Of course, having the reverse isomer molecules would be advantageous against predators (who couldn't digest it) and a boon to natural selection.

Like I said, plenty of speculation to be had.

This, of course, doesn't really mean much. Something being advantageous doesn't imply that it must show up as a product of natural selection nor does it imply that such an adaptation must survive into perpetuity.

There is absolutely no evidence for it and it is not meant to be taken as as serious as some of you are taking it. If anything, it proves there is too much speculation -_-

Only until your species divergently evolves and one of the descendent species evolves into predators. Then it's game on again!

Then again, if reverse isomers = indigestible, what is your species going to eat? I suppose this strategy might work for plants.

Why would the reserve isomer not be digestible? The human body can metabolism racemic amino acids.

Evolution is directionless and unguided. It's not like a startup, under the guidance of humans, pivoting for a niche market.

But historically, when one aspect of the ecosystem goes unchecked, something usually comes along to take advantage of plentiful biomass, one notable exception being humans.

If there's a world of untapped food, this exceptionally rare behaviour would rapidly become advantageous, especially when the prey isn't adapted to the unusual predator.

Evolution has no guide, but all evidence shows it evolves into almost every available niche and quite specifically that any large available resource will be tapped.

Again, evolution is still unguided and to assume that something will evolve into an open niche is a gambler's fallacy.

Convergent evolution, and history argue against you. C4 photosynthesis evolved independently 60 times. There's no guarantee it will, and I'm not arguing it will. However, the weight of evidence argues that if there's a readily available niche it is a matter of time.

If you argue I won't win the jackpot, you're likely right - in fact I'd put money on my probability of losing. However, if you argue no one will win the jackpot in the next 100 years you're an idiot.

Quit projecting and just stop already, electromagnetic. You can't even bow out and admit you're wrong gracefully, so you skip straight to name calling.

Bravo.

I didn't intend to refer to you personally as an idiot, but turing a phrase however that appears very lost on you.

I'm certain you're just intentionally being a troll, because you're unwilling to make a single basis of an argument or even support your reasoning and can't even use your terms correctly, and now you're attempting to bait me with condescension.

I also eat plenty of insoluble dietary fibre.

Prey animals would need to signal their non digestability to their predators.

Animals without predators would overwhelm the biome.

Disease is a predator.

- It is analagous to eating raw grass.

- It is not analgous to eating processed/cooked grains, hence it is non-sequitur.

- It is a matter of biochemistry, not culinary arts.

I gave the original speculation as an example of there being too much speculation around abiogenesis and evolution. This discussion proves it.