> I suggest surviving its environment is the cause for life
> NOT a chemistry system that evolves to what we want
> billions of years down the line.

Yes, agreed. 
It depends on your definition of the words.
You can name that 'life' or 'a chemistry system', both are the same to me.

Whatever happened in the very early beginning of 'life', I expect you can 
safely assume that molecules that didn't replicate themselfs simply didn't 
evolve.

TH
But no matter how well they replicate - if they burn up in the heat cycle, (the
energy source for their being existent) then they don't  survive.
Now which came first?
(see that tale of two ribozymes post )



It is the first thing to do before you will see evolution: copying (and 
mutating) molecules.

I think there is no discrepancy in what you describe, but possibly I am 
missing your point. If so: enlighten me please. :-)

Regards,
Erwin Moller
 >>
---
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 5/11/04 5:42:07 PM