You'd think chemistry would have heard of "valence shell collapse" then. It has not. If all you are saying is that chemical attractions and reactions depend upon outer electron shells, you once again can't talk. Anyway, you are thus saying that every chemical reaction, e.g. hydrogen burning in oxygen to form water, is "valence shell collapse." But each hydrogen gave up its last/only electron. Did its valence shell "collapse" or is it just gone? The oxygen gained two new electrons to fill its valence shell. Is the shell collapsed or just full?
Using your approved expansion for "valence" shell collapse", your objection to a self-replicator self-replicating in a tepid-to-warm soup either doesn't make any sense or is wrong.
"This system is must be constantly supplied with energies way out of porportion to the energies require by the self-replicator's in order to facilitate the self-replication (IE and preventThe self-replicator is auto-catalytic. (There's a new big word you can throw around to snow the dummies.) A catalyst, as you'll learn someday, facilitates specific reactions. It prevents the any-old-random reaction from messing things up, basically because at any given stage the most probable next reaction is the one that favors the process being catalyzed. Sometimes the "wrong" reaction does happen, but it's a big soup and there's lots of time. After the self-replicator exists, "wrong" reactions can be referred to as "mutations." Some will be bad, some neutral, some better than the original.valence shell collapsesome kind of chemical reaction, any kind through non self-replicating bonding)."
And at any rate, your objection about energies ("This system is must be constantly supplied with energies way out of porportion to the energies require by the self-replicator's ...") remains wrong and had in fact been answered all the time that you were screaming and pouting that it had not.
Maybe you'd better just finish your chem homework for your High School class and forget the imposture you're attempting on this thread, kid. You're just babbling here. Babbling.
You were supposed to explain what dehydration polymerization is. You seem to be implying that all polymerization is dehydration polymerization. I predict a tough sell, especially if the reason this is true is that otherwise the water molecules would keep getting in the way. Reactions happen in water based upon the relative attraction of molecules. When the water molecules aren't the most attracted (and water is a pretty stable, low-energy compound for most purposes), the water molecules will get out of the way. It's a fluid environment. Things drawn together eventually come together.
So you're going to do addition polymerization tomorrow, right? Is that a subset of dehydration polymerization?
I am training to be a biochemist/geneticist.
I am Queen Victoria. I'm studying up to reclaim my throne. You can't see it, but when I say "throne" or even "most," my lips go way out, pursed as if to kiss. I trill my "r"s. It's all most lovely.
That would depend on whether we lived in a universe where mathematical symbols behaved like atomic particles.
The language metaphor cannot be applied here because language doesn't follow the laws of physics and chemistry. In fact no metaphor is applicable. If you want to prove that ceratin chemical reactions can't happen, then you have to use the language and operations of quantum chemistry. But of course you can't because it is easy to demonstrate that complex molecules self organize in the presence of an energy gradient. We may be decades, even centuries from demonstrating a likely abiogenesis scenerio, but you cannot prove that all possible scenerios are impossible.