Torri
I think a lot of confusion arises in this subject because of the terms used in trying to describe it to the lay person . There seems to be a tendency to anthropomorphise concepts which makes it even worse Sometimes scientists need more competent interpreters.
Chemical reactions don't go extinct, of course, whatever happens in a test tube will happen in the wild. RNA is still present, indeed it is used by DNA in protein synthesis and some chemists regard the continued presence of RNA as a kind of fossil record of an earlier world. But present conditions on Earth are utterly different to those that led to 'RNA World', now full blooded biology has been operating for three billion years and as a result the overwhelming majority of planetary carbon is now locked into subsurface carbonate rocks like limestone. Also we now have photosynthesis producing continuous atmospheric oxygen so whatever free carbon becomes available quickly enters back into living things through full biological processes which have effectively superseded the more limited pre-life biochemical processes of earlier times.
Yes, I'm wondering though how radically different an environment can be which supports a whole host of self replicating molecules to one which supports two or maybe three.
Secondly since this is just a question of environment then chemical environments, since we cannot be talking of ecology, can be recreated.
