I have these problems with most origin of life scenarios.
1. Chemical selection was NOT based on what would lead to
metabolism, replication, protein synthesis etc. That
makes no sense. Chemical selection was solely based on
that which would best survive the environment in that
moment in time.
2. Life did not 'pop and adapt' - pop out of nothing or a
vacumn, and then and only then, adapt to the environment
through descent with modification.
3. Looking for a SELF replicator is an error. We should be
looking for an environmentally forced replicator.
4. The major source of energy is sun/UV. All else 'pales'
in comparison. "The amount of energy available from
solar radiation seems to have always been far greater
than any other source, although energy from other
sources may also have been important in initiating
particular chemical reactions." Strickberger (Evolution)
5. The origin of life depended on both a wet and dry phase.
"...condensation reactions leading to the formation of
peptides, polysaccharides, lipids, and nucelic acids."
Strickberger.
6. A purine world with mostly A/G probably preceded one
with all 4 bases. Then later U and finally C.
7. LIfe was in directional and diversifying selection modes
at first so it probably 'evolved' very quickly.
8. LIfe was probably earlier and in a hotter
environment than now thought. Recent discoveries
move it back between
9.2-3.9. Note the high temperatures, oppressive atmosphere,
UV, meteorite bombardment, and more shallow oceans. I
contend that all these supported life's origin, not
prevented it from happening.
10. Life is better defined as energy moderation with
modification through descent.
10 There is a narrow window of opportunity for life to begin
in. There is a temperature cycle (going from hot to cooling
overall) that at a certain range - instigates chemical
responses that lead to life.
Comment?