I am puzzled by your terminology. Replication implies high-fidelity copying of information. That is what some crystals (e.g. barium ferrites) can do. It is an “information bearing replicating crystal”. So, what exactly are you asking for? and why are the polytypic layer structures in barium ferrites not it?
You ask for splitting. However, one of the key insights in this area is that you can have evolution-without splitting—via “vegetative reproduction”:
Not that splitting is terribly demanding. Make anything big enough and it will break up—if only under its own weight. The real issue is whether the split introduces mutations that lead to a meltdown. That is a potential problem for 1D crystals—but 2D ones don’t depend on splitting—and if there are splits there are still likely to be operational viable growth fronts after the split.
The clay theory is just not going to be taken seriously until someone has a population of clay “organisms” replicating away in a lab and then starts running long-term evolution experiments on them like Lenski is doing with bacteria.
No-one else can make life from primitive materials yet either—this requirement strikes against every OOL theory equally.
To recap, the main reason for thinking Crystalline Ancestry is true is because clay mineral crystals actually replicate patterns of reasonable size with high fidelity under plausible pre-biotic conditions (and this is the #1 requirement for any evolving system) - whereas no other pre-biotically plausible structure has been demonstrated to do so.
However, it’s a reasonable request to want to see evolution based on the theory in the lab. Growing many clays in the lab is terribly difficult—and often takes forever—but success there would be interesting. However, much of the existing work has been done with “found” natural clays. They seem to be a more obvious focus—in some respects.
I am puzzled by your terminology. Replication implies high-fidelity copying of information. That is what some crystals (e.g. barium ferrites) can do. It is an “information bearing replicating crystal”. So, what exactly are you asking for? and why are the polytypic layer structures in barium ferrites not it?
You ask for splitting. However, one of the key insights in this area is that you can have evolution-without splitting—via “vegetative reproduction”:
http://originoflife.net/vegetative_reproduction/
For some plant evolution, you don’t need splitting, only growth. Much the same is true for some “2D” crystals too.
Not that splitting is terribly demanding. Make anything big enough and it will break up—if only under its own weight. The real issue is whether the split introduces mutations that lead to a meltdown. That is a potential problem for 1D crystals—but 2D ones don’t depend on splitting—and if there are splits there are still likely to be operational viable growth fronts after the split.
No-one else can make life from primitive materials yet either—this requirement strikes against every OOL theory equally.
To recap, the main reason for thinking Crystalline Ancestry is true is because clay mineral crystals actually replicate patterns of reasonable size with high fidelity under plausible pre-biotic conditions (and this is the #1 requirement for any evolving system) - whereas no other pre-biotically plausible structure has been demonstrated to do so.
However, it’s a reasonable request to want to see evolution based on the theory in the lab. Growing many clays in the lab is terribly difficult—and often takes forever—but success there would be interesting. However, much of the existing work has been done with “found” natural clays. They seem to be a more obvious focus—in some respects.