I think those setting up experiments
to test scenarios for the origin of life
or for any stage in the development of life 
are using the wrong approach.

Almost all of them work this way:
They're trying to go from assorted chemicals and
chemical reactions to the first replicator - 
or some other sign of life.

I think that approach is wrong

I suggest that because we already know
that life comes from those chemicals that are
more stable in the heat cycle caused by the sun,
that we begin with that premise.

We know
1. the mechanism for life was the sun heat cycle.
2. and any 'life' or prebiotic chemicals 
could only  be those that are the most
stable up to, and after the production of, the first
replicator. The simple reason why is this -
if not stable, these chemicals would be destroyed. 

Therefore experiments to determine the origin
should begin as life did - with chemicals under
certain pressures from the sun cycle environment.

First we should determine what survives
Sun selection ( i.e.  what is most stable under a similar
heat cycle as the sun at the origin). Then we
should determine what survives
chemical selection ( i.e. what is the most stable 
under a similar heat cycle AND is able to use the sun's
energy to become even more stable.

This would lead to the breakthrough we are
looking for.

Tom Hendricks
---
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 9/10/04 5:07:16 PM