This does not sound right. My first thoughts are that there is no bright line separating life from non-life, but that the same forces of physics and chemistry are at work on both sides of that line. And clearly, complex, self-replicating molecules, the very first entities on the other side of that line, "survived" (and are surviving), and grew in complexity.
Are you saying in essence some of the same physics and chemistry can be in play on both a rock and a living organism. Then I agree. Yes they can and are so. I'm not sure though why don't see a bright line between the two? Do you not differentiate between living and non-living entities and how certain of the same physics and chemistry can apply to both? Darwin demonstrated why species originated and explained evolution not how life first came about. He was in no way involved in how physics and chemistry could convert inorganic matter into the basic building blocks of life. You reference to survival is unclear. The same forces are resulting in two specific categories. Living and non-living.
Mountains don't self replicate. Prions do. Seriously what are you tryin to suggest ? That there is no fundemental difference between a rock and a commodity trader? ....on second thoughts.
Lol, I don't know commodity traders, I'll take your word for that! I'm saying there is no bright line. It's easy to see the difference between widely separated entities like your examples, but not easy between closely placed entities right at the "cusp" of life. Last I heard, but this is years old, there is still no agreement on whether viruses are truly alive. But I do think prions are not considered living.
you are a writer of fiction. you have not advised me about anything because you have been arguing with facts, with quotes and with science in all our discussions. So, lets nail down the issues so you can stop lying about what I say and focus on the facts. 1. do you now agree there is no proof that life evolved from non life? yes or no.