For the alternative theorists:

[leopold]

I did. read the rest of my post.

i did read your post.
it had nothing to do with the material presented.

 

[leopold]

leopold



Don't get hung up on how the sciences are divided, there is no magical difference in the chemistry itself.

it was a historical reference grumpy.
"organic chemistry" originally meant "biomolecules" from living matter.
this idea was smashed when urea was synthesised in the lab.
"organic chemistry" now includes almost ALL of the chemistry of carbon plus a few additions.

 

[paddoboy]

i did read your post.
it had nothing to do with the material presented.

Then read it again.....

You asked....

then i want you to explain why creationist scientists are denied tenure.

I said......

What do you mean "denied tenure"?
Anyone who accepts the biblical account of the Universe, life etc, are not scientists anyway...at least not scientists adhering to the scientific methodology.

Are you saying as our creationists friends often say, that the scientific establishment is engaged in some huge conspiracy to censor the creationist view?


Doesn't history show that it was the Christian church that can lay complete claim to such censorship claims, with their forced doctrine of geocentralism and who persecuted Galileo for suggesting otherwise, based on his observational evidence.
The claims of the YEC's and other creationists are about as valid as the fairy tale account of the Universe they wish to bombard humanity with, and take us back to those horrible dark ages, before the light of science revealed the real truths.

In essence they are a blot on mankind and are slowing technological progress and learning.

In other words, anyone promoting bad science should not be granted tenure, for the sake of our children.

 

[Write4U]

i want you to follow up on "the storehouse of knowledge" cite i gave earlier.
then i want you to explain why creationist scientists are denied tenure.

They are not denied tenure, as long as they leave biblical creationism at home, where it (the begetting) belongs.

 

[Trippy]

believe it or not, "biochemistry" was the original definition of organic chemistry.

No it wasn't - stop making stuff up as you go. It goes back to the concept of Vitalism and the mistaken belief that living organisms are somehow fundamentally different from non-living entities - you know, the crap you keep pushing. Vitalism was disproven in 1828 when Wohler synthesized Urea. Organic Chemistry in its early days was about the compounds obtained from living things, however, from the... Oh let's say 1850s onwards the development of pharmaceuticals and dyes, and after that the petrochemical industry really drove the development of organic chemistry.

the definition of organic chemistry has no doubt been updated to include water.

In a sense it always has

last i remember, water wasn't considered an "organic molecule".

Didn't say it was.

 

[Write4U]

Numerous inorganic compounds can be found in living organisms. Perhaps the most common is water, H2O. Another common inorganic compound in living organisms is carbon dioxide, which results from respiration

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_2_examples_of_inorganic_compounds_found_in_living_things?#slide=4

Can we agree on the term bio-chemical so that we can move forward? Obviously the distinction between the two disciplines is almost arbitrary.

Found another interesting "inorganic element" which is essential for life.

Sulfur is an essential element for all life, and is widely used in biochemical processes. In metabolic reactions, sulfur compounds serve as both fuels (electron donors) and respiratory (oxygen-alternative) materials (electron acceptors). Sulfur in organic form is present in the vitamins biotin and thiamine, the latter being named for the Greek word for sulfur. Sulfur is an important part of many enzymes and in antioxidant molecules like glutathione and thioredoxin. Organically bonded sulfur is a component of all proteins, as the amino acids cysteine and methionine. Disulfide bonds are largely responsible for the mechanical strength and insolubility of the protein keratin, found in outer skin, hair, and feathers, and the element contributes to their pungent odor when burned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur

and now that I'm digging, I learned a new word "VALENCE".

In chemistry the valence (or valency) of an element is a measure of its combining power with other atoms when it forms chemical compounds or molecules. The concept of valence was developed in the last half of the 19th century and was successful in explaining the molecular structure of many organic compounds. [1] The quest for the underlying causes of valence lead to the modern theories of chemical bonding, including Lewis structures (1916), valence bond theory (1927), molecular orbitals (1928), valence shell electron pair repulsion theory (1958) and all the advanced methods of quantum chemistry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valence_(chemistry)

 

[leopold]

No it wasn't - stop making stuff up as you go. It goes back to the concept of Vitalism and the mistaken belief that living organisms are somehow fundamentally different from non-living entities

uh, yeah, i think i said that.

you know, the crap you keep pushing. Vitalism was disproven in 1828 when Wohler synthesized Urea.

uh, yeah, i think i said that too.

Didn't say it was.

well then, why did you suggest i might be wrong when i thought it (water) wasn't organic?

 

[leopold]

Can we agree on the term bio-chemical so that we can move forward? Obviously the distinction between the two disciplines is almost arbitrary.

let's not confuse the issue.
"organic chemistry" is the name for this branch of chemistry.
in my opinion "biochemical" and "biomolecular" would be things associated with life as opposed to, say, a 100 carbon unit straight chain, which isn't.

and now that I'm digging, I learned a new word "VALENCE".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valence_(chemistry)

valence is probably the most important concept in chemistry.
carbon atoms seem to be good at it.

 

[Trippy]

uh, yeah, i think i said that.

uh, yeah, i think i said that too.

Not in the post I replied to. In the post I replied to you stated or implied something very different.

well then, why did you suggest i might be wrong when i thought it (water) wasn't organic?

That's neither what I said, nor what you said:

i don't think water can be considered "organic chemistry".

Water participates in organic chemistry - to the point where there is some organic chemistry that can only be performed in the absence of water. I really don't know what would make you think otherwise.

 

[Trippy]

There's no need for this leopold:

you are just now learning this word????
jesus christ, you don't even have a high school education in chemistry do you.

As Fraggle Rocker consistently points out, many of our members are only of highschool age.

 

[Trippy]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_2_examples_of_inorganic_compounds_found_in_living_things?#slide=4

Can we agree on the term bio-chemical so that we can move forward? Obviously the distinction between the two disciplines is almost arbitrary.

It's not quite arbitrary. Organic chemistry is defined as the chemistry of carbon, which includes reactions important to the petrochemical industry. That's carbon and everything else that it reacts with, but it's only really interested in the way everything else reacts with carbon. So Organic chemistry includes reactions involving H, N, O, P, & S but it also includes reaction involving group 17, water, and various hydrides. It includes compounds that are not themselves neccessarily organic.

Found another interesting "inorganic element" which is essential for life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur

There's a lot of them.

Here, for example is a periodic table illustrating the biologically important elements:

Red are the major building blocks of life.
Blue are elements that are found in various biomolocules that perform neccessary functions.
Yellow are important ions.
Black are significant biotoxins.

 

[krash661]

you are just now learning this word????
jesus christ, you don't even have a high school education in chemistry do you.

...

 

[leopold]

There's no need for this leopold:

mia culpa write4u.

 

[paddoboy]

The details of the chemical reactions that saw life arise from non life in the Universe, are just that....details.
The overwhelming fact remains that the science of Abiogenesis is as near to fact as any scientific theory can be, as is Evolution.
The non scientific divine deity explanation is nothing more then a red herring, detracting from the real science.

 

[paddoboy]

In fact if we look at all the sciences involved logically, including the reasonably speculative scenario that the Universe maybe the Ultimate free lunch, then we arrive at only one answer.
That is besides the God/Deity hypothesis non scientific approach, the only logical answer is there is actually no need for any creator/God of any description at all.
So why invent something when it is not needed...Occam's razor again.

 

[Write4U]

let's not confuse the issue.
"organic chemistry" is the name for this branch of chemistry.
in my opinion "biochemical" and "biomolecular" would be things associated with life as opposed to, say, a 100 carbon unit straight chain, which isn't.

But it is in principle. All it needs is a viable variant, from the trillions of trials (I said this before). You are still hung up on irreducible complexity.
I am trying to lay out a scenario whereby it almost becomes "inevitable" that life arose from inert elements under "energetic" conditions.

Evolution starts at the nano level where objects only have certain "values". The rest is a matter of time before compatible values search each other out to form more complex structures, which, as has been demonstrated, is just a very small step from non-life to life.

I suggested biochemistry, because it INCLUDES inorganic materials in the evolutionary equation, which it must, but you are refusing to accept. Carbon, yes, definitely! And a host of other inorganic ingredients? You betcha!

valence is probably the most important concept in chemistry. Carbon atoms seem to be good at it.

And therefore the most likely involved in the evolution of inert materials toward living organisms. You are providing the answers, but fail to draw the logical conclusions. Nature always seeks the path of least resistance. Here we have a path alongside a stream, only one thing missing, a stable source of energy, a sun. By golly, we just happen to have one, and carbon, and water and a "bunch of other stuff"!
No need for Hocus Pocus, IMO.

From wiki,

There are several allotropes of carbon of which the best known are graphite, diamond, and amorphous carbon.[13] The physical properties of carbon vary widely with the allotropic form. For example, diamond is highly transparent, while graphite is opaque and black. Diamond is the hardest naturally-occurring material known, while graphite is soft enough to form a streak on paper (hence its name, from the Greek word "γράφω" which means "to write"). Diamond has a very low electrical conductivity, while graphite is a very good conductor. Under normal conditions, diamond, carbon nanotube and graphene have the highest thermal conductivities of all known materials.
IOQ, carbon is an excellent and versatile building material. Depending on it's chemical bonds it can be formed as a fluid to a very strong structural foundation.

You yourself already conceded that from a chaotic elemental soup, it wouldn't take all that long for "water" to form. Here we are both agreed on the existence of the fundamental building materials of all things in the universe, including living things. Carbon and water, throw in a little sunlight, and "salt and pepper" and presto, we have life in say a couple of billion years. Because nature DOES have an infinite number of tries at it, without knowing anything about it, but it's happening, then, now, and way into the future. And it is not called FSM.

The argument for evolution from "inert particles" to "reactive structures" is so simple and straight forward that IMO, no other argument can "be clearer" in concept or explanation.

 

[leopold]

But it is in principle.

yes, it's all "organic chemistry" and governed by the same set of laws.

I am trying to lay out a scenario whereby it almost becomes "inevitable" that life arose from inert elements under "energetic" conditions.

yes, it seems to be a logical approach.
all we need now are the lab results that prove it.

I suggested biochemistry, because it INCLUDES inorganic materials in the evolutionary equation, which it must, but you are refusing to accept. Carbon, yes, definitely! And a host of other inorganic ingredients? You betcha!

in my opinion, "biochemistry" would be the chemistry of living cells.
outside of life itself, what is it that leads you to believe that "things become alive"?
what has science shown you that makes you believe such a thing?

You yourself already conceded that from a chaotic elemental soup, it wouldn't take all that long for "water" to form.

yes, because it's a simple 3 atom molecule, the reaction is instantaneous and requires no catalyst or enzyme to complete.

Here we are both agreed on the existence of the fundamental building materials of all things in the universe, including living things.

miller-urey demonstrated this almost 60 years ago.
they never got life to come out of it though.

Carbon and water, throw in a little sunlight, and "salt and pepper" and presto, we have life in say a couple of billion years.

easy to say but so far has been impossible to prove.
science hasn't even been able to back engineer a cell from a functioning specimen.

The argument for evolution from "inert particles" to "reactive structures" is so simple and straight forward that IMO, no other argument can "be clearer" in concept or explanation.

yes, i agree that it's the most logical approach.
all we need now is the proof.
exactly ZERO proof has been provided in this entire thread.

 

[Write4U]

Do we have proof that all the elements for life can be found in the universe?
Do we have proof that these elements always obey certain laws of nature?
Do we have proof that the laws of nature allow the development of complex inert structures?
Do we have proof that the laws of nature allow the development of complex reactive structures?
Do we have proof that the laws of nature allow unrelated functioning complex structures combining to create new functioning complex structures?
Do we have any reason to suspect anything other than the continuation of such an evolutionary chain of events by an unimaginable and unneeded interruption and redesign of fundamental natural laws and particle behaviors?

 

[leopold]

Do we have any reason to suspect anything other than the continuation of such an evolutionary chain of events by an unimaginable and unneeded interruption and redesign of fundamental natural laws and particle behaviors?

yes, there is no reason to believe things become alive.
there is no precedent ANYWHERE.

 

[Trippy]

Do we have proof that all the elements for life can be found in the universe?

Yes, through spectroscopy.

Do we have proof that these elements always obey certain laws of nature?

Yes. What we find in space obeys the same laws as it does on earth.

Do we have proof that the laws of nature allow the development of complex inert structures?

That depends on how you define complex. Zeolites and Fullerenes are complex, both occur naturally.

Do we have proof that the laws of nature allow the development of complex reactive structures?

Yes. At least some of the structures we observe in space would be unstable at STP and spontaneously react with things. Some of the things we observe are only stable because they exist in a cold vacuum.

Do we have proof that the laws of nature allow unrelated functioning complex structures combining to create new functioning complex structures?

Yes. Zeolites are an example of this.

Do we have any reason to suspect anything other than the continuation of such an evolutionary chain of events by an unimaginable and unneeded interruption and redesign of fundamental natural laws and particle behaviors?

No. In fact as science and technology improve we inch closer to that holy grail that leopold craves so much.