A chap named Robert Shapiro has a number of interesting things to say about the origins of life, including that an Open Sourcey-looking beginning is far more likely than any of the traditional approaches.
For example, he completely trashes the Miller-&-Urey experiment as a means for producing DNA or RNA, then goes on to point out that an RNA-based origin is “the prebiotic chemist’s nightmare’.
After spending a few pages totally wiping the floor with these traditional methods, Shapiro then proposes assembly of smaller molecules. He’s got quite a few impressive qualification to do this from.
His diatribe against RNA is pretty amusing:
The analogy that comes to mind is that of a golfer, who having played a golf ball through an 18-hole course, then assumed that the ball could also play itself around the course in his absence. He had demonstrated the possibility of the event; it was only necessary to presume that some combination of natural forces (earthquakes, winds, tornadoes and floods, for example) could produce the same result, given enough time. No physical law need be broken for spontaneous RNA formation to happen, but the chances against it are so immense, that the suggestion implies that the non-living world had an innate desire to generate RNA. The majority of origin-of-life scientists who still support the RNA-first theory either accept this concept (implicitly, if not explicitly) or feel that the immensely unfavorable odds were simply overcome by good luck.
So... it seems that if anywhere, naturalistic life first appeared on a cold, rocky version of SourgeForge, no?