In a sense, yes. There are very long-lasting boundary systems at rock-water interfaces where holes and fractures in the Earth’s crust continuously exhales compounds that are being slowly generated deeper in the crust and mantle.
Case in point is the planet’s never-having-stopped, and continuous generation of carbon dioxide. Thankfully there are natural sinks for it too of course.
Some hydrothermal systems persist for tens or even hundreds of thousands of years. There are million-year-old still-active volcanic systems scattered throughout the world where both gases and liquids have been seeping out for geological periods of time. The processes that keep these systems going for so long are of course enormous in scale, taking place deep in he Earth’s crust and mantle.
If such a system runs through volumes of minerals of the correct type and proportions, they can in principle act as catalysts and feedstocks for a steady, sustained stream of relevant molecules for many millennia. It doesn’t have to be ATP specifically though, but a related but simpler, yet still reactive organic molecule. Such as the acetyl phosphates or thioesters proposed in the references I gave earlier. There is nothing at all implausible about such long-term sustained systems of generation.
So after 56 years A will have gone through 56 half-life cycles, and T only 1.
P_adenine(56 years)= 0.5^56 = 1.38 x 10^-17
P_thymine(56 years) = 0.5^1 = 1/2
proportion
P_thymine(56)/ P_adenine(56) =3.6 x 10^16
Soo, even in a short time there will be so much more thymine than adenine. The disparity is worse for Cytosine and Guanine!
But this isn’t favorable to making DNA that has even remotely usable proportions of the 4 bases. Yikes. RNA has comparable problems when we contrast Cytosine to Uracil.
Not to mention, for every adenine on one strand of the double helix, there must be a corresponding thymine to make the other strand.
This time you’re assuming the different nucleobases are made in equal amounts and they’re sort of just sitting there doing nothing without getting used up continuously as they are produced, and/or that all four are needed to begin with. And that life began with the aqueous synthesis of RNA or DNA monomers. What justifies any of these assumptions?
Translation - there seem to be insurmountable hurdles for an intelligent designer who is committed to work outside of the natural realm. OK, no arguments here. (@Roy seems to agree.)
But I wonder, @stcordova. Which of the many designers that ID proponents invoke (you know, the genetic code designer, the RNA code designer, the sugar code designer, the histone code designer, the splicing code designer, the membrane code designer, etc., etc…) might be responsible for overcoming the challenges to design you are going on about in this thread? One designer? A collaboration? If the latter, who, how, and why?
These are two companies that synthesize DNA. Oligos, gene synthesis, etc. If would seem that @stcordova had to learn about the chemistry of oligo synthesis (maybe in a class), and he is showing off his chops.
I agree, there’s no reason to think 20th and 21st century chemical manufacturers are happening in the ocean. What does that have to do with the topic at hand?
I ask again, what justifies the assumptions that the different nucleobases are made in equal amounts and they’re sort of just sitting there doing nothing without getting used up continuously as they are produced, and/or that all four are needed to begin with? And that life began with the aqueous synthesis of RNA or DNA monomers?
It’s not so much an assumption, but pointing out why an everything-first model works better than a stepwise model.
Nucleobases (much less nucleosides or nucleotides) just sitting around not becoming anything creates problems which require mechanisms to sustain their usefulness, otherwise they just half-life themselves to non-existence.
Abiogenesis proponents insist the creation model of all-or-nothing is illegitimate. I pointed out one reason the stepwise model is problematic and the idea that stepwise is possible is an faith assumption, it is not proven fact.
Thus, to “solve” the problem posed by half-lifes and the water paradox, one has to assume something like formamide as a solvent instead of water (yikes), one has to assume for no good reason there is viable and useful polymerizing mechanism (not to mention one has to incorporate nucleobases into nucleosides into nucleotides), and one has to entertain the possibility of RNAs without Cytosines, and thus evolve a 4 nucleobase system from a 2 nucleobase system or some other system, and this doesn’t even remotely address the the emergence of viable genes and gene transcription and translation to make transmembrane proteins.
The all-or-nothing model vs. the stepwise model is more sensible, because the stepwise model requires collectively more or less the same amount of miracles to make it work, but abiogenesis proponents just don’t want to admit it.