Evolution v. Creationism

[Cardinal Carminative]

I'm going to let George Wald, Nobel Laureate respond....

"...Now, to leave the elementary particles and go on to atoms, to elements. Of the 92 natural elements, ninety-nine percent of the living matter we know is composed of just four: hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and carbon (C). That is bound to be true wherever life exists in the universe, for only those four elements possess the unique properties upon which life depends.

Their unique position in chemistry can be stated in a sentence: They -- in the order given -- are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations (i.e., those mimicking the inert gases) by gaining respectively one, two, three, and four electrons. Gaining electrons, in the sense of sharing them with other atoms, is the mechanism of forming chemical bonds, hence molecules. The lightest elements make not only the tightest bonds, hence the most stable molecules, but introduce a unique property crucial for life: of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further.

Now, professors sometimes tell their students foolish things, which the students carefully learn and reproduce on exams and eventually teach the next generation. When chemistry professors teach the periodic system of elements, one has those horizontal periods of the elements and the professors say, “If you go down vertically, the elements repeat their same properties.” That is utter nonsense, as any kid with a chemistry set would know. For under oxygen comes sulfur. Try breathing sulfur somethime. Under nitrogen comes phosphorus. There is not any phosphorus in that kid’s chemistry set. It is too dangerous; it bursts into flame spontaneously on exposure to air. And under carbon comes silicon.

If that chemistry professor were talking sense, there are two molecules that should have very similar properties: carbon dioxide (CO2) and silicon dioxide (SiO2). Well, in carbon dioxide the central carbon is tied to both of the oxygen atoms by double bonds O=C=O. Those double bonds completely saturate the combining tendencies of all three atoms, hence CO2 is a happy, independent molecule. It goes off in the air as a gas, and dissolves in all the waters of the Earth, and those are the places from which living organisms extract their carbon.

But silicon cannot form a double bond, hence in silicon dioxide the central silicon is tied to the two oxygens only by single bonds, leaving four half‑formed bonds -- four unpaired electrons -- two on the silicon and one on each oxygen, ready to pair with any other available lone electrons. But where can one find them? Obviously on neighboring silicone dioxide molecules, so each molecule binds to the next, and that to the next, and on and on until you end up with a rock -- for example quartz, which is just silicone dioxide molecules bound to one another to form a great super-molecule. The reason quartz is so hard is that to break it one must break numerous chemical bonds. And that is why, though silicon is 135 times as plentiful as carbon in the Earth’s surface, it makes rocks, and to make living organisms one must turn to carbon. I could make a parallel argument for oxygen and nitrogen.

These four elements, Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, also provide an example of the astonishing togetherness of our universe. They make up the “organic” molecules that constitute living organisms on a planet, and the nuclei of these same elements interact to generate the light of its star. Then the organisms on the planet come to depend wholly on that starlight, as they must if life is to persist. So it is that all life on the Earth runs on sunlight. I do not need spiritual enlightenment to know that I am one with the universe -- that is just good physics...."

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

Just curious if you realized I had already spoken about the C-C bonds in my previous post. Did you catch my comment on orbital hybridization?

I assume, based on your vast knowledge you are intimately familiar with sp, sp2, and sp3 hybrid orbitals that C has, right? And their relationship to the types of bonds that take part with those orbitals?


Also: I fundamentally disagree with Dr. Ward's characterization of the periodic table. NO ONE expects that just because two things occur in the same group that they will be EXACTLY ALIKE. That's absurd on it face. What groups do in the periodic table is, as you go down the group the chemical interactions the elements take part in are similar. The valence electrons are in a similar configuration, but at ever increasing energy levels as you go down the periodic table. So if a chem prof is teaching that O and S are exactly the same that's not right. I think Dr. Ward is extrapolating from bad teaching to make some point that isn't really all that common.

C and Si are both Group IV elements, but they don't behave the same. Yes, Si orbitals can, indeed, hybridize the s and p, but they won't form double and triple bonds because of the size of the atom.

But the richness of C's bond ecosystem is not absolutely necessary for life qua life. There is a huge amount of overlap between non-life and life-chemistry. In fact the earliest pre-biotic organic chemistry probably required mineral substrates.

Carbon based life is the only life we currently know. C is great for this. But one should not put a stake in the ground as if C is somehow the ONLY element which "life" can use as a building block.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

The biological steps, including at the molecular and genetic level, needed for any change to occur in an organism. Those necessary links are usually missing.

Are you familiar with Zeno's Paradox? It says that if I fire an arrow at a target it must first go half-way to the target. Beyond that it must go half-way between that point and the target. And so on and so forth. By this reasoning the arrow can never reach the target.

But you and I both know that it's a matter of resolution. The arrow is not infinitely tiny.

Same sort of thing with "Missing links". Creationists tend to demand "Missing links" and when shown one then demand missing links on either side of that one. It's a fun game, but ultimately not very productive and is really nothing more than a game.

On the molecular and genetic levels there really aren't any "missing links". But missing links for animals exist all over the place.

You don't have to believe in evolution, but if you wish to question evolution then it helps to actually understand what it is and what it is not.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

It gives some of us the warm fuzzies though.

What does?

 

[Woodznutz]

What does?

Believing in God.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Believing in God.

That's fine, but as I noted earlier, evolution is NOT incompatible with belief in God.

 

[Woodznutz]

Are you familiar with Zeno's Paradox? It says that if I fire an arrow at a target it must first go half-way to the target. Beyond that it must go half-way between that point and the target. And so on and so forth. By this reasoning the arrow can never reach the target.

But you and I both know that it's a matter of resolution. The arrow is not infinitely tiny.

Same sort of thing with "Missing links". Creationists tend to demand "Missing links" and when shown one then demand missing links on either side of that one. It's a fun game, but ultimately not very productive and is really nothing more than a game.

On the molecular and genetic levels there really aren't any "missing links". But missing links for animals exist all over the place.

You don't have to believe in evolution, but if you wish to question evolution then it helps to actually understand what it is and what it is not.

The missing links are not only in the species but more importantly in the process. In order for evolution to work these processes must appear out of thin air.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

The missing links are not only in the species but more importantly in the process. In order for evolution to work these processes must appear out of thin air.

Thank heavens missing links exist!

 

[ding]

Just curious if you realized I had already spoken about the C-C bonds in my previous post. Did you catch my comment on orbital hybridization?

I assume, based on your vast knowledge you are intimately familiar with sp, sp2, and sp3 hybrid orbitals that C has, right? And their relationship to the types of bonds that take part with those orbitals?


Also: I fundamentally disagree with Dr. Ward's characterization of the periodic table. NO ONE expects that just because two things occur in the same group that they will be EXACTLY ALIKE. That's absurd on it face. What groups do in the periodic table is, as you go down the group the chemical interactions the elements take part in are similar. The valence electrons are in a similar configuration, but at ever increasing energy levels as you go down the periodic table. So if a chem prof is teaching that O and S are exactly the same that's not right. I think Dr. Ward is extrapolating from bad teaching to make some point that isn't really all that common.

C and Si are both Group IV elements, but they don't behave the same. Yes, Si orbitals can, indeed, hybridize the s and p, but they won't form double and triple bonds because of the size of the atom.

But the richness of C's bond ecosystem is not absolutely necessary for life qua life. There is a huge amount of overlap between non-life and life-chemistry. In fact the earliest pre-biotic organic chemistry probably required mineral substrates.

Carbon based life is the only life we currently know. C is great for this. But one should not put a stake in the ground as if C is somehow the ONLY element which "life" can use as a building block.

His name is Wald, not Ward. And if you believe life anywhere else in the universe would be materially different from life here on earth, THAT would make you an idiot. But please do feel free to pontificate on how life evolved without being based upon hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and carbon (C).

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

His name is Wald, not Ward. And if you believe life looks any different anywhere else in the universe, THAT would make you an idiot. But please do feel free to pontificate on how life evolved without being based upon hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and carbon (C).

Thanks for missing the points I posted.

 

[ding]

Thanks for missing the points I posted.

You are welcome. I have a hard time suffering fools who believe life would be based upon anything different than hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and carbon (C).

 

[Woodznutz]

Thank heavens missing links exist!

Revisit post #146.

 

[Hollie]

Just examine some of the things said by them that you believe without question. Such articles are replete with the statement, "Evolutionists now believe...." And many times it's a departure from what they previously believed about the subject. We can't keep up with them.

I would agree that new fossil finds, new testing methods and new evidence can require updates and revision to earlier information. That's the process of science. Would you prefer that science not have revised germ theory over the last 75 years?

Did Eve take a bite of a Red Delicious or a Granny Smith apple?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You are welcome. I have a hard time suffering fools who believe life would be based upon anything different than hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and carbon (C).

You think a lot of yourself don't you?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Revisit post #146.

Revist Post #142.

 

[ding]

You think a lot of yourself don't you?

I don't see anything special about me.

 

[ding]

"...These four elements, Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, also provide an example of the astonishing togetherness of our universe. They make up the “organic” molecules that constitute living organisms on a planet, and the nuclei of these same elements interact to generate the light of its star. Then the organisms on the planet come to depend wholly on that starlight, as they must if life is to persist. So it is that all life on the Earth runs on sunlight. I do not need spiritual enlightenment to know that I am one with the universe -- that is just good physics..." George Wald

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I don't see anything special about me.

Yeah, I'm calling BS. You think yourself a master of all things because you find one reference you flog like it owes you money. You did the same thing with the O18 curve.

You didn't even seem to know what a hybrid orbital was. How can you call someone a fool about C chemistry if you don't even know how C bonds?

 

[Hollie]

The biological steps, including at the molecular and genetic level, needed for any change to occur in an organism. Those necessary links are usually missing.

How do you know they're missing? Is there something in the religious literature you can provide that identifies the missing links? There are entire university libraries that have documentation describing cell division. Genetic data is routinely used in the medical field to diagnose disease. Rattling bones and burnig incense doesn't work as well.

 

[ding]

"...Their (hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen) unique position in chemistry can be stated in a sentence: They -- in the order given -- are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations (i.e., those mimicking the inert gases) by gaining respectively one, two, three, and four electrons. Gaining electrons, in the sense of sharing them with other atoms, is the mechanism of forming chemical bonds, hence molecules. The lightest elements make not only the tightest bonds, hence the most stable molecules, but introduce a unique property crucial for life: of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further..." George Wald

 

[ding]

Yeah, I'm calling BS. You think yourself a master of all things because you find one reference you flog like it owes you money. You did the same thing with the O18 curve.

I didn't say I didn't know things. I said there's nothing special about me. You could know the same things I know if you stopped being emotional and started being objective.