Uh huh. The original Darwinian formula applies to DNA-bearing entities that leave fossils behind in a comparatively cool earth. Please submit your proof that nearly-exact copying of completely discrete entities is the only possible way evolution could have happened.
As I have been manfully trying to suggest thru several threads here, the story has to be radically different when the evolving entities are not altogether discrete, and temperatures are so high that finding means of conserving energy is a trivial task.
As the Woese article I pointed to back in that old thread suggests, the essential problems of loosely organized evolving entities in a planet sized hot soup of bubbly broth are not anything like the problems of entities familiar to Darwin, and us. For RNA world and before, the field of contention in which evolutionary selection can occur, is something like staying a federated entity, not gathering and utilizing resources--a requirement of a far cooler world.
A different basic problem calls for a different basic survival paradigm. And I'd really recommend the Woese article to you on this subject, as it is very clear about how massive distinctions in mean earth temperature have to require massive distinctions in basic survival problems.
While disagreeing that leaving fossils has anything to do with evolution, including the Darwinian kind, I cannot provide that proof by definition. I would like to represent the Darwinians in this argument and concede that you have put the nail in Chuckie's theory, but I know the real acolytes will not allow me to do that. I was acting as a messenger in relaying that requirement.
Offhand I would reject the idea of a commune of molecules dedicated to mutual survival in an energetic environment, but the idea seems interesting. The reason I have the immediate doubt is that heat tends to destroy structure instead of building it. And yes, I know of the cells formed in heated liquids, but they disappear when the heat is removed.