[Loc123]

I appreciate your analogy, however it doesn't apply to this system. In the early Earth--as I have said numerous times--there was relatively infinite energy (relative to the magical self-replicating molecules). Therefore, there was no selective pressure on those molecules to compete.

The only time I could see some selective pressure on the two species would be after they left their nutritious birth envirnment. In either case, we cannot say which had an advantage because, while lower energy is usually preferrable, a higher energy molecule has the advantage of allowing for decreased entropy (the tenent of life) as well as a preferrable receptor/donor for larger energy chemicals (be it polar, ionic, etc).

Most importantly, I just don't see the pressure to select a species given the necessary high-energy bombardment then-present.

[VadeRetro]

I appreciate your analogy, however it doesn't apply to this system. In the early Earth--as I have said numerous times--there was relatively infinite energy (relative to the magical self-replicating molecules). Therefore, there was no selective pressure on those molecules to compete.

You seem to be pulling difficulties out of nowhere here. Is there some reason I'm wasting my time, that you're absolutely positively never going to accept a mechanistic, chemical, non-magical version of where life comes from? This is getting very lame.

The molecules don't know they're in a competion. It just happens that the first self-replicator is going to inherit the Earth, but nothing on Earth actually knows that. The energy available at any time isn't infinite, and infinite energy would be bad for organic synthesis anyway.

Selective pressures only start after you get imperfect self-replicators making various strains of some original. Then natural selection has something to select. Classic Darwinian evolution begins. Before then it's pretty much blind chemical dumb luck.

[VadeRetro]

The only time I could see some selective pressure on the two species would be after they left their nutritious birth envirnment. In either case, we cannot say which had an advantage because, while lower energy is usually preferrable, a higher energy molecule has the advantage of allowing for decreased entropy (the tenent of life) as well as a preferrable receptor/donor for larger energy chemicals (be it polar, ionic, etc).

Despite the fact that you have occasionally thrown out some scientific terms, your overall erudition is so poor that I can't really tell whether your "two species" above refer to the two handednesses "competing" in parallel (quite unconsciously) to develop self-replication, or perhaps you mean two competing strains of self-replicator molecule after the first such has mutated. Isomers of bio molecules are formed, not born. However it may beggar belief, your reference to energy levels points to MacDermott's chirality/weak-force theory and thus would tend to mean your "species" are enantiomers. I'll try to address one point: lower energy isn't "preferable," it's simply a more stable condition.

In short, your objections, never all that plausible, have become very hard to decipher. I'm really getting a sense I'm wasting my time here.