Re: OoL - out at first base?

On 12/11/24 9:27 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 08:32:42 -0800, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
 

On 12/10/24 11:32 PM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 13:57:43 -0800, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[snip for focus]
>

   Self-catalyzing time for a strand of RNA is probably on the order of
minutes.  A black smoker need only be present for few years, and the
early earth had a much hotter interior means that there were at least
millions of them.  As SJ Gould remarked "life may be as common as
quartz". Indeed.  All you need is hot water and a thermal or chemical
gradient and you're good to go.

>
If that is the case, why have we not seen any new life forms develop
from scratch in the last several billion years with every form of life
we know descending from a single origin?
>
I know the typical response is that in the early earth, there were
possibly numerous life forms with one dominant one devouring the
others but that seems a bit of a stretch; it doesn't explain why there
is no trace of anything developing in later stages and no one has ever
been able to create laboratory conditions that have allowed new life
to develop. Miller-Urey got as far as amino acids but that is a long
way from a life form.
>
Just to be clear, I am not endorsing MarkE's arguments; I'm simply
challenging the Gould statement and the "all you need" comment.
>

The new life forms don't have any ecological niches available, because
they're already occupied by fully adapted life.  You'd have to have some
strong advantage to prevail (it does happen, but rarely).

 Hmmm .... lots of niches for the development of the many many millions
of life forms that have evolved over billions of years but no niches
available for new forms to evolve. As I said, sounds like a bit of a
stretch.
 

It is a stretch, but the new forms aren't there.  My account may be a "just-so story", so anyone interested should continue looking.