is life about the survival of the fittest chemistry?

I did not advise you to check a dictionary.

This does not conflict with what I wrote.

Now look up on wiki what I suggested, or you can flail aroundand go in in circles like you are so fond of doing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Seems unimaginable to me that you would make that statement.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It does take some mental capacity to keep up with me.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, but then you know me so well.

That does not negate the fact that you were wrong. And that makes twice wrong now.

If this is not suggestive of consulting a dictionary it is indicative of your cherry picking and unwillingness to do a little out-of-the box thinking. Unlike you, I actually look up references to links or clips or definitions provided by the various posters.

Are you now going to tell me that wiki does not offer an on-line dictionary, or worse, that wiki does not spell dictionary? Get off it Origin, you really should try and stick with the OP instead of hijacking the thread with your ad hominems.

Take some of your own medicine and look closely into the mirror. Have you contributed "substance" to this conversation. I know I have, copious substance, and all at least tangently related to the OP. I claim no authorship, or credit for any of it. I am trying to present my advance of those scientific perspectives which most closely agree with my intuitive logic.

I look for universal "common denominators", not universal differences, I'll leave that to the Relativists and is not relevant to this thread to begin with.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, I am not wrong.
Do you still wonder if an electronic is a chemical?

Unfortunately you don't seem to have the brain power to understand what you read.

You can't effectively think out of the box if you are clueless about what is in the box.

 

W4U, you can't demand that people perform out-of-the-box thinking because you want to. Not the least of which because - unless they are sympathetic - they have no reason to grant it's out-of-the-box thinking as opposed to just calling it flawed.

You can ask them to indulge you, or even ask them if they'll join you, but you can't fault them for wishing not to go on a journey of your choosing.

 

I don't demand anything, you do. You demand that I must present my perspective in absolute scientific terms. It's just that I present my logically considered perspective through the language of the real scientists.
This an admission of my own limited knowledge, but in no way negates the individual or combined knowledge of the scientists with whom I identify and which I quote "verbatim".

As to defending my viewpoint, I am always happy to oblige "interested" persons. I am not expecting a series of potshots attacking my motives. That does not belong on a science forum either.

Tell me what you think about the substance of my presentation + illustrative links rather than it's narrative expertise.
It's really interesting stuff and pertinent to the OP...jeez

 

I have been addressing the substance.
I don't think I've been shy on that.
And I don't think it'll help if I were to restate it, unless you'd like me to.

 

I can recognize when I agree with a scientist who is well trained in the properties of the box. That's why I use them. Their words are not idle speculation.

I just want to share my thoughts and reasons why with other interested persons, I think this is great scientific stuff and IMO, neatly explains the emergence of "survival of the fittest chemicals".

A few stumbles along the way does not disqualify me from posting. Read it at your will.

 

I should have just stayed out, this is hopeless.... bye

 

Not really. You're just doing it in the wrong forum. If you were to post in Pseudoscience or Free Thoughts, you would have a fair bit more leeway in out-of-the-box thinking.

 

IMO, evolution begins to function when there are multiple patterns of the same constituents and some of them exhibit greater survival rates. It appears that this condition already happens at extremely small scales.

Hazen explained that during the formation of polymers some random atoms or molecules which do not belong in the sequence but are still compatible may enter sequence and bond, thereby causing a mutation.
Over time mutations which offer advantages will succeed, where less successful patterns fade or stay static.

This may be an example of such a process.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2019-01-encapsulated-protein-oscillations-dynamic-membrane.html#jCp

The interesting part is that the Slime-mold "travels" by pulsating, using exactly the same process as described above. Five biological building blocks may generate motion and ability to "find" food.

The evolution of the intricacies of bipedal and multipedal motion had a very humble beginning. A pulsating blob consisting of a few biological patterns that searches and engulfs its food and digests it.
Presto (well not literally presto

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

), Life and predation, aiding in the process of natural selection.

 

No not presto

Abracadabra is what you're looking for

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Abracadabra, ....... sounds like a polymer to me........

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Or chromosome sequence

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Regardless of perspective, one cannot escape the simple beauty of natural evolution as a functional process in self-ordering systems and patterns.....It's an elegant mathematical solution to a problem....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Apparently even a self-duplicating RNA might qualify

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

A "common denominator" of all known living things......?...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

to me too!

that process you described just made polymers! abracatabra and you are now running down the rabbit hole

 

Just the fact that polymerization or crystallization are entropy decreasing events, that doesn't mean that they show or prove something about life.

Crystals or polymers will never evolve or be naturally selected into life-like systems. Not even in 10 or 100billion years. They would have done so already somewhere in the solar system.
However, this is a big issue and long discussions can be done

it was extensively discussed in
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is...-just-our-false-narrative-perspective.161536/

 

Quite a bit of really sketchy logic here.

 

They did! On Earth. And it took only some 500 million years!