Re: The First Self-Replicator and early Lunar tides


<markr1000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:evtrr8$1f08$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 14, 6:12 pm, Tim Tyler <seemy...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
markr1...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
How much stock does anybody here put into the gigantic
early lunar
tides having had a role in the origin of the first
self replicating
molecule, whether from the work of Richard Lathe, or
other sources?

We do not know how life formed with much certainty - so
the idea
is hard to assess.

IMO, the most likely locations are highly stable ones -
deep in the
ocean, or perhaps in underground caves:

From what I've been reading, stability is exactly what
you don't
want. Inert substances are the pinnacle of stability,
they're also
the opposite of life.

Gigantic tides sloshing around for many millions of years
would keep
the oceans a constant soup of amino acids and other
inorganic building
blocks as well as creating billions of tidal pools test
tubes in which
trillions of experiments would being going on.

I ran across this in my search on early tides and whoever
it is paints
a thorough picture. I have no idea what holes might be
poked in it
beyond the talk of "original non-replicating atoms" which
is silly
consider the immense amount of amino acids that would have
been
available in the absence of free oxygen.

I also ran across this paper, with an URL too long to fit
without word
wrap:
"Tidal chain reaction and the origin of replicating
biopolymers".

Whatever else, I think stability is highly overrated in
the origin of
life.

I think tides are overrated too. Wouldn't severe winds and
storms/hurricanes along with volcanism and temperature
upwelling of deeper waters, all occurring without need for
tides, accomplish the same things as tides? Maybe better
too. ...tonyC


.