Evolution is not Abiogenesis

We'll determine exactly when chemistry becomes biology around the same time we decide exactly at what wavelength blue shifts into green.The line is blurry, as an inevitable consequence of the definition of the word "life." We'll know that the precursors were not "alive" when he process began, and that at some point later the results of the process became identifiable as "living." What comes in between will just be indeterminate, as with viruses and prions.I rather think that the whole "chemistry vs biology" debate is a bunch of irrelevant nonsense anyway - biology is chemistry, much the same way that chemistry is physics. Modern cellular life may be a rather complex set of interdependent chemical chain reactions, but it seems to me that most of the issue is simple anthropomorphic egotism. Humans just don't like the thought of being "not special," so for some reason being "alive" has to be distinguished from "just chemistry."I don't particularly care about "life." I care about sentience, self-aware minds. I might require "life" to support my mind, but I don't consider myself any more or less morally significant than a hypothetical sentient robot. Obsession over "life" diminishes hypothetically possible forms of sentience that do not fall under any definition of "life." But that's an ethical argument, and for a different thread.

Which ones? The mechanical ones, that themselves are driven by chemistry? The electrical ones, that themselves are driven by chemistry?Biology is a specific subset of chemistry. What we call "life" is perhaps best described as an extremely complex series of interdependent self-replicating chemical reactions.

Right, but the claim that chemistry is a subset of biology is blatantly false. There are innumerable chemical reactions that do not involve biology or even organic compounds. Just as an example, my personal favorite abiotic chemical reaction would be the iron oxide and elemental aluminum reaction that produces elemental iron and aluminum oxide, commonly referred to as "thermite." No biology involved, just the presence of some inorganic compounds in a nice homogenous mixture and a fuse to get it started. If chemistry were a subset of biology, this and every other reaction would of necessity involve some biological process, or at least relate to one.Biology, on the other hand consists of complex aggregate interdependent self-sustaining chemical reactions. Growth is chemistry. Respiration is chemistry. Reaction to stimuli is chemistry, even in sentient organisms like us. Reproduction is chemistry. Every thought you think, every muscle you move, every bite you eat, every meal digested, every waste product excreted, all of it is chemistry.We're nothing more than self-replicating chemical entropy machines with an emergent side-property of being consciously aware of our own nature and desperate to deny it in favor of something more "special." ...meaning what, exactly? The heritable traits that determine changes in populations and the response to changing environments are deoxyribonucleic acid. The heritability of those traits is yet more chemistry. Neutral drift is a function of neutral mutations in a population, which in turn is just more chemistry.At best you can claim that social behaviors and natural selection itself are emergent from the complex self-replicating interdependent chemical reactions that make up all forms of life of which we are aware...but at the end of the day, that's still all we are: chemistry.Chemistry, of course, being a subset of physics...