Replies

VadeRetro, valence shell collapse (meaning total energy level collapse, partial fill of energy level, anything to make the valence energy level stable) is the basis of chemistry.

You'd think chemistry would have heard of "valence shell collapse" then. It has not. If all you are saying is that chemical attractions and reactions depend upon outer electron shells, you once again can't talk. Anyway, you are thus saying that every chemical reaction, e.g. hydrogen burning in oxygen to form water, is "valence shell collapse." But each hydrogen gave up its last/only electron. Did its valence shell "collapse" or is it just gone? The oxygen gained two new electrons to fill its valence shell. Is the shell collapsed or just full?

Using your approved expansion for "valence" shell collapse", your objection to a self-replicator self-replicating in a tepid-to-warm soup either doesn't make any sense or is wrong.

"This system is must be constantly supplied with energies way out of porportion to the energies require by the self-replicator's in order to facilitate the self-replication (IE and prevent ~~valence shell collapse~~ some kind of chemical reaction, any kind through non self-replicating bonding)."

The self-replicator is auto-catalytic. (There's a new big word you can throw around to snow the dummies.) A catalyst, as you'll learn someday, facilitates specific reactions. It prevents the any-old-random reaction from messing things up, basically because at any given stage the most probable next reaction is the one that favors the process being catalyzed. Sometimes the "wrong" reaction does happen, but it's a big soup and there's lots of time. After the self-replicator exists, "wrong" reactions can be referred to as "mutations." Some will be bad, some neutral, some better than the original.

And at any rate, your objection about energies ("This system is must be constantly supplied with energies way out of porportion to the energies require by the self-replicator's ...") remains wrong and had in fact been answered all the time that you were screaming and pouting that it had not.

Maybe you'd better just finish your chem homework for your High School class and forget the imposture you're attempting on this thread, kid. You're just babbling here. Babbling.

Do I really need to explain the fundamentals of chemistry to you? Valence shell collapse--either through complete filling, partial filling, or evacuation of the valence shell--is the basis for all of chemistry and is an extension of the second law of thermodynamics (that the overall change of the universe is towards disorder). Collapse means the potential energy decreases dramatically and non-linearly once those conditions are met.

Hydrogen loses its electron in its s orbital and hence has an unrestrained z effective (nuclear charge). It is essentially a proton that will be attracted to a region with an overall negative charge (as in an anion or polar molecule).

And are implying there is any evidence that a catalyst--a highly complex molecule that is not self-replicating--"evolved" along side a potentially self-replicating molecule by pure chance? And also that these two discrete molecules would someday meet? That is far-fetched to me.

That is why I suggested there must be an energy gradient (don't get upset over that word--JS used it too). However, then please look at my reply to JS for why a energy gradient is quite finicky.

What are the two types of polymerization. 1) Dehydration: basically a simple molecule is "booted" from an end of a carbon-based monomer on two molecules and the resulting opposite polarities (on the two ends of the two monomers) join together. I don't exactly know the cause of this for inorganic chem, but for organic chem it is usually a catalyst that performs this (IE in DNA's replication process a catalyst goes down the strands and separates their hydrogen bonds). Dehydration, as far as I know (and I will ask my professor, Dr. Martin Zanni, tomorrow), cannot occur in the presense of water.

2) Addition: you start of with a surplus of some doubled bonded (C=C) organic molecules. You then add a free radical of your choice (has an unpaired single electron). It contacts with the recess (think female component) of the organic molecule, breaks the double bond (by "stealing" the pie bond electrons) and causes the attached carbon (also part of that former double bond) to have an unpaired electron). Now, this carbon is a free radical of sorts and will do the same thing to neighboring carbons in a cascade. You stop this procedure by adding another free radical to bond with the radicalized carbons (and neutralize the cascade). Examples of this type of polymerization are making long synthetic polymers. This is not used in cellular metabolism or composition (hence why it is essentially irrelevant to this topic).

VadeRetro, your self-justification for not understanding chemistry amuses me greatly. Even the simplest of chemical concepts (entropy, polymerization (both kinds), bonding physics) are unfamiliar to you--so you call them babble or nonsense. Trust me, a simple google search won't teach you chemistry. Attend a university and take the science route. It is certainly not to late--especially if you are motivated to learn it.

I don't know why this has turned into a personal issue for you. Despite your claims, I have never "scream[ed]," "pouted," or shown any such negative emotions. If I have and am unaward, please quote me. Despite what donh says, this is not a "battleground" for my "creationist" ambitions; I am here to apply what I've learned to the topic. This topic perked my interest because it seemed so out of place, with its points being either irrelevant or archane.

Believe me, I never wanted to assail any of you--that would be quite against my morals.

That all said, I no longer have time to devote the 1+ hours to this topic per night. You might choose not to believe me, but I do study science and mathematics very hard at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I am currently in a very demanding class (Chem 109--Advanced Chem) and I have a lab and exam coming up shortly. As much as I enjoy relaying what I have already modelled (aka conceptualized) from class, it really seems unnecessary to do in this debate. This is especially true when you close your mind to learning and instead prefer mocking. I'm sorry, but I don't have more time to teach basic chemistry.

Good luck to all of you (including Patrick Henry). The one parting advice I have for this thread is this: don't merely remember someone else's generalizations or a talking points; conceptualize and understand the mechanics of the system in question (ie energy ---> complex molecules). This is the true way to learn and apply what you are taught. If you don't do this, you are essentially just remembering someone's words.

Godspeed guys,

Loc123