Replies

VadreRetro,

If you present a compelling argument, I will cede the point. Unfortunately, you seem to not have familiarity with chemistry/physics as it relates to endothermic chemicals.

Why would the first self-replicating molecule inherent the Earth?

The energy available at the time is RELATIVELY infinite--notice I noted that term many times for a purpose. If the proscribed environment was the smokestacks, then the energy would be relatively infinite.

Then you say that infinite energy would be bad for organic synth--but without extremely high energies organic synth from non-organic structures would be impossible. This is basic entropy/energy transaction. To create a self-replicating, polymerized, normally unstable configuration of chemicals--all of which describe organic chemicals--you need huge amounts of activation energy or endothermic energy. Without this "pressure" organic molecules that could ever self-replicate would simply bind with inorganic cations, transition metals, or lower energy organic atoms (which have no possibility of self-replication since they are in their lowest energy state).

And how would self-replicators--ideally set for a specific bond, manage to selectively evolve? Basic thermochem shows that it takes enormous external energies to synth larger chemicals. Therefore, the "self-replicators" would likely be small and only slightly endothermic. I don't think there is a hypothetical mechanism yet that would explain why or how they would form relatively (to the first "replicators") complex molecules.

And on the selective pressurs--this is a catch-22 for early replicators. If they (both species or a single, it doesn't matter), had huge amounts of energy and building blocks available, then there would never be any selective pressure. And if the species(es) had suddenly an environment deprived of energy/building block, then they would all decompose due to the inability to bond with the other different (imperfect) self-replicators that had simultaneously utilized the remaining energy/building blocks.

I'm sorry you are getting frustrated, but chemistry is a very precise science--it is not like politics where you can quote an authority and assume credibility unless that authority accounts for inadequecies in his model. In that doctor's model--from what I read and what you posted--there are no proposed solutions to these objections.

Likewise, it appears to me that our increasing knowledge about early Earth chemistry and the nature of life and its precursors (if any) increasing point to the need for an intelligent Agent.

If you present a compelling argument, I will cede the point. Unfortunately, you seem to not have familiarity with chemistry/physics as it relates to endothermic chemicals.

You've been clueless as a newborn babe and bludgeoning with ignorance.

Why would the first self-replicating molecule inherent the Earth?

Do you imagine that any lurker following this conversation shares your puzzlement on this point? The first self-replicating molecule floats in a sea of "food." It is the only eater on Earth. That's a sophisticated point you just had me explain, there! I'm sure dozens of people are glad you helped clear up their puzzlement on such a stumper.

The energy available at the time is RELATIVELY infinite--notice I noted that term many times for a purpose.

"RELATIVELY infinite." Why didn't I guess? There's some dynamic equilibrium in which the Earth is losing almost the same amount every day as the sun pours in. It's mostly solar, with some geothermal. The geothermal is higher than current levels because there's more uncooked uranium (about twice as much) and more residual heat from the formation of the Earth. The sun, OTOH, is thought to have been rather dimmer back then. Anyway, there's a finite available energy.

And how would self-replicators--ideally set for a specific bond, manage to selectively evolve? Basic thermochem shows that it takes enormous external energies to synth larger chemicals.

All you need is time and stable sub-assemblies. You don't know what you're talking about. Nothing jumps together all at once. Read the main article on this thread. Miller type experiments showed that simple carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen molecules combine and recombine in utterly chaotic ways over time. It's the same ambient energy for all the reactions.

I'm sorry you are getting frustrated, but chemistry is a very precise science ...

I use chaotic here in the sense of "deterministic but intractable to analysis." Simple dynamics is very precise, but predicting the outcome of a sufficiently vigorous coin toss is almost impossible. You can model as precisely as you want, but if your input model says you will apply a force of one newton but your apparatus applies 1.0001 newton, if your model says the coin is perfectly round but there are small irregularities on the rim of the real thing, you're back to 50-50. The chemistry is the same.

And on the selective pressurs--this is a catch-22 for early replicators.

The selective pressures work the same as now. More viable (sturdier) is good. More fertile (likely to copy successfuly) is good. More adapted to current conditions (food supply, etc.) is good. You have not made the case for any different assumption.

And how would self-replicators--ideally set for a specific bond, manage to selectively evolve? Basic thermochem shows that it takes enormous external energies to synth larger chemicals.

Here's just another case in which I can't tell when you're talking about before the self-replicator exists and when after. The first sentence ("And how would self-replicators--ideally set for a specific bond, manage to selectively evolve?") seems to presume as a given that the self-replicator has formed, the question for the moment being how such would evolve different strains.

The answer, then as now, is imperfect replication. Get one strain, soon you will have several. Most of the "bad" copies do not possess the self-replicating attribute of their parent and "die" (are eventually destroyed) without having ever reproduced. A few here and there, however, are more stable ("healthy") or more "fertile" in reproducing and will give the parent strain a run for its money. This is a Darwinian scenario, competition for resources.

Your second sentence ("Basic thermochem shows that it takes enormous external energies to synth larger chemicals") seems to refer to the difficulties of forming a complex molecule, the replicator, in the first place. (I've dealt with the objection it contains, which is just wrong, and won't repeat that here.) The effect of the two sentences in the order given is to cast confusion upon what part of the scenario is even being questioned. Then you have the business of calling L- and D- isomers "species," which also obscures whether the time before or after Replication Day is meant. I have endeavored to make clear that the formation of that first replicator is a very sharp dividing line. It is the end of random dumb luck and the start of real evolution.