stretches that are conserved or mostly conserved among species. However, another objection has been raised: Very different amino acid orders can have the same function. I see this in my work on antioxidant enzymes named superoxide dismutase 1, 2, and 3. They have one function, but different structures and locations (cytosol, mitochondria, and outside cells). To use the writing analogy again, someone can change Shakespeare’s quote completely and still have the same meaning:
To be or not to be, that is the question (original) Should I keep living? I am contemplating this decision. What should I do? Live on or not live on?
Going back to the proteins, it needs to be asked: How many different amino acid orders can give a single function? This may vary depending on the function and size of the proteins involved.
Do all protein functions need equally rare amino acid sequences? No. In light of this, some origin of life scientists propose the following idea. The earliest life used relatively small proteins with functions that didn’t need the most narrow amino acid sequences. Once life started, these proteins evolved into some bigger proteins that require fairly strict amino acid arrangements.
Now, just because this idea has been proposed doesn’t mean it happened. One of the first problems I see comes from looking at the bacteria Mycoplasma genitalium. By certain criteria, this could be called the simplest form of life present now (2). This bacteria has 484 proteins though not all are necessarily essential for life. Bacteria like this were discussed in a short commentary called “Small, but Not Simple” (3). This paper notes that many of the “simple” bacteria enzymes have multi-functions. That’s a trait that would seem to increase the need for specificity in amino acid sequences. In addition, Mycoplasma genitalium has an average of close to 400 amino acids per protein. This is pretty much the same as the average human protein. More importantly, this average amino acid chain length is about 3 times the size of cytochrome c, the protein used for the 1 in 1064 odds cited above. Although Mycoplasma genitalium lacks this protein, it certainly has bigger ones. So, based on size of proteins and functional complexity in “simple” life, one cannot just throw out the tiny odds barrier argument.
I am sure someone will respond that the first forms of life could even be simpler than Mycoplasma genitalium. So, despite what I just said, I am willing to make some projections that assume the possibility of the origin of life model stated above.
For this type model, do we have any information about the rarity of functional sequences? Various studies have looked at the issue of functional rarity in protein amino acid ordering. I won’t go through all of these, but here are my reactions to some representative work.
What does the Tian and Best 2017 study say about protein folding? The ability of a protein to fold with some complexity can be used as a minimum gauge of functional potential. A study of Tian and Best (4) looked at folding in existing proteins from an evolution standpoint, not an origin of life perspective. Even so, a finding from this study holds some relevance for the origin of life. For the 10 protein families studied, the odds of getting good folding ranged from 2.9 x 1023 to 3 x 10126. These ranges go beyond what one can expect to form by pre-life random arrangements of amino acids. So, this work could support the idea that the tiny odds numbers I have used in talks could apply (at least for some proteins needed to start life).
In response, origin of life researchers can argue that early life doesn’t have to jump the high bar set by Tian and Best. The first life forms may have used smaller proteins. However, the Tian and Best paper doesn’t guarantee this will always help. Tian and Best found that small proteins do not necessarily always give folding advantages. Compared to bigger proteins, smaller ones do have fewer amino acid spots to fill, but also have fewer sequences that fold well. Nonetheless, some will argue that early life may have only used proteins that are both small and lack narrow restrictions for amino acid order. I now consider some studies that test the feasibility of this idea.
Life could first use relatively small chains of amino acids that might not have to be very rare. These relatively small chains are called peptides rather than proteins. Some researchers, including me, are looking at current functions in humans for peptides that form from nutritional proteins. However, these functions mainly focus on modulating sophisticated systems that already exist (not peptide functions by themselves). In contrast to this limitation, the idea has been expressed that in pre-life times, peptides could have function in themselves. Eventually, some primitive function systems could develop into a form of life with longer chains that are proteins. How this development could take place involves a lot of imagination, but I will only comment on what random amino acid sequences could have existed.
A study (5) was done that created many peptides using biological machinery. The peptides averaged 80 amino acids. This is big for peptides, but under 1/4th the average protein size in Mycoplasma genitalium. The peptides were tested for binding to ATP, which is NOT a function. Enzymes that use ATP need to do more than just bind it or even break one of the bonds. Yet, even with this low definition of “function,” only 1 in 1011 peptides worked. These odds do go way above the 1 in 1064 noted earlier, but this other number still raises issues. For starters, even if there was a way to link amino acids into a peptide, the process would likely run very slowly. Current building of amino acid into peptides without biological systems yield slow peptide chain building (even with scientist selected conditions and chemicals that would have big advantages over the early earth). So, I will make a pre-life hypothetical projection of a 1000 chain buildings per one set of chain builders per year for 7 million years. Multiple chain builders can be present at the same time, but I will start with just one of them. With 1 in 1011 odds, 7 productions of an appropriate protein could occur in this time. For life to start building, the same protein would have to show up in multiple copies at the same 7 times. Unless an enormous number of chains were built near each other, the odds are way against multiple copies arriving in one place at one time. Also, other complimentary proteins would need to be there at the same time and place. And, the proteins have to be preserved. In addition, dilution can’t limit interactions. In contrast to all this, the peptide study (5) used biological machinery to make enormous amounts of peptides in small volumes under conditions set up by brilliant scientists. This differs from pre-life.
Even these limitations don’t end the problems. That’s because as noted earlier, the 1 in 1011 odds don’t meet a real life definition of function. Thus, the odds have to go down to estimate the rarity of real functional proteins. I can’t put a number on this. Maybe, the odds would approach the Tain and Best numbers. I can’t say. Still, based on this study, the pre-life peptide to protein approach for getting meaningful amino acid sequences faces daunting odds.
The person who gave the first quote is a coauthor on an updated version of reference 5. When published in 2021 (6), the odds came out about the same as the previous report (5). The conclusion of the research paper says the following: “…we suggest that functional proteins are sufficiently common in protein sequence space (roughly 1 in 1011) that they may be discovered by entirely stochastic means, such as presumably operated when proteins were first used by living organisms. However, this frequency is still low enough to emphasize the magnitude of the problem faced by those attempting de novo protein design.” And this statement does not even mention the issues I raised that would worsen the 1 in 1011 odds.
A similar type study by different authors was described in 2019 (7). Here the odds improved to about 3 in 108. However, these peptides were much shorter (22–25 amino acids) than the previous work. Also, the definition of function was far less stringent than an origin of life function. The function was binding to existing bacteria membranes to confer drug resistance.
Doug Axe’s work on beta-lactamase enzyme vs the lactamase-like function study of Shahsavarian et al. Doug Axe (8) calculated the odds as 1 in 1077 for getting a functional amino acid sequence for beta lactamase, a bacterial enzyme that gives drug resistance. Shahsavarian et al (9) found that manipulating antibody structure could give the same drug resistance by a different mechanism (binding to a drug and breaking it). Their odds for getting a functional protein were not near as bad as that of Axe. Neither of these papers were actually focused on origin of life issues. Nonetheless, some people use the Axe odds to say life couldn’t have begun naturally. That’s because pre-life processes couldn’t create such rare protein sequences (the same idea I and others had gotten from the Yockey calculation). Some different people use the Shahsavarian et al paper to say the Axe calculation has no relevance to origin of life (even though this paper wasn’t intended to refute the work of Axe). These different people say that Shahsavarian et al shows that the same function as lactamase can occur with less rarity. So, early life could have used relatively low rarity sequence proteins to give the same function as proteins needing more strict sequences. If we are to view both these papers in relation to life’s origin, then here’ s three points about the Shahsavarian et al paper:
This study modified existing proteins; thus, the odds of getting function run far better than those associated with starting from point zero.
The chemistry involved in an antibody binding to and breaking a target drug is less sophisticated than a traditional enzyme catalytic activity. Most enzyme functions could not be replaced by antibody binding.
The antibody study still only found 5 new functional proteins from 2.7 x 109 possibilities.
In the context of the origin of life, the odds would get lower than 5 x 2.7 x 109 for building from scratch at least some enzymes. Again, I can’t assign a number, but based on points 1 & 2 above, the odds should be much smaller.
Conclusion. The specific tiny odds that I and others have cited for randomly assembling functional proteins won’t apply to all proteins. In fact, these exact odds may not apply to any proteins than might have stated life. However, evidence exists that some unspecified unworkable odds work against assembling at least some pre-life proteins (even assuming the proteins can be made, preserved, and present in substantial amounts with other proteins at the same time and place). Thus, protein sequence rarity still constitutes one part of the unreasonableness of explaining life’s beginning without a creator.
Postscripts. This and other arguments I make for a creator in nature is not a God of the Gaps argument. I talk more about this in another site writing.
In the future, I may write on an idea that in early life, metal complexes could work like enzymes and later develop into metal containing enzymes. I have extensive research background in metal biochemistry and physiology. In my opinion, this origin of life scenario resides in La-La Land.
A well written article on making proteins to start life appears in a 2024 article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. I actually find a lot of it interesting. Even so, I think the authors’ big picture projections from the paper’s data goes beyond what I find believable. I will write on this in the near future.
Lastly, proteins with the really high rarity sequences can be discussed as being beyond the reach of what evolution can do. Not surprisingly, that idea provokes reactions against it. I may write about this in the future.
Yockey HP. A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory. Journal of Theoretical Biology 1977;67:377-398.
Maniloff J. In: Phylogeny of Mycoplasmas. Maniloff J, McElheney R, Finch L, Baseman J, editors. Washington, DC, USA: American Society of Microbiology Press; 1992.
Elsner M. Small but not simple. Nature Biotechnology 2010; 28:42.
Tian P, Best RB. How many protein sequences fold to a given structure? A coevolutionary analysis. Biophysical Journal 2017;113:1719-1730.
Keefe AD, Szostak JW. Functional proteins from a random-sequence library. Nature 2001;410:715-718.
Keefe AD, Szostak JW. Functional proteins from a random-sequence library. Nature 2001;410:715-718.
Knopp M, Gudmundsdottir JS, et al. De novo emergence of peptides that confer antibiotic resistance. mBio 2019;10:e00837-19.
Axe DD. Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. Journal of Molecular Biology 2004;341:1295-1315.
Shahsavarian MA, Chaaya N, et al. Multitarget selection of catalytic antibodies with β-lactamase activity using phage display. FEBS Journal 2017;284:634-653.
Reevaluation of a Pillar of My Talks on Evidences for God. The Odds of Making a Functional Protein (a little bit technical)
This is a little technical, though the general ideas can be followed by a broad audience.
I view the origin of life as a strong argument for God. Yet, I see Internet chatter saying the origin of life has been solved except for minor details. I don’t know where these people come up with that idea. Many reputable sites say the whole issue remains a mystery. For example, look at the first paragraph here: https://news.uchicago.edu/explainer/origin-life-earth-explained.
When I have done talks on evidences for God’s existence, I have almost always mentioned one particular issue related to the life’s beginning. The issue is the amazing odds against making a functional protein from a random linking of amino acids (even with major assumptions like having a way to link them). Exact estimates vary, but I have used 1 in 1064. This comes from work by Hubert Yockey on the protein cytochrome c (1). I have said that purely natural pre-life processes could not have made such rare amino acid sequences. However, I recently began wondering if such projections really make a strong case.
Background. When I say protein, you may think of drinks like Ensure or muscle contraction proteins. However, a huge number of proteins function in a lot of ways in living beings. Many act as enzymes that stimulate all kinds of chemical reactions. Other proteins build structures, act as antibodies, and do many other jobs. Proteins are composed of chains of amino acids (usually combinations of 20 of them). One can think of the order of amino acids like the order of letters in writing. Some orders are meaningless while others portray meaning. So, xDefgmZe tells nothing because it has complexity but no order. AAAAA also tells nothing because it has order but no complexity. On the other hand, the following Shakespeare quote has order and complexity; this writing contains understandable communication.
For proteins, the question is: how rare are amino acid sequences that have functional ordered complexity? Some people, including me, have stated how incredibly rare these sequences are. If this is true, then before life, it would be virtually impossible to get this right by randomly linking amino acids.
So, what’s the matter with this thinking? First off, some advocates of both divine creation and natural origin of life have said the whole issue is irrelevant. For the latter, some say an RNA world came before proteins. I discard that objection because of all the problems with proposing a pre-life RNA world (see this writing and this one). And, even if an RNA world did exist, proteins would get made eventually.
On the divine creation side, some scientists call attention to pre-life chemistry. They say this chemistry could never get to a situation where the right 20 amino acids in the right geometry would have the right machinery to link them correctly. Even today, when proteins are made in a laboratory, they are usually assembled using biological systems. In addition to this problem, even if functional proteins were made pre-life, a huge chasm still exists to get to actual cellular life.
I agree that arguments can be made for a life creator without discussing the rarity of functional amino acid sequences. Even so, I still wanted to revisit whether this consideration still holds. One objection to the tiny odds projections is that any particular protein doesn’t need only one exact amino acid sequence to function. For instance, a rat hemoglobin has some different amino acids from a human version. To reuse the writing analogy, small changes can retain an idea:
To be or not to be, that is the question (original) To be or not to be, this is the question. To be vs not to be, that is the question
For proteins, some substitutions don’t mess up the function. However, the Yockey calculation given above already accounts for that. Moreover, proteins can have stretches that are conserved or mostly conserved among species. However, another objection has been raised: Very different amino acid orders can have the same function. I see this in my work on antioxidant enzymes named superoxide dismutase 1, 2, and 3. They have one function, but different structures and locations (cytosol, mitochondria, and outside cells). To use the writing analogy again, someone can change Shakespeare’s quote completely and still have the same meaning:
To be or not to be, that is the question (original) Should I keep living? I am contemplating this decision. What should I do? Live on or not live on?
Going back to the proteins, it needs to be asked: How many different amino acid orders can give a single function? This may vary depending on the function and size of the proteins involved.
Do all protein functions need equally rare amino acid sequences? No. In light of this, some origin of life scientists propose the following idea. The earliest life used relatively small proteins with functions that didn’t need the most narrow amino acid sequences. Once life started, these proteins evolved into some bigger proteins that require fairly strict amino acid arrangements.
Now, just because this idea has been proposed doesn’t mean it happened. One of the first problems I see comes from looking at the bacteria Mycoplasma genitalium. By certain criteria, this could be called the simplest form of life present now (2). This bacteria has 484 proteins though not all are necessarily essential for life. Bacteria like this were discussed in a short commentary called “Small, but Not Simple” (3). This paper notes that many of the “simple” bacteria enzymes have multi-functions. That’s a trait that would seem to increase the need for specificity in amino acid sequences. In addition, Mycoplasma genitalium has an average of close to 400 amino acids per protein. This is pretty much the same as the average human protein. More importantly, this average amino acid chain length is about 3 times the size of cytochrome c, the protein used for the 1 in 1064 odds cited above. Although Mycoplasma genitalium lacks this protein, it certainly has bigger ones. So, based on size of proteins and functional complexity in “simple” life, one cannot just throw out the tiny odds barrier argument.
I am sure someone will respond that the first forms of life could even be simpler than Mycoplasma genitalium. So, despite what I just said, I am willing to make some projections that assume the possibility of the origin of life model stated above.
For this type model, do we have any information about the rarity of functional sequences? Various studies have looked at the issue of functional rarity in protein amino acid ordering. I won’t go through all of these, but here are my reactions to some representative work.
What does the Tian and Best 2017 study say about protein folding? The ability of a protein to fold with some complexity can be used as a minimum gauge of functional potential. A study of Tian and Best (4) looked at folding in existing proteins from an evolution standpoint, not an origin of life perspective. Even so, a finding from this study holds some relevance for the origin of life. For the 10 protein families studied, the odds of getting good folding ranged from 2.9 x 1023 to 3 x 10126. These ranges go beyond what one can expect to form by pre-life random arrangements of amino acids. So, this work could support the idea that the tiny odds numbers I have used in talks could apply (at least for some proteins needed to start life).
In response, origin of life researchers can argue that early life doesn’t have to jump the high bar set by Tian and Best. The first life forms may have used smaller proteins. However, the Tian and Best paper doesn’t guarantee this will always help. Tian and Best found that small proteins do not necessarily always give folding advantages. Compared to bigger proteins, smaller ones do have fewer amino acid spots to fill, but also have fewer sequences that fold well. Nonetheless, some will argue that early life may have only used proteins that are both small and lack narrow restrictions for amino acid order. I now consider some studies that test the feasibility of this idea.
Life could first use relatively small chains of amino acids that might not have to be very rare. These relatively small chains are called peptides rather than proteins. Some researchers, including me, are looking at current functions in humans for peptides that form from nutritional proteins. However, these functions mainly focus on modulating sophisticated systems that already exist (not peptide functions by themselves). In contrast to this limitation, the idea has been expressed that in pre-life times, peptides could have function in themselves. Eventually, some primitive function systems could develop into a form of life with longer chains that are proteins. How this development could take place involves a lot of imagination, but I will only comment on what random amino acid sequences could have existed.
A study (5) was done that created many peptides using biological machinery. The peptides averaged 80 amino acids. This is big for peptides, but under 1/4th the average protein size in Mycoplasma genitalium. The peptides were tested for binding to ATP, which is NOT a function. Enzymes that use ATP need to do more than just bind it or even break one of the bonds. Yet, even with this low definition of “function,” only 1 in 1011 peptides worked. These odds do go way above the 1 in 1064 noted earlier, but this other number still raises issues. For starters, even if there was a way to link amino acids into a peptide, the process would likely run very slowly. Current building of amino acid into peptides without biological systems yield slow peptide chain building (even with scientist selected conditions and chemicals that would have big advantages over the early earth). So, I will make a pre-life hypothetical projection of a 1000 chain buildings per one set of chain builders per year for 7 million years. Multiple chain builders can be present at the same time, but I will start with just one of them. With 1 in 1011 odds, 7 productions of an appropriate protein could occur in this time. For life to start building, the same protein would have to show up in multiple copies at the same 7 times. Unless an enormous number of chains were built near each other, the odds are way against multiple copies arriving in one place at one time. Also, other complimentary proteins would need to be there at the same time and place. And, the proteins have to be preserved. In addition, dilution can’t limit interactions. In contrast to all this, the peptide study (5) used biological machinery to make enormous amounts of peptides in small volumes under conditions set up by brilliant scientists. This differs from pre-life.
Even these limitations don’t end the problems. That’s because as noted earlier, the 1 in 1011 odds don’t meet a real life definition of function. Thus, the odds have to go down to estimate the rarity of real functional proteins. I can’t put a number on this. Maybe, the odds would approach the Tain and Best numbers. I can’t say. Still, based on this study, the pre-life peptide to protein approach for getting meaningful amino acid sequences faces daunting odds.
My opinion on this has company. In 2013, one of the researchers involved in the peptide study (5) said: “Getting function from randomness is hard” (https://www.asbmb.org/asbmb-today/science/092313/close-to-a-miracle). In response to this and other issues, another origin of life researcher said that until existing ideas could be expanded, the rise of proteins for life requires: “something like close to a miracle” (https://www.asbmb.org/asbmb-today/science/092313/close-to-a-miracle).
The person who gave the first quote is a coauthor on an updated version of reference 5. When published in 2021 (6), the odds came out about the same as the previous report (5). The conclusion of the research paper says the following: “…we suggest that functional proteins are sufficiently common in protein sequence space (roughly 1 in 1011) that they may be discovered by entirely stochastic means, such as presumably operated when proteins were first used by living organisms. However, this frequency is still low enough to emphasize the magnitude of the problem faced by those attempting de novo protein design.” And this statement does not even mention the issues I raised that would worsen the 1 in 1011 odds.
A similar type study by different authors was described in 2019 (7). Here the odds improved to about 3 in 108. However, these peptides were much shorter (22–25 amino acids) than the previous work. Also, the definition of function was far less stringent than an origin of life function. The function was binding to existing bacteria membranes to confer drug resistance.
Doug Axe’s work on beta-lactamase enzyme vs the lactamase-like function study of Shahsavarian et al. Doug Axe (8) calculated the odds as 1 in 1077 for getting a functional amino acid sequence for beta lactamase, a bacterial enzyme that gives drug resistance. Shahsavarian et al (9) found that manipulating antibody structure could give the same drug resistance by a different mechanism (binding to a drug and breaking it). Their odds for getting a functional protein were not near as bad as that of Axe. Neither of these papers were actually focused on origin of life issues. Nonetheless, some people use the Axe odds to say life couldn’t have begun naturally. That’s because pre-life processes couldn’t create such rare protein sequences (the same idea I and others had gotten from the Yockey calculation). Some different people use the Shahsavarian et al paper to say the Axe calculation has no relevance to origin of life (even though this paper wasn’t intended to refute the work of Axe). These different people say that Shahsavarian et al shows that the same function as lactamase can occur with less rarity. So, early life could have used relatively low rarity sequence proteins to give the same function as proteins needing more strict sequences. If we are to view both these papers in relation to life’s origin, then here’ s three points about the Shahsavarian et al paper:
In the context of the origin of life, the odds would get lower than 5 x 2.7 x 109 for building from scratch at least some enzymes. Again, I can’t assign a number, but based on points 1 & 2 above, the odds should be much smaller.
Conclusion. The specific tiny odds that I and others have cited for randomly assembling functional proteins won’t apply to all proteins. In fact, these exact odds may not apply to any proteins than might have stated life. However, evidence exists that some unspecified unworkable odds work against assembling at least some pre-life proteins (even assuming the proteins can be made, preserved, and present in substantial amounts with other proteins at the same time and place). Thus, protein sequence rarity still constitutes one part of the unreasonableness of explaining life’s beginning without a creator.
Postscripts. This and other arguments I make for a creator in nature is not a God of the Gaps argument. I talk more about this in another site writing.
In the future, I may write on an idea that in early life, metal complexes could work like enzymes and later develop into metal containing enzymes. I have extensive research background in metal biochemistry and physiology. In my opinion, this origin of life scenario resides in La-La Land.
A well written article on making proteins to start life appears in a 2024 article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. I actually find a lot of it interesting. Even so, I think the authors’ big picture projections from the paper’s data goes beyond what I find believable. I will write on this in the near future.
Lastly, proteins with the really high rarity sequences can be discussed as being beyond the reach of what evolution can do. Not surprisingly, that idea provokes reactions against it. I may write about this in the future.
The Anthropic Principle
Reevaluation of a Pillar of My Talks on Evidences for God. The Odds of Making a Functional Protein (a little bit technical)
Natural Science and Religion are Separate. The Former Can’t Be Used to Study the Latter (or Can It?)