Replies

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

Do I really need to explain the fundamentals of chemistry to you?

Now that your little performance seems to be over, I'll say that what you needed to do was just honestly and clearly formulate whatever your real objections are to the idea of abiogenesis. As it stands, I suspect that nobody at all really understands what is going on with you and nobody much cares.

Even as you helped yourself a little bit (I'll get to that), you continue to tear your credibility to shreds with the obvious insincerity of your performance. No, you don't need to explain basic chemistry. You need to talk straight.

First, taking it in order, here's where you continue to hurt yourself.

Collapse means the potential energy decreases dramatically and non-linearly once those conditions are met.

You explained that already. You simply reinforce that "valence shell collapse" is any chemical reaction at all, since any will at least for the moment decrease the potential energy in the outer electron shell. It's a perfect synonym for "chemical reaction," then, except the term "chemical reaction" is generally understood and avoids being falsely descriptive. "Valence shell collapse," a term apparently never used before on the Internet, draws a picture of a shell of electrons somehow falling inward, a thing which quantum mechanics does not allow. However, for that very reason, the term makes better "shuck-n-jive" than does "chemical reaction."

"Shuck-n-jive" is what we have. There has been a well-established pattern on this thread.

You post a seeming refutation of some point.
I or someone else points out a clear misstatement. (Miller's experiment didn't use polymers. Huge energies are not needed in catalyzed reactions...)
You retreat from the "strong interpretation" of your post. Somehow you meant to say something much more defensible. You went bizarrely wrong.
However, a closer look reveals that only the "strong interpretation" makes sense in the original context, as a rebuttal to the post it addressed. The "weak interpretation" is a complete non-sequitur in context.
That in turn makes it appear that you are either incompetent or that you intended to deceive, got caught, and dropped to a fall-back position.

I already answered you when you explained what you mean by "valence shell collapse." It does not make your objection to self-replication make sense. You answered by repeating what you mean by "valence shell collapse." Not a good performance.

You accuse everyone else of ignoring your answers. You have been answered. You spewed gobbledygook back. If anyone tried to decipher your gobbledygook, you just spewed some more.

But I'll move it along to where you help yourself, and where Yahoo! helps me. There are indeed two types of polymerization, just as you say, except that "dehydration polymerization" is a sub-type of "condensation polymerization." The "dehydration" involved, however, is the production of water from hydrogen and oxygen in the original reactants. It doesn't mean the original reactants have to be dehydrated. I suspect, just guessing here, that any problem posed by water is probably a quenching effect which might prevent breaking up some highly stable molecule, given that liquid water has a boiling point. To the extent that's a problem for abiogensis, that's what they're doing looking at montmorillionite clay catalysts, undersea vent environments, etc.

Nevertheless, the above would tend to repair your rep, if it weren't so late on this thread. Try to imagine you're debating some guy who swears he's a college Astronomy student. He also swears he thinks the Earth is flat and circled by the sun. He smoke-screens like mad, but even so he has all kinds of basic things wrong. Late in the game, it appears he actually does know something about Astronomy, although who knows where he got it or what kind of sense it makes in his head. Now you have to wonder how much he believed and how much he just thought he could put over on you.

IOW, if you really can't explain yourself any better than you have done here, you're going to flunk that Chem course. If you can, the more shame on you.

Do I really need to explain the fundamentals of chemistry to you?

Well, although you put my name on this post, you don't seem to have addressed any of my objections to your thesis. Good luck on your chemistry course. Try hard not to extrapolate theories about natural abiogenic impossibility from basic descriptions of chemical reactions on your final exam.

One final point--your contention, to the extent that I understand it, is that a primative self-reproducing entity would have to be a long chain polymer, like a DNA strand, only stupider-- and long-chain polymers don't just poop into existence for funsies. This is a common take on the question, it's been offered up here, in fact, and there have even been some interesting potential candidates offered up, but, in my opinion, and in the opinion of some scientists of note who deal with this subject, not too likely.

So whatever the merits of your argument, your target is not the only game in town; it is, in fact, something of a paper tiger-- so shooting it down does not end the debate.

...oh, and one other thing. What is this business about reactions inside a ribosome being possible because of it's hydrophobic or hydro-excluding, or whatever it is you are on about's nature? A ribosome is a molecule--in operation, two molecules rubbing & rotating together, in fact. How do you think this might be possible in a water free environment? How do you think the tRNA manages to transport amino acids to where the ribosome pair can grab them? Maybe you think ribosomes and tRNA have arms and legs?

But, fundamentally, my question is--why, if a ribosome can do it, do you think you can somehow demonstrate from the basic rules of chemistry, no less, that other entities can't? Are you aware that ribosomes are observed to undergo evolutionary change?

I respectfully submit that you should learn more about this story than is available from introductory chem before making such bold assertions.