>Hi Tom,
And Hi to you.

>> There is no grace period on metabolism in the origin.
>> 
>> Some scenarios suggest that first came a first
>> replicator - then followed a grace period where
>> natural selection allowed this first replicator to
>> develop a metabolism system to power itself!
>> 
>>  I ask what energy source was there to develop the
>> metabolism system during that grace period? And how
>> is it that that first replicator was in no way
>> harmed or destroyed by the environment.
>> It just couldn't happen.
>
>But it did.

Yes it did because there was constant and cyclical energy
impute from the sun - a heat cycle that was constant enough to adapt to but
variable enough to produce variants to allow for selection.
Let's turn things around. Take out the sun - tell me
how that would lead to life. I coudn't.
We have taken the heat cycle for granted. I think life
is a reaction to a heat cycle and  life is just that which best adapts to the
heat cycle (and later other adaptations when that prime survival need is
solved)


>Maybe not in the way that those theories you refer to describe, but it did.
>I don't expect we will ever find out, with reasonable certainty, what 
>happened during the very origins of life.

I think we will and soon. But not if you are looking
for a fluke replicator out of thin air. IF you  accept
that life is that which best survives a heat cycle at the time of the origin -
then recreating the exact conditions of that heat cycle, atmosphere, earth
spin, tides, etc. will recreat the origin.. We are so close I can almost taste
it IMO.
>
>Your point that any replicating machinery needs energy to run, is of course
>true. 
>Replicating complex molecules reduces local enthropy, so costs energy to
>achieve.
>You wrote:
>> Some scenarios suggest that first came a first
>> replicator - then followed a grace period where
>> natural selection allowed this first replicator to
>> develop a metabolism system to power itself!
>
>IMHO: 
>I expect that the spot where this first happened had a good environment
>with 
>energy in the 'right' form available to the first replicating molecules.

Oh please don't expet or accept or take anything for
granted. Let's make it not a fluke but a sure thing -
Let's say 
1. the sun powered all prebiotic processes.
2. when the sun began to waned or cool, the prebiotic
processes that switched to alt forms of energy were the only that survived that
environment.
Thus order is everything.
1. 'sun selection.
2. chemical selection when sun cooled
3. natural selection when chemical selection produced the first replicator.
Now nothing is a fluke or a dream or a perchance.
It's clear and obvious. 
The problem I see is that most still subconsciously cherish the 'life is
independent and special" falllacy and instead of a creationist moment they've
barely switched to a first replicator springing out of thin air moment. Both
are wrong. Dumb that paradigm. Look at the environment as it was. Don't try to
anticipate life as something to fulfill a future event, and it all becomes much
clearer IMO.
>
>eg: a popular energycarrier nowadays in our cells is ATP. 
>When it looses a Phosphate (ATP--> ADP) energy is available.
>I expect

Don't expect or postulate - prove.

 that on the spot where the first replicating molecules where 
>forming, the environment contained similar energy-rich molecules. 
>Most probably NOT ATP of course, but just energyrich molecules ready to
>
>react and making their energy available to the first replicating molecules.

You still are depending on an order that seems wrong to
me. 1. first replicator pops up 2. It has a grace period that is unexplainable
in any scientific rational where it is not destroyed in a hadean time period.
3. Then sometime out of this fluke  vacumn it evolves metabolism (which  we
note it didn't have before that so it was powered on magic dust?)
I'm being sarcastic to prove the fallacy of the grace period - and to reset the
order of events.

I do believe ATP or phosphate rich compounds were key in the change from Sun
power to chemical power. I do believe that wherever the phosphate rich bonds
were, the prebiotic nucleotides and peptides would prosper - thus I believe
phosphate rich bonds were probably the glue that connected the info nucleotides
with the protein world .
But that is another chapter. And a later chapter.
>
>In that way the molecules were trapped to that location.
>Drifting away too far from the energydelivering molecules would mean that
>
>they loose their energysuply and 'die' (stops replicating).
>
>That situation (replicating molecules in a natural environment that contains
>
>energyrich molecules usable for the first replicating molecules) can be
>
>called stable (for some time anyway).

That is way too iffy and improbable. See above.
>
>>From here on you can imagine that evolution favored those molecules that
>
>were able to create their own environment, by the use of membranes to 
>create an interior with the right mixes of needed molecules.

But here is that anthropomorphism raising its human
head.  Life did not emerge to create its own environment. EVERY aspect of
selection is adaptation to the environment.
EVERY aspect of pre-origin was to adapt to the environment. 
How can any change that makes it less
adaptable to the environment be selected IN that
environment?
Thus being independent of the environment would never be selected during any
period of this origin time.
(Perhaps later  - 4 billion years later - as selfish
genes - but that too is a much much later story.)
>
>How this happens is of course all speculation, but I think you can safely
>
>say that the first replicating molecules had a great environment for that
>
>purpose,

I dont' agree and would ask for more proof or studies
or more specific reasons backed up by studies etc.


 and later on developed/evolved to systems with their own energy
>
>machinery, allowing them to leave the original spot, venturing into other,
>
>less favorable, environments.
>
>In that way replication came first, energy-machinery (storing/releasing)
>
>later. 
>
>Just my 2 cents.
>
>Regards,
>Erwin Moller
>
>
>> 
>> In other words you need a time machine to take
>> the evolved metabolism system back to when it
>> was needed after the first replicator began
>> evolving to the metabolism system that was needed
>> to evolve the first metabolism system, etc! HUH???
>> 
>> Comment?
>> Tom Hendricks,  Musea zine ed.
>> http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com"
>> 
>> Musea GUARANTEES every musician, painter, writer, etc.
>> a REVIEW - a tough review - a fair review.
>> 
>> Contact me for our policy. Samples:
>> http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com/reviews1.html
>
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/16/04 9:48:48 PM