That it would P, and when I produced public access video's I fully expected that this would be a point for callers in to NOT hang on to and too debate. For I would disagree with JM on if Jimmy Cricket ever came from the torque I subscribed to in the thread on sexual reproduction. It was for this reason that I pointed out in the videos that I thought it was a point won by Gish and not Morowitz (though I appreciated the need to enhance all chemistry education)Becasue a "side chain" is not necessarily and sufficiently a "functional group". I was thinking when in Providence RI of trying to write a book on the math that would be visualized in order to show how torque plus multi-gradients on the sea floor AND a transition from sulfur to oxygen may have been able to get the barrier from a cell to fish solved fancy enough to contain L. Pauling's thought on Euclid thus the chemical bond no matter how the dissipativeness could writ be. But the video was not to be. Maybe here more progress will occur without a simple antipattern being displayed. Call in telephone people were not this smart. Nor was/were the TImeWarner people who faciliated the show airing. I did not explain the first cytoplasm however which would have been requried to debate further.
I am nearing this explanation as well as to rejecting some aspect in the behavior of Gottlieb that Lewontin already back peddled the waterfall on but I know acutally nothing on this point.