For the alternative theorists:

[Trippy]

This discussion set me thinking about what other elements might have giant covalent structures. It seems there are allotropes of phosphorus with a 2D giant structure, rather similar to that of graphite. And sulphur has an obscure "fibrous" form which has helical chains so is a giant structure in sort of 1D.

There's also selenium dioxide, which forms polymeric chains.

But it's true there are not many. The reasons are (a) there are not that many non-metals and (b) covalent bonds are directional, so to make a 2D or 3D structure, an element has to form 3 or more covalent bonds. That effectively confines giant covalent elemental structures to a small patch in the upper middle of the p block of the Periodic Table.

Yeah, the expectation is that the property of catenation is neccessarily going to be restricted to non-metallic Group 13, 14, 15, and 16 elements. We don't expect catention of group 17 elements (although I haven't checked to see if it's possible) because group 17 is monovalent and you wouldn expect an element to be at least di-valent for concatenation to occur.

So while Leopold is overdoing it to say carbon is unique in this respect, there are indeed not many others that do so. Perhaps only B, Si, P and maybe, at a stretch, S.

Sounds right.

B of course is famous for "cheating" the conventional rules by forming multicentre bonds, allowing it to to form 4 or more bonds even though it has only 3 valence electrons. (Carbon is also known to do this in very rare cases, e.g. the norbornyl cation.) This sort of thing is what gives chemistry its fascination……..for those of us that don't get out enough

I remember hating boron chemistry with its 3-center, 2-electron bonds.

 

[Trippy]

it never occured to me that i could ever see a molecule with my un-aided eye.

All natural crystals contain impurities

it seems i am doing that when i see a pure diamond, if i ever see one.

I'm sure I had made a post that contained the phrase "While it might be technically correct it's not neccessarily useful to do so", but do you think I can find it?

it also appears that the properties of a diamond do not change with further additions of carbon.
is this true of these other materials?

The properties of any polymer do not change with the addition of further monomeric units. This is the core of the point that I have re-iterated to you a number of times now, which you seem to be ignoring.

for example boron:
do the properties of this "boron structure" change when boron is added?
are there any common examples of these materials?

You've been given several examples already.

 

[leopold]

The properties of any polymer do not change with the addition of further monomeric units. This is the core of the point that I have re-iterated to you a number of times now, which you seem to be ignoring.

i don't think diamond can be classified as a polymer.
if i'm correct, a polymer is repeated units fused together.
for example isoprene can form very large molecules.
i guess DNA might be called a polymer.
but diamond?
anyway . . . minutia.

 

[Trippy]

i don't think diamond can be classified as a polymer.
if i'm correct, a polymer is repeated units fused together.

And in the case of diamond, the repeating unit is a single carbon atom.

(or, if you want, it could be the structure within a unit cell).

for example isoprene can form very large molecules.

Yes, because it has a double bond at each end of the molecule, which can chemically attach themselves to other isoprene molecules to form polypropylene.

i guess DNA might be called a polymer.

Yes, DNA is another example of a polymer.

but diamond?
anyway . . . minutia.

Yes, Diamond is a polymer.

Many inorganic polymers also are found in nature, including diamond and graphite. Both are composed of carbon. In diamond, carbon atoms are linked in a three-dimensional network that gives the material its hardness. In graphite, used as a lubricant and in pencil “leads,” the carbon atoms link in planes that can slide across one another.​

Polymer on Encyclopedia Brittanica

 

[Aqueous Id]

What makes this harder for atheists, is atheist believe in the god of chance and chaos,

He said, over a network built out of elements that extract signals from noise.

Too bad they don't do the same thing at the higher layers. That wouldn't be a cure, but it would sure put an end to the symptoms. What we need is "nonsense filter". Fortunately the site provides an ignore button.

*click*

 

[leopold]

Is there such a wide gap between life and non-life or is it our understanding of what it is to be "alive".
Insects (hive mind) have not the least regard for life, except rearing the off-spring of a single individual.

interesting question.
biology can state a living cell is alive.
is life that simple, or must we also add conscienceness too?
when you start taking this stuff apart you find the hole goes a lot deeper than you think.
taking the "i believe this happened first" road might be wrong.
the universe started with a bang could be wrong.
"things becoming alive" is the most absurd thing i ever heard aside from an intelligence without substance.
then again, what do i know.

But can anyone tell me the value of "Higher Awareness" when contemplating slaughtering thousands of people for just an "Idea", or a "Belief"?

one of my favorite quotes:
"if men cannot aspire to be like the gods, then they shall be worms"
-i wish i knew who said this.

 

[Write4U]

I am not sure if you understood the question. In any case, the answer is clearly wrong. It does not acknowledge evolution and natural selection. And it overlooks the fact that worms are an essential part of the earth's eco-system. Without worms man would surely die. I adore worms and thank them for their much under-appreciated contribution to life on earth.

The question of course addressed the arrogance of man to covet that to which they have no claim, by any means, including "Holy War"!
I believe such a worldview may be classified as "insane".

 

[paddoboy]

"things becoming alive" is the most absurd thing i ever heard aside from an intelligence without substance.
then again, what do i know.

Yet it has certainly happened, without question.
Chemical interactions and reactions are responsible.

 

[leopold]

I am not sure if you understood the question.

i don't know about me, but . . .

And it overlooks the fact that worms are an essential part of the earth's eco-system. Without worms man would surely die. I adore worms and thank them for their much under-appreciated contribution to life on earth.

. . . you seem to have misunderstood my response.

The question of course addressed the arrogance of man to covet that to which they have no claim, by any means, including "Holy War"!
I believe such a worldview may be classified as "insane".

what, in gods name, does this have to do with evolution????

this is one of those subjects that invariably breaks down into an either/or situation.
i'm amazed "NAZI" hasn't been mentioned.

 

[Write4U]

interesting question.
biology can state a living cell is alive.
is life that simple, or must we also add conscienceness too?

yes, that basically was the question.

when you start taking this stuff apart you find the hole goes a lot deeper than you think.

I disagree, taking stuff apart will explain the simplicity of the complexity. YOU ARE STILL HUNG UP ON IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY!

taking the "i believe this happened first" road might be wrong.

You do. do you? The universe started at the end and is working its way back to the beginning?

the universe started with a bang could be wrong.

Ok let's assume the universe started with a whimper. Then what?

"things becoming alive" is the most absurd thing i ever heard aside from an intelligence without substance.

Does that mean you find the notion of an "insubstantial but causal intelligence" is more plausible that a chemical neural system adapted to respond to external stimuli?

one of my favorite quotes:
"if men cannot aspire to be like the gods, then they shall be worms"
-i wish i knew who said this.

I myself do not.

But you have identified the problem. MEN aspire to be GODS, but do not even have the wisdom to keep our own air and water clean. Do you think Man is ready to become a god and attain "unlimited power"?

Our aspirations are the PROBLEM. We want it all!, but we better start learning that we can't have it all, without paying for consequences of our excesses.

Is there not an expresssion, "cleanliness is next to godliness" or is that just just another little gem of wisdom no one follows anymore, because we have "DISINFECTANTS" to kill the contaminants (you know, those tiny living organisms, that have learned to adapt to inhospitable environments).

 

[leopold]

yes, that basically was the question.

and the answer is?
please state if it's your opinion, if not then provide sources.

 

[Write4U]

I asked the question. You were supposed to answer it (with sources).

Your answer was

"one of my favorite quotes:
"if men cannot aspire to be like the gods, then they shall be worms"
-i wish i knew who said this.

That answer is obviously wrong. There are millions of organisms which are not worms. But some can fly like angels, some can dive a mile down, some use sonar, some use infra-red, want me to go on?

All these animals did not aspire to be gods, yet they can do things gods do, without needing gadgets, like we do.

 

[paddoboy]

In line with the Evolution/Abiogenesis discussions in this thread.....

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Stanley Miller's forgotten experiments, analyzed:

Stanley Miller, the chemist whose landmark experiment published in 1953 showed how some of the molecules of life could have formed on a young Earth, left behind boxes of experimental samples that he never analyzed. The first-ever analysis of some of Miller's old samples has revealed another way that important molecules could have formed on early Earth

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-06-stanley-miller-forgotten.html#jCp


also....

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-21st-century-miller-urey-life.html#inlRlv

 

[leopold]

I asked the question. You were supposed to answer it (with sources).

please see post 1386 for my opinion on that.

the most basic definition of life is the living cell.
the above "definition" can be found in biology books.
this does a good job at defining plant and cellular life but falls short of animal and human life because it doesn't account for consciousness among other things.
-my opinion.

 

[paddoboy]

The following at.....
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...ionid=99FD8D72A0F5284F73000CF8FF743FB6.f01t01


Abstract:
Following his seminal work in 1953, Stanley Miller conducted an experiment in 1958 to study the polymerization of amino acids under simulated early Earth conditions. In the experiment, Miller sparked a gas mixture of CH4, NH3, and H2O, while intermittently adding the plausible prebiotic condensing reagent cyanamide. For unknown reasons, an analysis of the samples was not reported. We analyzed the archived samples for amino acids, dipeptides, and diketopiperazines by liquid chromatography, ion mobility spectrometry, and mass spectrometry. A dozen amino acids, 10 glycine-containing dipeptides, and 3 glycine-containing diketopiperazines were detected. Miller’s experiment was repeated and similar polymerization products were observed. Aqueous heating experiments indicate that Strecker synthesis intermediates play a key role in facilitating polymerization. These results highlight the potential importance of condensing reagents in generating diversity within the prebiotic chemical inventory.

 

[Write4U]

i don't know about me, but . . .

. . . you seem to have misunderstood my response.

what, in gods name, does this have to do with evolution????

Everything! Evolution is a spontaneous thing, all things evolve or devolve every single moment in time, regardless of their aspirations.

this is one of those subjects that invariably breaks down into an either/or situation.
i'm amazed "NAZI" hasn't been mentioned.

For the record, you brought up that subject. I can only speculate why you feel the need to resort to ad hominem "buzz" words.

p.s. Hitler only aspired to rule the world. Your quote aspires to be God, ruler of the universe or forever be doomed to life as a worm.

 

[leopold]

Evolution is a spontaneous thing, . . .

maybe.
there is no conclusive proof.

. . . all things evolve or devolve every single moment in time, regardless of their aspirations.

yes, adaptations have been observed.
there is no evidence that these adaptations account for the diversity of life.

 

[leopold]

Your quote aspires to be God, ruler of the universe or forever be doomed to life as a worm.

actually the quote was a metaphor and deals with the philosophy of humanity.
i have no idea why you keep wanting to turn it into some kind of religious thing.

 

[paddoboy]

maybe.
there is no conclusive proof.

It's quite obvious why you God Botherers, Alternative hypothesis pushers, and Conspiracy adherents always ask for proof, when anyone that knows anything about science, knows that scientific models and theories, do not aquire proof....Just goes to show, the usual cop out!

yes, adaptations have been observed.
there is no evidence that these adaptations account for the diversity of life.

Evolution and Abiogenesis are the only scientific scenarios open to scientists, and also observationally quite sound and rock solid.

 

[paddoboy]

actually the quote was a metaphor and deals with the philosophy of humanity.
i have no idea why you keep wanting to turn it into some kind of religious thing.

You yourself, PMed me about religion, evolution and such, and that is now well known.
Why would anyone think any different. Your agenda is quite obvious.