is life about the survival of the fittest chemistry?

As I understand it a massless photon does not gain mass at spped which is the reason it can travel at light speed

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This may illustrate what I was trying to say.

http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

Of course, a photon (electron) is an element of chemistry, but is it a chemical?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This nomenclature is nonsensical.
Are you suggesting by the parentheses that these two terms are interchangeable?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A photon is not an electron.
A photon is not a chemical.
An electron is not a chemical.
An atom is not a chemical

A decent definition of a chemical substance can be found on wiki.

 

Right, incorrectly posited by me. I was trying to draw an analogy, but did not think it through.

http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

I think this must have stuck in my mind;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_rest_mass
...>

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Interesting;

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Currently light is known as being of wave forms called fields and particle forms called photons.

https://www.energygroove.net/science/atoms-electrons-photons/

 

Wow, are we ever off-topic.

 

"survival of the fittest chemistry" ??? What is the topic?

Discussing the properties of chemistry and chemical elements (matter) vs energetic elements (force) is off-topic?

https://www.le.ac.uk/se/centres/sci/selfstudy/egy5.htm

At what point does "natural selection" become part of the "survival of the fittest" equation?
Don't we have to define the parameters of abstractions such as "survival of the fittest", what? Living things? Or including 'everything' since the beginning?

Hazen clearly demonstrates the chemical experience of "survival of the fittest", and provides proof that chemical chirality does in practice provide a vehicle for "selection of the fittest", because poor atomic bonding will lose to the strong atomic bonds, which gain a survival advantage in the formation of consistent durable self-similar patterns, which we can give names.

 

Correct.

If you have something else you'd like to discuss, start a new topic. Stop hijacking other threads.

 

Sorry, I thought I was contributing .. I'm out.

 

Well, in your defense, Michael has dragged it of on a sidebar for several pages now.

I guess really there has been no contribution to the thread topic in quite some time now, so it's sort of done a 'random walk'.

 

And from post #4

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yeah. That was on-topic - and on-point.

I appreciate the kudos, but not sure why it's necessary - other than to highlight that this thread should have ended with post 4.

 

That's just wrong. The gene is the blue print, not the brick. Proper use of terms?

 

Took your advice and checked the dictionary.
This is what I found;

1. and

This seems to conflict with your posit, can you clarify?

 

I find this mildly insulting......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I believe that the OP question was answered by my submission of Robert Hazen's lecture at Carnegie Institute of science, which I now have referenced several times, but no one seems to take notice.

Robert Hazen, qualified expert in the field of chemical evolution, definitively explains the evolution (survival of the fittest) of chemicals since the beginning of the evolutionary process.

Start at 27.45 And his definitive statement about "survival of the fittest" @ 39.45

 

That would be an opinion. You are entitled to one.

 

That would be an opinion. You are entitled to one. It's terrible, but you're entitled to it.

A gene is not analogous to a blueprint.
A gene would be analogous to a single mark drawn on a blueprint that contains many, many specifications.

Since these are all metaphors, the words 'proper' and 'terms' are not applicable.

 

Hmm......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I can live with that........

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

=======================================================

Back to the O.P. and evolutionary chemical processes, I ran across this and was very intrigued by its implication.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jpcb.8b02193

and

Wikipedia

Note that nucleotides are internal progenitors of an evolutionary process in microtubules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtubule

 

Continuing on my quest, I ran across this little miracle;
https://www.ted.com/talks/drew_berry_animations_of_unseeable_biology

It's almost unimaginable that mathematics could have resulted in such exquisite forms of proto-life functions.

But 13+ billion years of bombardment of cosmic rays resulting in an exponential number of patterns (change) which, as evidenced by the initial conditions in the formation of the earth, did result in the formation and evolution of life from simple chemistry.

Hazen notes that the "chemical evolutionary process" began with the bombardment of cosmic rays on nebular clouds and the formation of chemicals including bio-chemicals as part of the inventory of cosmic elements and their expression in cognizable physically animate and inanimate patterns.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!