Chemical evolution:

[paddoboy]

i.e. there is currently no scientific theory of abiogenesis.

Many don't see it that way.

Speaks for itself.

Nup, wrong...Abiogenesis is certain...the pathway is what is in question.

This is correct, of course, but it is not the subject of our (paddoboy's and my) dispute. The rest of the quoted extract is similarly irrelevant.

You seem to be taking this rather personally James. I'm absolutely clear on my side.

It ought to be clear to any reader that any field that "aims to determine" something doesn't have the answer yet.

It ought to be clear that even before the discovery of GW's or even the CMBR, that GR and the BB were still scientific theories.
No we don't have the complete methodology and pathway to Abiogensis, but that does not mean it isn't the only scientific answer we have.
Take it easy James.

 

[paddoboy]

Want some advice James? [of course you don't] but anyway.
I started this thread until it was derailed and changed into a conflict about ID and creationism, and the natural and only scientific answer of Abiogenesis.
A shame you are letting personal issues get the better of you. And I'm sure others are now well aware of that.

 

[Write4U]

OK.
Genesis
(A creation myth or creation story explains how the universe started, how the earth came to be, and why there are humans. Creation myths are usually part of religions and mythologies. Very often, creation myths say that humans were made by a god, spirit or other supreme being.)


Famous painting of God creating Adam, in the Sistine Chapel, by Michelangelo

God created the universe and everything in it in six days. God rested on the seventh day (Sabbath) and declared it a holy day of rest. God provided the Garden of Eden to the first man, Adam, and the first woman, Eve. There was only one thing that they were not allowed to do. God told them not to eat from the tree of knowledge, which would make them aware of good and evil. A snake tricked Eve, and she ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge. She then gave Adam some of the fruit, and he ate as well. Because they did not obey him, God made them leave the garden, so all people had to work for their food.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis

Question: does this exactly explain the origin of life?

Biogenesis and abiogenesis

The term biogenesis was coined by Henry Charlton Bastian to mean the generation of a life form from nonliving materials; however, Thomas Henry Huxley chose the term abiogenesis and redefined biogenesis for life arising from preexisting life. The generation of life from non-living material is called abiogenesis, and according to it, occurred through stepwise chemical and molecular evolution over millions of years.

Spontaneous generation and its disproof
Main article: Spontaneous generation

The Ancient Greeks believed that living things could spontaneously come into being from nonliving matter, and that the goddess Gaia could make life arise spontaneously from stones – a process known as Generatio spontanea.

Aristotle disagreed, but he still believed that creatures could arise from dissimilar organisms or from soil. Variations of this concept of spontaneous generation still existed as late as the 17th century, but towards the end of the 17th century, a series of observations and arguments began that eventually discredited such ideas. This advance in scientific understanding was met with much opposition, with personal beliefs and individual prejudices often obscuring the facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis

Question: does this exactly explain the origin of life?

Abiogenesis
(Origin of life" redirects here. For non-scientific views on the origins of life, see Creation myth.)


The earliest known life-forms are putative fossilized microorganisms, found in hydrothermal vent precipitates, that may have lived as early as 4.28 Gya (billion years ago), relatively soon after the oceans formed 4.41 Gya, and not long after the formation of the Earth 4.54 Gya.

In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL), is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. There are several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.[12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Question: does this exactly explain the origin of life?

Earliest known life forms
(For the "Origin of life", see Abiogenesis, Astrobiology, Biogenesis, and Panspermia.)

The earliest known life forms on Earth are putative fossilized microorganisms found in hydrothermal vent precipitates.[1] The earliest time that life forms first appeared on Earth is at least 3.77 billion years ago, possibly as early as 4.28 billion years,[1] or even 4.5 billion years — not long after the oceans formed 4.41 billion years ago, and after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago. The earliest direct evidence of life on Earth are microfossils of microorganisms permineralized in 3.465-billion-year-old Australian Apex chert rocks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earliest_known_life_forms

Question: does this exactly explain the origin of life?

 

[James R]

Is that all you have James?

It's all that's needed. There's no argument left. I have proved my point many times over, by now.

You're just doing a Trump and pretending you won the election, but most of the people here don't believe the lies.

You ignore all the links etc that speak of Abiogenesis as a fait accompli ...

I believe I have addressed the content of almost all your links, including highlighting all the places where they support my position and refute yours. Probably your ego doesn't allow you to see or remember those posts.

That's OK, as usual your threats are expected when anyone stands up to the great almighty James...

Knowingly telling lies is a breach of our site rules, paddoboy. You crossed that line in this thread quite a while ago.

Sorry, as per your sexism claims pushing your pretentious cause, my stance remains as is...on both.

You're afraid to post in the sexism thread. That doesn't mean you can bring that discussion here. It's off topic.

If that means I'm out, that's OK with me.

Grow up and admit you were mistaken. Take some responsibility for your errors for a change. Give your enormous ego a rest. It keeps getting in the way. By now, it's got so big that it is actually blinding you to obvious real-world facts.

 

[James R]

No we don't have the complete methodology and pathway to Abiogensis, but that does not mean it isn't the only scientific answer we have.

Moderator note:

paddoboy is now excluded from posting in this thread.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

I don't know why you (and others) keep repeatedly posting the first paragraph of the wikipedia article on abiogenesis, as if that somehow refutes something I wrote. Repetition doesn't make an argument any stronger than it was the first 100 times it was posted.

Genesis
(A creation myth or creation story explains how the universe started, how the earth came to be, and why there are humans. Creation myths are usually part of religions and mythologies. Very often, creation myths say that humans were made by a god, spirit or other supreme being.)

Question: does this exactly explain the origin of life?

What do you mean by "exactly"?

Biogenesis and abiogenesis

Spontaneous generation and its disproof
Main article: Spontaneous generation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis

Question: does this exactly explain the origin of life?

How could a disproved idea explain anything?

Abiogenesis
(Origin of life" redirects here. For non-scientific views on the origins of life, see Creation myth.)

The earliest known life-forms are putative fossilized microorganisms, found in hydrothermal vent precipitates, that may have lived as early as 4.28 Gya (billion years ago), relatively soon after the oceans formed 4.41 Gya, and not long after the formation of the Earth 4.54 Gya.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Question: does this exactly explain the origin of life?

No. Obviously not. It is speculative. I have highlighted some giveaway words in the text.

Earliest known life forms
(For the "Origin of life", see Abiogenesis, Astrobiology, Biogenesis, and Panspermia.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earliest_known_life_forms

Question: does this exactly explain the origin of life?

How could it?

 

[Yazata]

I asked Paddoboy, "Why must the true answer to life's origins be "scientific"?"

Write4U pops in with:

Because it involves only chemical transmutation, not any extraneous ID or other exterior interference .

You write that like that's something that you know for a fact. So how do you know it? How would you justify that belief? You weren't back there at the origin of life watching what happened.

It seems to me that you and Paddoboy are confusing methodological and metaphysical naturalism.

The former is an initial heuristic premise in science.

A heuristic is a method for seeking knowledge. An inquiry strategy. In the natural sciences, the inquiry strategy is to restrict one's self to asking questions about the natural world, and then to seek natural answers for those questions. That's methodological naturalism and it's one of the things that's kind of definitive of what natural science is.

But notice that science's naturalism was baked in at the beginning as an initial methodological premise. It isn't knowledge about the ultimate nature of reality. It's how science has decided to proceed. It's an inquiry strategy for attacking questions.

You and Paddoboy seem to want to argue that since natural science (by definition) seeks only natural answers and accepts only natural answers as scientific, that natural answers are the only answers that can possibly be true. You imagine that science somehow guarantees that reality itself must be naturalistic.

What the two of you seem to me to be doing is slippy-sliding from methodological naturalism (an inquiry strategy) to metaphysical naturalism (a belief about the true nature of reality itself), hoping that nobody will notice. And perhaps without noticing yourselves. And metaphysical naturalism is a belief that I don't think that either of you can justify.

Metaphysical naturalism is the belief that reality can only consist of those things that appear in natural science's accounts of natural events. Since natural science set out at the beginning to seek natural causes (insert smoke and mirrors here) we conclude that natural causes are all that can possibly exist. A heuristic has suddenly turned itself into an ontology.

It seems to me that many atheists are fond of making that particular move. It's one of the things that distinguish them from agnostics. Agnostics are much more willing than this sort of atheist to admit that they don't have answers to all of the big metaphysical questions and they doubt that anyone does.

Hence my question to Paddoboy: "Why must the true answer to life's origins be scientific?"

 

[Write4U]

Write4U:
I don't know why you (and others) keep repeatedly posting the first paragraph of the wikipedia article on abiogenesis, as if that somehow refutes something I wrote. Repetition doesn't make an argument any stronger than it was the first 100 times it was posted.

To show a train of thought.

What do you mean by "exactly"?

A creation myth or creation story explains how the universe started, how the earth came to be, and why there are humans.

This seems to recount a lot of detail of exactly how it happened. Is it wrong?

How could a disproved idea explain anything?

OK, Biogenesis has been disproved.

No. Obviously not. It is speculative. I have highlighted some giveaway words in the text.

It is not speculative, only the dates are putative, the physical evidence is incontrovertible.

How could it?

They live in almost every habitat from the poles to the equator, deserts, geysers, rocks, and the deep sea. Some are adapted to extremes such as very hot or very cold conditions, others to high pressure, and a few, such as Deinococcus radiodurans, to high radiation environments. Microorganisms also make up the microbiota found in and on all multicellular organisms. There is evidence that 3.45-billion-year-old Australian rocks once contained microorganisms, the earliest direct evidence of life on Earth. [/quote]

The earliest direct evidence of life on Earth are microfossils of microorganisms permineralized in 3.465-billion-year-old Australian Apex chert rocks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microorganism

This wide dispersion suggests that a long time must have passed from the actual origin of life and living things.
But could there have been a living thing before then, or by age alone was the ecosphere purely chemical ?

Biosphere vs Ecosphere - What's the difference?

As nouns the difference between biosphere and ecosphere is that biosphere is the part of the

earth and its atmosphere capable of supporting life while ecosphere is the portion of the atmosphere from sea-level to about 4000 meters in which it is possible to breathe without technological assistance.

https://wikidiff.com/ecosphere/biosphere

That's deep: life found 11km below sea level in deepest known point on the surface of the Earth . Steve Connor@SteveAConnor Sunday 17 March 2013 19:35

Scientist have found a thriving community of microbes living at the deepest known point on the surface of the Earth – a massive underwater canyon in the Pacific Ocean 11km (6.8 miles) below sea level.

The bacteria were recovered from muddy sediments at a point underneath the central west Pacific called Challenger Deep in the huge Mariana Trench, a gigantic chasm in the seabed which is big enough and deep enough to swallow Mount Everest entirely.

Marine biologists said they were astonished to find such an abundance of microbial life-forms living off the dead and decaying matter that sinks to the deepest parts of the ocean where pressures are more than a thousand times greater than at sea level.

“These microbes may in fact be the ones that are the closest to the centre of the Earth, the deepest living organisms that we have seen. They are probably the deepest observed community of microbes below sea level,” said Professor Ronnie Glud of the University of Southern Denmark.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...eepest-known-point-surface-earth-8538107.html

Is here where life originated? How primitive would these organisms have to be to survive these extreme environments.

Thomas Shafee / CC BY 4.0 / Wikimedia CommonsScence

• Biology
  • Basics
  • Cell Biology
  • Genetics
  • Organisms
  • Anatomy
  • Physiology
  • Botany
  • Ecology
• Chemistry
• Physics
• Geology
• Astronomy
• Weather & Climate

By
Regina Bailey, Updated January 22, 2020

Glycolysis, which translates to "splitting sugars", is the process of releasing energy within sugars. In glycolysis, a six-carbon sugar known as glucose is split into two molecules of a three-carbon sugar called pyruvate. This multistep process yields two ATP molecules containing free energy, two pyruvate molecules, two high energy, electron-carrying molecules of NADH, and two molecules of water.

Glycolysis

• Glycolysis is the process of breaking down glucose.
• Glycolysis can take place with or without oxygen.
• Glycolysis produces two molecules of pyruvate, two molecules of ATP, two molecules of NADH, and two molecules of water.
• Glycolysis takes place in the cytoplasm.
• There are 10 enzymes involved in breaking down sugar. The 10 steps of glycolysis are organized by the order in which specific enzymes act upon the system.

Glycolysis can occur with or without oxygen. In the presence of oxygen, glycolysis is the first stage of cellular respiration. In the absence of oxygen, glycolysis allows cells to make small amounts of ATP through a process of fermentation.

Glycolysis takes place in the cytosol of the cell's cytoplasm. A net of two ATP molecules are produced through glycolysis (two are used during the process and four are produced.) Learn more about the 10 steps of glycolysis below.....more

https://www.thoughtco.com/extremophiles-extreme-organisms-373905#:

If everything physical is chemical, why would there be a question about chemical origins, i.e Abiogenesis?

 

[Write4U]

You write that like that's something that you know for a fact. So how do you know it? How would you justify that belief? You weren't back there at the origin of life watching what happened.

I believe in the purely mathematical Abiogenesis, because I believe in the Mathematical essence of the Universe, not in an Intelligent Designer, which concept is so complicated that no one is able to even address its fundamental properties, let alone its "motivated actions".

Everyone knows about physical values and the mathematical interaction of elements, i.e. Chemistry. It is the stuff of the natural world, our very existence, and incidentally our Science .

One thing is abundantly clear;
It did not start with "irreducible complexity", which means it started with 1 + 1 = 2

I keep it real simple as per Occam's advice, i e. it did not start with Adam and Eve.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

I believe in the purely mathematical Abiogenesis, because I believe in the Mathematical essence of the Universe, not in an Intelligent Designer, which concept is so complicated that no one is able to even address its fundamental properties, let alone its "motivated actions".

You're trying to import your pet theory into an unrelated thread again. Stop it. Keep it in your mathematical universe thread. And anyway, this discussion is not about your personal beliefs. At least, it shoudn't be about those.

To show a train of thought. This seems to recount a lot of detail of exactly how it happened. Is it wrong?

Is the biblical creation story from Genesis wrong? Yes, demonstrably.

It is not speculative, only the dates are putative, the physical evidence is incontrovertible.

No. The word "putative" there is not modifying the date, but the word "microorganisms". What is being said is that it is speculated that microorganisms might have formed at a particular time.

They live in almost every habitat from the poles to the equator, deserts, geysers, rocks, and the deep sea. Some are adapted to extremes such as very hot or very cold conditions, others to high pressure, and a few, such as Deinococcus radiodurans, to high radiation environments. Microorganisms also make up the microbiota found in and on all multicellular organisms. There is evidence that 3.45-billion-year-old Australian rocks once contained microorganisms, the earliest direct evidence of life on Earth.

When you talk about already-existing life, you're not talking about abiogenesis. One you have life, abiogenesis must have already happened, somehow.

That's deep: life found 11km below sea level in deepest known point on the surface of the Earth . ....

Is here where life originated?

Nobody knows for sure. This is why there is no theory of abiogenesis.

If everything physical is chemical, why would there be a question about chemical origins, i.e Abiogenesis?

I've already walked you through what chemistry is. Please read my previous post on that point.

 

[Write4U]

This is why there is no theory of abiogenesis.

There is no scientific dispute about Abiogenesis at all. The only dispute is philosophical.
Logically I am convinced that Abiogenesis is fundamental to all life.

As I indicated before, IMO this entire discussion is based on a category error.

There is creation category, based on Genesis.
There is evolution category, based on Abiogenesis.

The distinction is clear and indisputable.

 

[Write4U]

You're trying to import your pet theory into an unrelated thread again

If other people can can import their pet religious theory and cite ID or Creationism without penalty, I should be able to import the opposing perspective of a physical universe and cite mathematics of physics without penalty.

To me this smacks of persecution. I'm out of this one....

 

[iceaura]

I have produced 2 examples of apparent abiogenesis. Diatoms which are more crystal chemistry than bio-chemistry and viruses which are "partly" living organisms.

Neither of those is at all likely to have emerged from a substrate of non-living entities. Diatoms are very sophisticated beings with complex genomes, evidence of endosymbiotic events in their evolutionary history, and multiple stages in their life cycles; viruses resemble pieces of the machinery of living cells much more closely than they resemble anything abiotic.
- - - -

And with that dismissive series of non-answers, ended with an arrogant assertion,

This exchange is what this creationist is referring to (it follows from my observation that I have never personally encountered anyone who both understands Darwinian theory and dismisses it):

Is that so. You seem to claim to understand it. So explain what the first life was, and how it could tightly organize and be robust against attack without a protective membrane.

In Darwinian theory there is no necessary "first" anything. In Darwinian theory there is no necessary "tight organization" in the early going. In Darwinian theory nothing needs to be "robust against attack" in the early going.

That would be yet another attempt to explain (briefly) some relevant aspect of Darwinian theory to a poster whose questions reveal a more or less total misconception of it.

The poster demands, among other confusions, an explanation of what "the first life" was - based on my understanding of Darwinian theory. It's a common type of question one gets from ID folks - how do you explain the first eye, the first woodpecker, the first cell, the first whatever. It's common because ID folks in general never bothered to learn even the basics of Darwinian evolutionary theory, and don't know how it's supposed to work.

From the theoretical perspective: in Darwinian theory there is no such thing even likely, let alone necessarily - regardless of the physical facts realistically assumed.
In physical fact: no one has enough information to do more than guess at what the earliest quasi-living or near-life entities were like, regardless of the theory employed.

And that is the typical situation one faces when dealing with creationist objections to Darwinian theory: they don't understand Darwinian theory in the first place, and often seem confused about the role of theory itself - any theory. They are objecting to an invention of their own, because it doesn't produce or account for facts no one has discovered yet.

On a science forum.

 

[Write4U]

Neither of those is at all likely to have emerged from a substrate of non-living entities. Diatoms are very sophisticated beings with complex genomes, evidence of endosymbiotic events in their evolutionary history, and multiple stages in their life cycles; viruses resemble pieces of the machinery of living cells much more closely than they resemble anything abiotic.
- - - -

I can see these are already down the evolutionary line from "origin", although viruses are not even considered to be living organisms, so they must be very primitive if they were at all a common ancestor to other archea.

From what I have read, cyanobacteria are very, very old and must have appeared very soon after the earth established an atmosphere. Even then this atmosphere did not need to be uniform.

Cyanobacteria: Classification, Reproduction and Parasexuality

The cyanobacteria (the earlier blue-green algae), or the blue-green bacteria, represent a group of photosynthetic, mostly photolysis-mediated oxygen-evolving monerans (prokaryotes).

These are the only organisms able to perform oxygenic photosynthesis that can also fix nitrogen. These organisms are amongst the oldest organisms known dating back to the early Precambrian period 3.6 x 109 years ago and probably played a crucial role in the evolution of higher plants.

Cyanobacterial thallus ranges from unicellular, colonial to filamentous; multi-seriate branched filamentous condition is the highest level of organization attained by them.

(i) Cyanobacteria can grow in diverse habitats, but one striking feature in their occurrence and predominance in habitats alternating between photo-aerobic and photo-anaerobic conditions can be correlated with their preference for low oxygen tension and low redox-potential. These properties stem from their recently discovered dual-capacity of oxygenic photosynthesis and facultative an-oxygenic photosynthesis,

(ii) The cyanobacteria possess various morphologically distinctive structures, e.g., akinetes and heterocysts.

(iii) The main cell wall constituent of cyanobacteria is peptidoglycan.

(iv) The cyanobacterial cytoplasm is traversed extensively by flattened vesicular structures called thylakoids or lamellae, the photosynthetic sites,

(v) The principal photosynthetic pigment of all cyanobacteria is chlorophyll a. Besides, they possess β-carotene and other accessory pigments, namely, phycobiliproteins. The phycobiliproteins are phycocyanin (PC), allophycocyanin (AP), allophycocyanin B (APB), and phycoerythrin, and

(vi) Most filamentous cyanobacteria show a gliding motility at some stage of development; they lack flagella.

So far as the sexual reproduction in its true sense is concerned, it is absent in them and the requirements of sexuality are considered to be met by some alternative pathways referred to as parasexual-pathways.....more

https://www.biologydiscussion.com/b...fication-reproduction-and-parasexuality/54803

How far further does one have to go back to reach pure non-living bio-chemistry and bio-chemical polymers?

 

[James R]

There is no scientific dispute about Abiogenesis at all. The only dispute is philosophical.

I don't know what you're trying to say when you say there's no scientific dispute about abiogenesis.

If you only mean that scientists agree that life probably started from non-life, then there's no dispute.
If, on the other hand, you're talking about the details of how life started from non-life, there's a lot of dispute. The fact that there are competing theories and no consensus on which one (or more) of them is right is just more evidence that it is false to claim that scientists have "a" theory of abiogenesis.

Logically I am convinced that Abiogenesis is fundamental to all life.

Then your logic is shoddy. It's a matter of evidence, not logic.

As I indicated before, IMO this entire discussion is based on a category error.

Yours, maybe.

There is creation category, based on Genesis.
There is evolution category, based on Abiogenesis.

The distinction is clear and indisputable.

Do you understand the point I have been making all along in this thread, or don't you? Do you understand why I take issue with paddoboy's claims?

If so, please tell me what argument I have put against paddoboy's position, in your own words. Also tell me whether you agree with that argument. If you don't, tell me why you disagree.

There's no point in discussing this with you when you don't seem to understand what my objection is.

 

[iceaura]

although viruses are not even considered to be living organisms, so they must be very primitive if they were at all a common ancestor to other archea.

Viruses are parasitic - parasites in general are "more evolved" (farther from origin, later emergent) than their hosts, not less.
They are not "primitive", but rather "simple" - not the same thing.

Do you have any candidates that are more primitive?

I doubt that anything extant would be an independent form of life "more primitive" than a generic bacterium or archaean cell. Too much competition, too heavy predation, etc., from the unicellular biome. It would have to be well hidden and widespread, both.

If curious, I would look in the symbionts of colonial unicells, especially those symbionts reduced to organelles or structural components, for clues to the nature of the more primitive or earlier living beings.

 

[Write4U]

I don't know what you're trying to say when you say there's no scientific dispute about abiogenesis.

Which of the sciences are having a disagreement about abiogenesis? Quantum, physiscs? chemistry? mineralogy? biology? There may be disagreement about time and place, but AFAIK, there is no dispute about the definition of abiogenesis itself.

The only dispute is between Theism (creation) and Science (evolution) As I said, its a philosophical dispute.
Natural Evolution or Intelligent Design, that's it. There is no third category.

 

[Write4U]

If so, please tell me what argument I have put against paddoboy's position, in your own words. Also tell me whether you agree with that argument. If you don't, tell me why you disagree.

IMO, it is you who does not understand Paddo. I do and I agree with him.
As I said, I believe you are committing a category error. Paddo can confirm if I understand the thrust of his argument.

Once there was only chemistry. Then life evolved (emerged) from chemistry. Abiogenesis.
The actual process of how is a different story.

 

[Write4U]

Basic mineralogy
S.K. Haldar, in Introduction to Mineralogy and Petrology (Second Edition), 2020

3.1 Introduction

Mineralogy is the systematic study that deals with the characteristics of the individual and group of minerals. The mineralogy has many more scientific branches. The first detailed narratives considering all the minerals at that time authored by Dana (1951), and with a subsequent enhanced update by Gaines et al. (1997). The concept of mineralogy (minerals) and petrology (rocks) have been described by Pirsson (1947) and (Klein and Philpotts, 2012).

The various branches of mineralogy can broadly be grouped as follows:

1. Crystallography studies crystal forms, that is, forms in which the minerals crystallize, as well as their internal structure, relations, and distribution of atoms, ions, or ionic groups in the crystal lattice.

2. Physical mineralogy is the study of physical properties of minerals, such as cohesion cleavage, elasticity, color, luster, streak, hardness, and average density (Table 1.1).

3. Optical, thermal, and magnetic properties, electrical conductivity, radioactivity, and so on.

4. Chemical mineralogy is the study of chemical formula (Table 1.1), percentage contribution of individual elements, and other chemical properties of the minerals.

5. Classification of minerals based on metallic/nonmetallic type (iron ore and quartz), chemistry (oxides, sulfides, arsenide, and silicates).

6. Descriptive mineralogy deals with the classification of minerals into groups based on their common properties, mostly chemical and structural properties.

7. Environmental mineralogy narrates the complex and very different conditions of the origin of the minerals, explores the possible hazards associated with specific minerals/elements or industry, if any, optimum consumption, recycling, and sustainable development.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/mineralogy

 

[James R]

IMO, it is you who does not understand Paddo. I do and I agree with him.

I asked you to summarise, in your own words, what my objection is to paddoboy's position, so that I can confirm that you understand my point.

So far, you have been unable to do that.

Do you intend to try, or are you intending to continue to make false assumptions?