"TomHendricks474"  wrote in message
news:cjru36$2snm$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> Harnessing energy is not a first step to the origin of life.
> Putting it after a first replicator is also  a major mistake
> of OOL scenarios IMO.
>
> Here's the steps I suggest:
>
> 1. Sun forces energy on prebiotic chemicals under
>     certain conditions (water in liquid form etc.).
> 2. Some chemical variants survive the sun cycle
>     - 'sun selection'
> 3. Some of these variants not ony survive the sun
>     but harness its constant energy flow to better
>     adapt to the sun cycle  - 'chemical selection'
>     And later to adapt to all aspects of their environment.
> 4. Replication is one novel form of energy use,
>     to better adapt to the sun cycle and environment
> 5. Replication leads to
>     a. better adaptation to the sun cycle and environment
           - but also
>     b. better protection and separation from the hazards of
           the sun cycle and environment (selfish genes are safe genes)
>
> Life = energy moderation with modification through descent.

Since we know life replicates with ease and I think life must have began
with incredible simplicity (relative to what we see now), I'll suggest that
OOL began after Step 3, and was concurrent with replication.  Basically, it
seems convoluted and counter-intuitive to me to have life piggy-backing what
I assume is already a rare occurrence on your chemical replication, and then
continuing along with the replication process "as life".  I don't discount
your scenario totally, but think Occam's razor is making two cuts, instead
of one with the 3 Step modification.  Regards,  Brett.
---
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 10/6/04 12:18:54 PM