This is my e-mail to Dr. Mulkidjanian, a major researcher in the origin of life.
Congratulations on your well deserved attention in New Scientist. You are on the right track in my opinion.
1. I agree it was not ocean vents
2. I agree, life may have been started and survived the late bombardment.
3. I agree that the energy source was UV, that forced chemical selection that led to organic chemistry and life.
For what it is worth, I see life as the most STABLE chemical system.
(stable meaning keeps what works, and improves what does not)
It has survived 4 billion years. That is real stability.
But I also see it as a response to these dichotomies
1. day/night changes
2. wet/dry changes
3. hydrophilic/hydrophobic changes
Such that we are left with two part life: nurturing in chemistry PLUS waste out chemistry.
We didn’t have two origins of life. So how did all these dichotomies start?
They didn’t start separately, and then later connect up, in a third combined origin of life. That would make 3 separate origins.
My suggestion is, they were, through response to the energy of UV, a reflection of and an adaptation to,
the day/night, wet/dry, hydrophilic/hydrophobic environment.
Continues Success to you and your team.
BIOLOGY HYPOTHESIS http://wp.me/p5S9X-eO
BIOLOGICAL SPECULATIONS Through The Years http://wp.me/P5S9X-Pp
UV PAPER http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/U/UV_origin_of_life.html
Catabolic and Anabolic evolved, but they did not blend.