is life about the survival of the fittest chemistry?

Write4U said:
Took your advice and checked the dictionary.
Click to expand...
I did not advise you to check a dictionary.

This seems to conflict with your posit, can you clarify?
Click to expand...
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.
 
origin said:
Seems unimaginable to me that you would make that statement.
Click to expand...
It does take some mental capacity to keep up with me..... :), but then you know me so well.
origin said:
I did not advise you to check a dictionary.
Click to expand...
That does not negate the fact that you were wrong. And that makes twice wrong now.
Origin said,
A decent definition of a chemical substance can be found on wiki.
Click to expand...
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.....:)
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
That does not negate the fact that you were wrong. And that makes twice wrong now.
Click to expand...
No, I am not wrong.
Do you still wonder if an electronic is a chemical?
Write4U said:
Unlike you, I actually look up references to links or clips or definitions provided by the various posters.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately you don't seem to have the brain power to understand what you read.
Write4U said:
and unwillingness to do a little out-of-the box thinking.
Click to expand...
You can't effectively think out of the box if you are clueless about what is in the box.
 
Write4U said:
...unwillingness to do a little out-of-the box thinking.
Click to expand...
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.
 
DaveC426913 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Write4U said:
Tell me what you think about the substance of my presentation + illustrative links rather than it's narrative expertise.
Click to expand...
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.
 
origin said:
You can't effectively think out of the box if you are clueless about what is in the box.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Encapsulated protein oscillations cause dynamic membrane deformations in cells
Click to expand...

encapsulated.jpg


What are the requirements for individual functions of such a cell?
Questions like these drive Petra Schwille and her team at the Max Planck Institute for Biochemistry. Now the scientists have shown that it only takes five biological building blocks to generate cell-like structures that exhibit autonomous motion while consuming energy.
Click to expand...
The discovery of these pulsating, beating vesicles came as a surprise, since initially the scientists wanted to investigate processes related to cell division.
Click to expand...
The study was published in the journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition.
Click to expand...
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 :)), Life and predation, aiding in the process of natural selection.
 
Last edited:
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....:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Michael 345 said:
Or chromosome sequence

:)
Click to expand...
Apparently even a self-duplicating RNA might qualify
RNA
Description
Ribonucleic acid is a polymeric molecule essential in various biological roles in coding, decoding, regulation and expression of genes. RNA and DNA are nucleic acids, and, along with lipids, proteins and carbohydrates, constitute the four major macromolecules essential for all known forms of life. Wikipedia
Click to expand...
220px-Pre-mRNA-1ysv-tubes.png
A hairpin loop from a pre-mRNA. Highlighted are the nucleobases (green) and the ribose-phosphate backbone (blue). This is a single strand of RNA that folds back upon itself.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA

A "common denominator" of all known living things......?...:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
Abracadabra, ....... sounds like a polymer to me........:)
Click to expand...
to me too!
Write4U said:
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....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
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/
 
Last edited:
globali said:
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.
Click to expand...
Quite a bit of really sketchy logic here.
 
globali said:
Crystals or polymers will never evolve or be naturally selected into life-like systems. Not even in 10 or 100 billion years. They would have done so already somewhere in the solar system.
Click to expand...
They did! On Earth. And it took only some 500 million years!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top