Evolution v. Creationism

[ding]

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?

Is any of that relevant to life being based on elements other than hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

"...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

What a load of pseudo-philosophical mumbo jumbo! Seriously. This isn't science, dude, this Wald dipping his toes into philosophy and coming across as a new age nutter.

So because H is fused in stars and it occurs in organic chemicals (NOT ALL OF WHICH ARE RELATED TO LIFE, I might add) then it must be that H and C are the ONLY things that could EVER be life???

Wow.

That's seriously woo-woo sh*t.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Is any of that relevant to life being based on elements other than hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen?

Apparently so. Wald talked about it. The fact that you didn't see the relation just shows this is yet another science you know nothing about but you THINK you do sufficient to call others "fools" when they fail to agree with your woo-woo bs.

 

[ding]

What a load of pseudo-philosophical mumbo jumbo! Seriously. This isn't science, dude, this Wald dipping his toes into philosophy and coming across as a new age nutter.

So because H is fused in stars and it occurs in organic chemicals (NOT ALL OF WHICH ARE RELATED TO LIFE, I might add) then it must be that H and C are the ONLY things that could EVER be life???

Wow.

That's seriously woo-woo sh*t.

uh huh.... cool story.

YourDictionary: Definitions and Meanings From Over a Dozen Trusted Dictionary Sources

Our online dictionary is the best source for definitions and origins of words, meanings of concepts, example sentences, synonyms and antonyms, grammar tips, and more.

biography.yourdictionary.com

 

[ding]

Apparently so. Wald talked about it. The fact that you didn't see the relation just shows this is yet another science you know nothing about but you THINK you do sufficient to call others "fools" when they fail to agree with your woo-woo bs.

That would be showing it wasn't relevant, my dear, not showing it is relevant. So I'll ask it another way, how is that relevant?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

uh huh.... cool story.

YourDictionary: Definitions and Meanings From Over a Dozen Trusted Dictionary Sources

Our online dictionary is the best source for definitions and origins of words, meanings of concepts, example sentences, synonyms and antonyms, grammar tips, and more.

biography.yourdictionary.com

Appeal to authority. I was talking about the post you attributed to him. That wasn't science. That was philosophy (new age sh*t)

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

That would be showing it wasn't relevant,

The fact that YOU POSTED WALD'S DISCUSSION WHICH TALKED ABOUT IT means it wasn't relevant? WHy did you post it?

my dear, not showing it is relevant. So I'll ask it another way, how is that relevant?

If you don't understand Carbon Chemistry you can't say anything meaningful on it.

 

[ding]

Appeal to authority. I was talking about the post you attributed to him. That wasn't science. That was philosophy (new age sh*t)

More like pointing out to you who you were dismissing. And his observations were most certainly based upon science.

 

[ding]

The fact that YOU POSTED WALD'S DISCUSSION WHICH TALKED ABOUT IT means it wasn't relevant? WHy did you post it?

As proof that all life in the universe is based upon hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen as these 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. Sounds like science to me.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

More like pointing out to you who you were dismissing. And his observations were most certainly based upon science.

LOL.

You love you some appeal to authority. Doesn't have to make any sense, you just have their bona fides. LOL.

You know next to nothing about how science operates. Go home, poser.

 

[ding]

If you don't understand Carbon Chemistry you can't say anything meaningful on it.

So you are saying I can't say...

... that hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen 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.

 

[ding]

LOL.

You love you some appeal to authority. Doesn't have to make any sense, you just have their bona fides. LOL.

You know next to nothing about how science operates. Go home, poser.

Again... pointing out that you - an anonymous internet poster - are dismissing the scientific beliefs of a distinguished Nobel Laureate.

 

[ding]

You know next to nothing about how science operates. Go home, poser.

I'm more than happy to let others decide which one of us understands how science works.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

As proof that all life in the universe is based upon hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen as these are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations (i.e., those mimicking the inert gases)

Honestly I wish that made any sense. Because every element below C can form a completed outer shell octet.

That's what BONDING is about. Sheesh! Even Na creates a stable octet when it snags an e- from Cl.

What does that even MEAN???

The lightest elements make not only the tightest bonds,

What??? This treats all bonds as the same! They are nothing of the sort! What about IONIC BONDS? LOL.

You are talking here about COVALENT BONDS in carbon-based compounds but that isn't all bonding. What about Boron? It forms nice covalent bonds with O (you ever make slime with PVA glue and boric acid?). Boron is lighter than C.

hence the most stable molecules

That isn't even close to right. The bond enthalpy for C-C is 347 kJ/mol while the bond enthalpy for H-F is 565kJ/mol.

What do you mean "most stable"????

, 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

There's that orbital hybridization I was talking about. You know...the stuff you said is "irrelevant"? LOL. Here you are talking about it again.

Yes, double bonds are usually stronger. But that's not the only metric for life.

, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further. Sounds like science to me.

Funny thing is that all this talk about organic chemistry (and it IS very interesting chemistry) is that organic chemistry is NOT always and exclusively related to life. There is literally nothing special about organic chemistry in life vs non-life.

It occurs in both settings.

 

[ding]

If you don't understand Carbon Chemistry you can't say anything meaningful on it.

Again... how do carbon bonds have anything to do with life being based upon something other than carbon?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Again... pointing out that you - an anonymous internet poster - are dismissing the scientific beliefs of a distinguished Nobel Laureate.

And again, pointing out that you, an anonymous internet poster, don't really know what he's talking about from a technical point of view. Just because HE got a Nobel doesn't mean that every word out of his mouth is ipso facto gospel truth. And it CERTAINLY doesn't mean YOU know anything about it.

 

[ding]

Honestly I wish that made any sense. Because every element below C can form a completed outer shell octet.

That's what BONDING is about. Sheesh! Even Na creates a stable octet when it snags an e- from Cl.

What does that even MEAN???



What??? This treats all bonds as the same! They are nothing of the sort! What about IONIC BONDS? LOL.

You are talking here about COVALENT BONDS in carbon-based compounds but that isn't all bonding. What about Boron? It forms nice covalent bonds with O (you ever make slime with PVA glue and boric acid?). Boron is lighter than C.



That isn't even close to right. The bond enthalpy for C-C is 347 kJ/mol while the bond enthalpy for H-F is 565kJ/mol.

What do you mean "most stable"????



There's that orbital hybridization I was talking about. You know...the stuff you said is "irrelevant"? LOL. Here you are talking about it again.

Yes, double bonds are usually stronger. But that's not the only metric for life.



Funny thing is that all this talk about organic chemistry (and it IS very interesting chemistry) is that organic chemistry is NOT always and exclusively related to life. There is literally nothing special about organic chemistry in life vs non-life.

It occurs in both settings.

So what other elements besides hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen do you suppose life could be based upon?

 

[ding]

And again, pointing out that you, an anonymous internet poster, don't really know what he's talking about from a technical point of view. Just because HE got a Nobel doesn't mean that every word out of his mouth is ipso facto gospel truth. And it CERTAINLY doesn't mean YOU know anything about it.

Says the anonymous poster who dismissed a Nobel Laureate without ever stating which other elements besides hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen that life could be based upon.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

So what other elements besides hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen do you suppose life could be based upon?

I love how you dodged every point I made. Hilarious!

You are worse than a Creationist with their Gish Gallops.

Sheesh.

 

[ding]

I love how you dodged every point I made. Hilarious!

You are worse than a Creationist with their Gish Gallops.

Sheesh.

Look... you are arguing that life isn't necessarily limited to being based upon hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen without having anything to back it up. I at least provided expert testimony on why all life in the universe must be based upon hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen.

Here's another one too...

What are the Ingredients of Life?

Life on Earth is usually, but not always, composed of six ingredients. Life's Little Mysteries tells you which ones, and why they are considered the building blocks of life.

www.livescience.com

and another one....

How six elements came together to form life on Earth

How did life begin? We will never know with certainty what the Earth was like four billion years ago, or the kinds of reactions that led to the emergence of life at that time, but there is another way to pose the question. If we ask "how can life begin?" instead of "how did life begin," that...

blog.oup.com

and another one...

2 A Sketch of the Chemistry Behind Known Carbon-based Life on Earth | The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems | The National Academies Press

Read chapter 2 A Sketch of the Chemistry Behind Known Carbon-based Life on Earth: The search for life in the solar system and beyond has to date been gov...

nap.nationalacademies.org