I've meanwhile found the article that the "Chemical Origin" website uses as a proof for most of it's claims. If someone is interested, it's here:
http://proxy.arts.uci.edu/~nideffer/Hawking/early_proto/orgel.htmlThe article is not a scientific publication, but just a brief introduction into the history, different theories, experiments, progress and setbacks reconstructing the origin of life in the early earth atmosphere. Its author is a critical supporter of the RNA world theory.
Quote:
Whether RNA arose spontaneously or replaced some earlier genetic system, its development was probably the watershed event in the development of life. It very likely led to the synthesis of proteins, the formation of DNA and the emergence of a cell that became life's last common ancestor. The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. As we have seen, investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best. The full details of how the RNA world, and life, emerged may not be revealed in the near future. Nevertheless, as chemists, biochemists and molecular biologists cooperate on ever more ingenious experiments, they are sure to fill in many missing parts of the puzzle.
None of the claims on the "Chemical Origin" website are contained in the article. I haven't looked into the other links yet, but got the impression that also the rest of the website is 100% bunk.
