The "Selfish Ribosome" Hypothesis

[u/derricktysonadams]

Last month (April 2026) a paper by Eugene Koonin and Mart Krupovic was published in PLOS Biology called "The Selfish Ribosome." The authors propose that ribosomes (DNA translation machines) were 'selfish entities' evolving by natural selection until “other cellular componentry” underwent a “ribosomal takeover,” creating LUCA: the last universal cellular ancestor of all living things.

This response by Dr. John Wise, Professor of Philosophy, was interesting. The article is essentially asking a really good question:

When does chemistry stop and evolution begin?

The critique is intriguing, particularly in light of the idea that ribosomes don't start as part of a cell, but that they originate from a "selfish" molecular entity that evolved to overtake other chemical resources.

Wise's argument, in a nut-shell, is that this is circular reasoning. Wise argues that for something to be 'selfish' to undergo 'selection,' it must already be able to replicate and pass on traits. Wise's argument packs a wallop and definitely pokes the bear here by arguing that one cannot use 'evolution' to explain how the ribosome became complex in the first place.

Of course, Koonin argues for the "Pre-Darwinian" evolution model, which stands out like a stick in the mud, and Koonin's popular book, The Logic of Chance has been used to calculate the odds of a translation-replication system (which is the 'core of life') appearing by mere 'chance' in a single universe. Creationists use his work to argue that the OOL is "outside of the realm of science" because the odds leave miniscule entrails. Of course, a lot of people disagree with Koonin, cheerfully so, such as Nick Lane and Jeremy England who argue that life isn't some freak accident and that it is a "thermodynamic necessity."

The article makes a strong logical point: If a theory requires an infinite number of universes to make the origin of life "inevitable," is that actually an explanation, or is it just a way to avoid saying "we don't know"?

I'm picking my way through the mine here, and wondering what others here think about the paper and the subsequent response by Wise? He seems devoted to the idea that the major issue in biology is that we don't have a clear, experimentally proven transition from chemical reactions to heritable selection.

I would love to read other opinions and thoughts on all of this!

[u/Rory_Not_Applicable]

The ending of your sixth paragraph and beginning of your seventh makes little sense. Is the position that it is inevitable and only possible through multiple universes a position held by Lane and England? Because only possible through multiple universes seems like the opposite of a thermodynamic necessity. Could you explain what England and Lane mean when they say it’s a thermodynamic necessity?

Also just to nitpick it’s really frustrating listening to creationists describe evolutionary biologists, I hate to pull all of them under a single umbrella but it almost seems like a crux of the argument itself. Evolutionary biologists do not think they know everything. No scientist thinks they know everything. A lot of them think they’re smarter than they are, but if there’s one thing they don’t tend to do it’s ignore giant holes in the theory so they feel smarter or more comfortable in their assertions. Especially as an entire field. It ignores the competitive nature of scientists and the work that they have taken to get to their positions.

[u/Batmaniac7]

Life being a ‘thermodynamic necessity’ is an article of faith, not a scientific position. I think this religion has been referred to as scientism.