I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. Le Chatelier's has *quite a lot* to do with amino acid polymerisation because amino acid polymerisation (a step-condensation reaction) IS AN EQUILIBRIUM REACTION. The rate and extent to which a condensation reaction will proceed is DIRECTLY DEPENDENT upon the concentration of product wrt concentration of reactants. If *you* knew anything about chemistry, you'd know this, and you'd know that in condensation reactions such as that under discussion here cannot proceed unless the system in which the reaction is occurring is driven (i.e., you are constantly removing either the desired product molecule of the small molecule - in this case water - which is produced by the reaction). At least that's what I was taught in my grad school course on polymers....
I mean, for you to claim that equilibria have nothing to do with this discussion is, frankly, ludicrous.
You are also wrongly working on the assumption that amino acid condensation/hydrolysis is the only pathway in such a system as our early Earth. I wasn't aware that chemistry operated differently in the lab than in the natural environment. It is foolish to think of an environment as diverse as one would find on a planet would be restricted to one set of chemical circumstances. The variety of conditions is incredibly diverse.
Then complain to your fellow evolutionists, because they are the ones who came up with, and continue to argue for, exactly the model I am critiquing. YOu're right - chemistry DOESN'T operate differently in the lab versus a natural environment, and that is exactly the point. In the lab, if you wish to make a step condensation reaction proceed to anything like completion (or, in the case under discussion, to a large molecular weight protein), you have to constantly remove the water produced as a product of the reaction, via vacuum, heat, or some other method. If you don't, your reaction halts due to equilibria concerns. Likewise, if you try to conduct a condensation reaction such as amino acid polymerisation to form proteins in a body of water like an ocean, your going to have no success. It wouldn't happen in that huge local excess of product small molecule. Indeed, you'll probably reverse the reaction and see the hydrolysis of any dimers that did manage to form. I'm sorry, but your argument is simply wrong, it's not in line with the science.
And you stated, "And then you have to look at the stability and reactivity of the products involved." True enough, and this ALSO works against the evolutionist framework for the early earth origin of life. Let's look at the stability of amino acids in an open environment. If the "early earth atmosphere" were really reducing as is claimed, then there would be essentially no ozone layer protection of the earth's surface from even hard UV light. Amino acids and proteins are degraded by ultraviolet, which means that any proteinaceous oligomer product formed by a hypothetical amino acid condensation as is proposed by evolutionists would be degraded pretty much anywhere it appeared on earth, except of course past a certain depth of the ocean (where it would be hydrolysed instead). And if we propose that the earth's atmosphere were oxygen-containing, then you suffer the problem of the degradation of both amino acids and protein oligomers by gaseous oxygen. Either way, you have an environment where the product of the reaction is not stable and would be destroyed long before the proteins could "develop into life-sustaining molecules". Even if this degradation would theoretically serve to drive the equilibrium towards the product side by constantly removing product, you still have the equilibrium effect of a huge excess of water (product) driving the reaction back to the reaction side IN THE MEDIUM WHERE THE REACTION ACTUALY TAKES PLACE. In short, the hard science itself simply does NOT allow the evolutionist theory to work.
And you don't understand evolution. None of what you discuss above has anything to do with it. That's abiogenesis and is a differnt field of study completely. There is a lot of interesting work being done there, but it is not evolution.
If you will notice, I said "evolutionist theories about the naturalistic formation of life in an early earth scenario." I'm not addressing genetic theories of evolution here. I am addressing the set of naturalistic theories which evolutionists use to posit the formation of life molecules which eventually developed into life itself. Can you show me an evolutionist who DOESN'T thing that life developed naturalistically from non-living precursor molecules? If so, then your argument in this paragraph may have some validity. Otherwise, your argument is nothing more than a straw man.
For a chemist, you are expressing a very restricted view. Le Chatilier's Principle applies to reactions in equillibrium, not to the reaction rates themselves. Secondly, you neglect catalysis in your model. If condensation is catalyzed but hydrolysis is not, an accumulation of amino acids will occur. Do you not remember the differences between acid and base catalyzed reactions? I use condensation chemistry every day to make polymers in water. These commercial products have extremely long shelf lives and the only issue is continued condensation. Hydrolysis is not an issue. This is done by dropping the pH very slightly. Such a pH is readily found in nature. Le Chatiliers's has minimal, if any, effect. It only comes into play once equillibrium is reached and even then does not predict final concentrations unless you have specific knowledge of the reaction rate constants involved.
I mean, for you to claim that equilibria have nothing to do with this discussion is, frankly, ludicrous.
What is ludicrous is trying to purposefully mislead people by throwing around chemical terminology without understanding its chemical context.
In the lab, if you wish to make a step condensation reaction proceed to anything like completion (or, in the case under discussion, to a large molecular weight protein), you have to constantly remove the water produced as a product of the reaction, via vacuum, heat, or some other method. If you don't, your reaction halts due to equilibria concerns.
Again, you are making a lot of assumptions by restricting the chemistry to an equillibrium, step condensation reation and assuming 'completion.' You are neglecting the role of catalysts. You are neglecting the possible fates of the produced dipeptides. You are assuming an ocean of pure water and amino acids only. My point is that the early Earth will be a very, very diverse place in terms of chemistry and not the over simplified model you present.
At least that's what I was taught in my grad school course on polymers....
You need to work in the real world. I've been to ACS meetings were a professor stood up and complained a certain chemistry was impossible to use an rejected a paper being presented. The plain fact of the matter was that many companies were making commercial products with chemistry the prof said wasn't doable. What they teach you in school is just a starting point. It gets a lot more complicated than that real fast in real life. And if this is the chemistry they taught you in grad school, you need to get your money back. That should have been taught to you in freshman organic chemistry class.
Let's look at the stability of amino acids in an open environment. If the "early earth atmosphere" were really reducing as is claimed, then there would be essentially no ozone layer protection of the earth's surface from even hard UV light. Amino acids and proteins are degraded by ultraviolet, which means that any proteinaceous oligomer product formed by a hypothetical amino acid condensation as is proposed by evolutionists would be degraded pretty much anywhere it appeared on earth, except of course past a certain depth of the ocean (where it would be hydrolysed instead).
This is more over simplification on your part. You don't need to go too deep to get away from UV radiation. ANd things can form in the deep ocean around hydrothermal vents. I already trashed your hydrolysis argument. Secondly, you assume that early organics are fixed in exposure to UV. Mobility in water can move them to sheltered areas. When amino acids, or nuceotides, are concentrated on a surface, UV radiation can promote the formation of more complicated organics. Such surfaces existed back then, too. Not only that, but amino acids exist in space where there is no atmosphere and even more intense UV! And it has been shown that circularly polarize UV in space, which does exist, actually favors the formation of amino acids with the chirality we have today! So UV may well be an essential element for the formation of life, not an inhibitor as you claim.
You use a lot of chemical terms, but you apear to be very niave in chemistry. You remind me of the interns we get at work where it takes months to get them acclimatized to real world chemistry.