Claims about protein-less evolution should be supported by independent evidence.

That's true. In fact, you reminded me of what Carl Sagan said:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

What would your answers be to Mike's questions?

I didn't answer them because I rejected Mike's original premise:

"…there is very little evidence the blind watchmaker can do that much without help from proteins…"

Personally, I think the blind watchmaker does amazing things with inanimate material. Mike's premise only makes sense if you only consider animate objects to be superior to the inanimate. The blind watchmaker could not care less. He tinkers with what he's given, takes no joy in the outcome, and has no goals or foresight.

So what if life was polyester based? Why would a blind watchmaker find this any better to work with than simple raw minerals? He's just as happy making stalactites grow.

How so? Because Raevmo and I believe there could be very functionally diverse polymers other than proteins?

Indeed, as it is a belief about something that could be that in turn is rooted in metaphysics, not evidence. Thus, when you conjecture that other materials could easily substitute for proteins, it is no more valid than my conjecture that proteins are not superfluous to evolution. Either position can then influence the way we perceive and interpret evolution.

Of course, the advantage to my position is that we have abundant evidence to indicate that proteins have played crucial roles in evolution and these can be explored. And it also calls into question any attempt to extrapolate protein-dependent evolution to protein-less evolution. Claims about protein-less evolution should be supported by independent evidence.

Maybe you are thrown off by your preconceptions. Personally I think polyesters are a fine candidate for an evolutionary medium. But then again, I think rocks evolve.

Way to go on keeping the discourse going.

What would your answers be to Mike's questions? Would your answers also indicate that a metaphysical nerve was hit?

And why wouldn't they?

Maybe they could.

Do you think we have any sense of the diversity that polyesters can have?

They are incredibly versatile.

Maybe you are thrown off by the rather mundane functions of commonly know polyesters, like for example polyethylene terephthalate.

Maybe you are thrown off by your preconceptions. Personally I think polyesters are a fine candidate for an evolutionary medium. But then again, I think rocks evolve.

Is there any science behind your belief?

Nope. Just conjecture. But I figured that Mike wanted an answer to his question. Obviously, the right answer is 'Nobody knows at this point.' about any of his questions posed.

But remember that Mike said: "I'm not sure why you are confused. Perhaps it would help if you simply tried to answer the questions I originally posed:"

So I guess both Raevmo and I gave it a shot. Did it help?

How so? Because Raevmo and I believe there could be very functionally diverse polymers other than proteins?

Is there any science behind your belief?

There you have it folks. If proteins had never formed, the tree of life would have been made of polyester.

And why wouldn't they. The Polyesters are a highly diverse group of polymers, some of naturally occurring in plants. Do you think we have any sense of the diversity that polyesters can have? Maybe you are thrown off by the rather mundane functions of commonly know polyesters, like for example polyethylene terephthalate. Since PET is a polymer that consists only a single monomer, one would not expect it to have a particular diverse range of possible functions. That would be like just looking at polylysine when trying to figure out the possible functions of proteins.

Indeed. We've hit the metaphysical nerve.

How so? Because Raevmo and I believe there could be very functionally diverse polymers other than proteins?

There you have it folks. If proteins had never formed, the tree of life would have been made of polyester

Indeed. We've hit the metaphysical nerve.