>> Replicating has no advantage at that point in time - thus it is not more
>> stable. Dealing with the onslaught of heat in any way that would make
>> those molecules more stable would be selected.
>
>No.
>There is NO drive for those molecules to become stable.

Yes there is. It's the only driving energy source there.
Its the sun
>

>There is only chemical activity.

Within a range determined by the sun

>There is only a drive to reach the lowest energystate.

But that's what metabolism is - life too.
>
>Think that through please, please.
>It is important.
>
>That situation changes when selfreplication is added to the formula.
>THEN stabilities gets a whole different meaning.

But you can't invent replication because it suits your needs - you have to find
a way it would have happened
at that time - evolution doesn't work for the future event.
>
>
>> 
>> No molecule loves children or wants to duplicate.
>
>Or want to be stable.

The sun destroys all but that that is stable
Do you deny that?


>> You want to get to replication so you have darwinian selection - but the
>> environment and the molecules have no desire to do that at all.
>
>indeed.
>hence the fluke-replicator.

>I prefer fluke.

Well we're back to the magic wand again hey?
WHy depend on a fluke - when the sun is there.
Its' like denying the thousand pound gorilla in
your room.


I'm not going to argue the problems with fluke
events - its just preposterous. Its' wish fulfillment
not science. It can't happen.


>Again you seem to think that there is some hidden law of nature that forces

Of course - let's burn you up. What will be left?
That which is stable in the burning up process.
---
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 10/28/04 6:18:33 AM