<<  We should rethink about the definition of life: which property is
> more fundamental? I prefer self-replication or reproduction.

I agree with that way of looking at it. >>


I do not. The debate over replication or
metabolism, nucleic acids or proteins -
has gone on for decades and has led nowhere.


The reason IMO is that both are two sides of the
same coin. And that neither by itself is the answer.
Both are just ways to adapt to the environment.

Too many still think life
is some novel chem system that is independent
of the environment - its extreme anthropomorphism
IMO

Life is an echo - it has no distinct voice. 

And to
suggest otherwise is to suggest it existed in a
safe vacumn until this first replicator came along
to start it on its course - a course not one bit
adapted to the environment that it popped up in.
And it popped up in that environment fully
formed - by pure luck.
I don't think that is a reasonable scenario.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 9/8/04 4:34:54 PM