Was Central Dogma Violated in Abiogenesis?

Continuing the discussion from The helix, of DNA fame, may have arisen with startling ease:

@Mung was curious how this paper:

Relates to the central Dogma:

How does this view of DNA fit the central dogma?

The Central Dogma was never meant to address abiogenesis. The Central Dogma is only a general rule for modern organisms with known exceptions like reverse transcriptase.


So when life, and evolution, first got its start, the central dogma did not apply, but then later, life evolved in such a way that the central dogma did apply.

The central dogma has nothing to do with this. What do you think is the connection?


There is no connection. His question is off topic and this is likely to be moved to another thread.

I don’t get the relevance either. Also, the helical nature of DNA is due to Watson-Crick base pairing and the sugar-phosphate backbone structure when in certain solvents at certain temperature ranges.

The Central Dogma is just a human concept that generally applies to modern organisms. It isn’t a natural law or anything like that.


None that you can see, anyways. So what is the topic of this thread? I’ll try to stay on topic.

None that any of us can see. Go ahead and explain.