did you get up on the wrong side of the bed or something? Get some wheaties, get back to us when you are up to speed. - - - Updated - - - picky picky!
No. There were no amino acids before the experiment; chemical evolution happened, and then there were amino acids present. There is no scientific case against evolution.
Just as there is no table salt until after you combine sodium and chlorine. A chemical reaction is not evolution. It is chemsitry. There is no scientific case against evolution.[/QUOTE]
It involves evolution to get something that was not there before; those amino acids were not present before that experiment.
So what? Try visiting any freshman chemistry lab. They combine reagents within some environment, and chemical reactions happen, producing molecules not present previously. This is very repeatable. It's not evolution. The Miller-Urey experiment produced a great many chemical reactions, and there was all kinds of chemical glop that wasn't there initially.
There are two types of Evolution....Quantum Evolution and Biological Evolution. In this topic we are talking about Biological Evolution which is basically Natural Selection...Survival of the Fittest....Mutation via Environmental Conditions. Biological Evolution has been PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt upon an Atomic and Molecular Level due to Genome Mapping and Genetic Sequencing. AboveAlpha
Biology of course is a very specialized subset of chemistry, if you want to look at it that way. Step by step, chemical compounds bootstrapped their way into more and more complex reactions, producing results that could not be done directly from raw materials. That said, i think the thing about trying to work out these definitions is a bit off. I will ask an organic chemist if they think "chemical evolution" makes sense, I will probably see one today if I make half an effort.
Chemical "commutation" is a form of evolution to the extent it survives and flourishes in our "plane of existence".
Called by whom? I've never see this phrase, and it is at best misleading, if not downright meaningless. So do you have any links where I can read about it, or are you just making something up for some reason?
Which says that this term MAY refer to any of a list of not particularly related things. It's not clear which, if any, of those things you are talking about, but it sounds like you think that if the same term MAY be used to describe them all, they might all be sort of the same thing. They aren't. There are particular, unambiguous terms available to describe each of these things, and you'd communicate better if you picked the term that specified the topic you're trying to address.
At this point you are simply equivocating. Doing violence to the language does not change objective fact. There is no equivalence, conceptual or actual, between biological evolution and the ordinary chemical reactions you are calling "chemical evolution."
LOL... and your effort to find somebody using the term comes up with a Wikipedia disambiguation page that demonstrates that of the half dozen or so things you might be referring to, all of them are actually called something other than "chemical evolution."
Ok fwiw, I did talk to an organic chemist a bit ago. He had never heard the term "chemical evolution". He said it would not be unreasonable to describe the development of say, polypeptides from amino acids by living things as "chemical evolution". However, as these processes are well known to chemists, there is no new concept here, and there is no utility in inventing a new term for it. Perhaps this non useful and basically non existent term can now be dropped?
I already asked this a page or so back. Why not use the term you mean, rather than an ambiguous term that doesn't quite mean anything in particular? I don't think we're going to get an answer, because I have the distinct impression that the purpose of this ambiguity is equivocate among unrelated phenomena. But perhaps I'm wrong, and by now the only purpose is to avoid admitting error at all costs.
Well...in essence Biological Evolution which means through a process of Natural Selection, Survival of the Fittest and Environmental Conditions.....a Life Forms Genome will CHEMICALLY CHANGE due to adaptation, specific exposure to environmental conditions that will create a chemical reaction within the Genome which is most responsible for MUTATION.....such environmental conditions being Chemical Toxicity and exposure, Solar and Cosmic Radiation exposure, Natural Radioactive Geological concerns such as Deposits of Uranium or any other radioactive materials be they naturally occurring or existing on Earth or specific to Asteroid or Meteor bombardment.....as any radioactive exposure received by any life form will tend to cause damage or change to that life forms DNA and this may cause MUTATION. And as well Chemical Toxicity and exposure to it as well may cause Mutation. Quantum Evolution is a completely different process which also involves Stellar Fusion and Supernova explosions which create all Heavy Elements Iron and heavier. Quantum Evolution's final byproduct.....or perhaps one of it's end results is GENESIS and the creation of Life. AboveAlpha
