A fascinating research paper. Indicating a simpler line that the evolution of DNA could have taken. It's always surprising how far a little simple logic or mathematics can take us.-As I have pointed out to Matt, even if our scientists make life, we will still not know if their method is the way it happened naturally. Your use of the word 'could' is the issue. You are correct. A fascinating paper, which does not prove anything. Unfortunately, we cannot even relive the episode of the origin of life, because there is no way to study the history of it, paraphrasing the famous statement. It is all fun and games. In this case logic and math don't take us anywhere, except to a method created by intelligence that might one day create a form of life. The chance origin in the original method can never be proven. We are working with parallelism.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005708
> > > > 
> > > > Apparently a codon scheme with a greater amount of codons than the three we presently have results in a genome that doesn't need ribosomes in order to transcript DNA--a less complex system than what we have now.
> > > 
> > > Interesting article, but odd ball findings not in our line of descent.
> > 
> > We don't know that!
> 
> OK, that's true, but it still doesn't get us past the origin of information in the DNA code at time-zero for the beginning of life.-No, but the paper was attempting to discuss a pathway life could take that doesn't require all the information we currently require. It's a simplifying move, and considering that we lack the mechanism by which life occurred, any step into a new direction must be supported! You agreed with me that we have little choice but to work backwards from life and forwards from chemistry--this paper is a result of a mixture somewhere in between.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005708
> > > 
> > > Apparently a codon scheme with a greater amount of codons than the three we presently have results in a genome that doesn't need ribosomes in order to transcript DNA--a less complex system than what we have now.
> > 
> > Interesting article, but odd ball findings not in our line of descent.
> 
> We don't know that!-OK, that's true, but it still doesn't get us past the origin of information in the DNA code at time-zero for the beginning of life.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005708
> > 
> > Apparently a codon scheme with a greater amount of codons than the three we presently have results in a genome that doesn't need ribosomes in order to transcript DNA--a less complex system than what we have now.
> 
> Interesting article, but odd ball findings not in our line of descent.-We don't know that!

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005708
> 
> Apparently a codon scheme with a greater amount of codons than the three we presently have results in a genome that doesn't need ribosomes in order to transcript DNA--a less complex system than what we have now.-Interesting article, but odd ball findings not in our line of descent.