CI
I'm into this stuff so I know a lot of it off the top of my head. I'll look around when I get the chance. I actually hate the web as a source of info. I like textbooks and journals and a few conversational level mags. But I'll get back to you on it.
If you would like to get a good laymen's level guide to astronomy, for instance, I would suggest Sky and Telescope magazine. Costs about $48 a year and opens all info on thier web site to you. I think you would like it.
EDIT:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/benzene_space_010125.html
If you look at the date of this article you will see this is hardly NEW news.
I always thought carbon was necessary, but hadn't realized benzene was also necessary for the evolution of life forms. My knowledge of chemistry is close to zero, so don't mind my ignorance. I have also thought protein was the basis of most elements.
Good link; I've skimmed over it and will return to it again later today.
Thanks for your time and interest.
Many of the most important compounds in the human body have benzene as a major building block. For instance cholesterol, which has recently gotten a bad rap, but is the precursor to many of the steroidal compounds in your body is made up of a backbone of benzene rings.
Here is a link to the structure of cholesterol.
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/molecules/chol.html
The three six carbon (C) rings at bottom left are benzene rings.
Interestingly this representation of chemical compounds was invented by the guy who discovered benzene, i.e. Kekule structures.
P.S. The basic difference between your understanding of chemistry and some of the posters on this thread is that you admit the lack of knowledge instead of posing as if you hand the knowledge. But you probably knew that.
maporsche wrote:real life wrote:maporsche wrote:I always found this experiment interesting.
WAAAAYYY back in '53 a couple of pretty smart guys actually produced oraganic matter from in-organic matter.
Quote:
In 1953, taking their cue from Oparin and Haldane, the chemist Stanley L. Miller working under Harold C. Urey carried out an experiment on the "primeval soup". Within two weeks a racemic mixture, containing 13 of the 22 amino acids used to synthesize proteins in cells, had formed from the highly reduced mixture of methane, ammonia, water vapor and hydrogen. While Miller and Urey did not actually create life, they demonstrated that more complex molecules could emerge spontaneously from simpler chemicals. The environment simulated atmospheric conditions as the researchers understood them to have been on the primeval earth, including an external energy source in the form of a spark, representing lightning, and an atmosphere largely devoid of oxygen. Since that time there have been other experiments that continue to look into possible ways for life to have formed from non-living chemicals, e.g. the experiments conducted by Joan Oró in 1961.
Sorry, you are right.
I keep forgetting how closely this intricately planned experiment resembles blind chance.
They created conditions like they were on the earth 3.5 billion years ago. They then provided a spark, and watched what happened.
Actually, it is far from established fact that the earth EVER had the conditions postulated by Miller and Urey.
Quote:Three billion years ago, the Sun which lights our solar system was thirty percent less luminous than it is today. Many people believe that if the Earth's atmosphere was the same then as it is today, the oceans would be frozen. But recently, Jeffrey Bada of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography has proposed that the oceans would not completely freeze. Instead, he calculates that only the top 300 meters of the ocean would freeze over.
from
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/sites.html
A little more about this:
from
http://www.esse.ou.edu/fund_concepts/Fundamental_Concepts5/The_Paradox_of_the_Faint_Young_Sun.html
Quote:THE PARADOX OF THE FAINT YOUNG SUN
From the study of many stars of many different types, astrophysicists have established a model for the evolution of a typical star. All stars are born, live for a period of time, and then die. The details depend strongly on the initial mass of the star, but the energy output from every star varies throughout its life.
As first pointed out by Sagan and Mullen (1972), when this model is applied to the Sun, a paradox appears to result.
Astrophysicists are in general agreement that as star like the Sun ages, the fusion processes at its core gradually intensify. Looking backwards, this means that around 4 billion years ago, the Sun was only about 75% as bright as it is today.
This in turn means that Earth should have been completely covered with ice for most of its history. The paradox arises from the fact that all geological evidence shows that there was plenty of liquid water as far back as about 4 billion years ago.
How does one resolve the seeming discrepancy between the astrophysical evidence supporting evolution (warming) of the Sun over time with the geological evidence that Earth from its earliest days has always had liquid water present on the surface?
I see you've decided to change the topic rather than deal with the problems with your previous arguments, RL.
By the way.. you might have missed this..
Quote:Three billion years ago, the Sun which lights our solar system was thirty percent less luminous than it is today. Many people believe that if the Earth's atmosphere was the same then as it is today, the oceans would be frozen.
Quote:In 1953, taking their cue from Oparin and Haldane, the chemist Stanley L. Miller working under Harold C. Urey carried out an experiment on the "primeval soup". Within two weeks a racemic mixture, containing 13 of the 22 amino acids used to synthesize proteins in cells, had formed from the highly reduced mixture of methane, ammonia, water vapor and hydrogen. While Miller and Urey did not actually create life, they demonstrated that more complex molecules could emerge spontaneously from simpler chemicals. The environment simulated atmospheric conditions as the researchers understood them to have been on the primeval earth, including an external energy source in the form of a spark, representing lightning, and an atmosphere largely devoid of oxygen.
So no one really thinks that the atmosphere was the same 3.5 billion years ago. Methane contributes greatly to the green house effect. Less light doesn't necessarily mean less heat. Oops. We are back to the 2nd law of thermodynamics again. Energy transfer requires us to look at the energy gained from the sun and the energy radiated from the earth. But then you have already shown you don't want to include energy transfer when you discuss the 2nd law.
That "paradox" (note the use of the verb form "appears" in the first sentence of the second sentence) is predicated upon an assumption that the atmospheric composition of the young earth was the same as it is now, in which circumstance there would likely be no liquid water. There is more than sufficient abundant evidence that the early atmosphere not only bore no resemblance to the current atmosphere (almost no atmospheric oxygen, for one glaring difference), but was full of greenhouse gases, not the least dramatic of which was methane in large quantity.
A quick google search for the criterion "faint young sun" returned 1,820,000 results in 0.15 seconds--so anyone who considers this important enough to research can find plenty to read. And, predictably, a good deal of it is from crackpot creationist sites, long on skeptical sneers, and short on science. Doubtlessly, "real life" can easily find more grist for his bullshit mill.
Parados was in there more quickly with his bullshit detector than was i. But it doesn't take much knowledge of the probable conditions of the young earth to have an answer to that crap.
Setanta wrote:That "paradox" (note the use of the verb form "appears" in the first sentence of the second sentence) is predicated upon an assumption that the atmospheric composition of the young earth was the same as it is now, in which circumstance there would likely be no liquid water. There is more than sufficient abundant evidence that the early atmosphere not only bore no resemblance to the current atmosphere (almost no atmospheric oxygen, for one glaring difference), but was full of greenhouse gases, not the least dramatic of which was methane in large quantity.
A quick google search for the criterion "faint young sun" returned 1,820,000 results in 0.15 seconds--so anyone who considers this important enough to research can find plenty to read. And, predictably, a good deal of it is from crackpot creationist sites, long on skeptical sneers, and short on science. Doubtlessly, "real life" can easily find more grist for his bullshit mill.
Dr Bada, who I referenced and is no doubt aware of your objection and more, calculated that the top 300 meters of the ocean would be frozen.
Can you tell us why you think he's wrong?
I have already explained that, and so has Parados. One can only assume that you think the casual reader here is too stupid to have seen the objection which both Parados and i raised.
real life wrote:Many people believe that if the Earth's atmosphere was the same then as it is today[/u], the oceans would be frozen. But recently, Jeffrey Bada of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography has proposed that the oceans would not completely freeze. Instead, he calculates that only the top 300 meters of the ocean would freeze over.
Does it entertain you to be so mindlessly obtuse?
real life wrote:Setanta wrote:That "paradox" (note the use of the verb form "appears" in the first sentence of the second sentence) is predicated upon an assumption that the atmospheric composition of the young earth was the same as it is now, in which circumstance there would likely be no liquid water. There is more than sufficient abundant evidence that the early atmosphere not only bore no resemblance to the current atmosphere (almost no atmospheric oxygen, for one glaring difference), but was full of greenhouse gases, not the least dramatic of which was methane in large quantity.
A quick google search for the criterion "faint young sun" returned 1,820,000 results in 0.15 seconds--so anyone who considers this important enough to research can find plenty to read. And, predictably, a good deal of it is from crackpot creationist sites, long on skeptical sneers, and short on science. Doubtlessly, "real life" can easily find more grist for his bullshit mill.
Dr Bada, who I referenced and is no doubt aware of your objection and more, calculated that the top 300 meters of the ocean would be frozen.
Can you tell us why you think he's wrong?
Brada was pointing out that even IF the atmosphere was the same there WOULD still be liquid water on the earth unlike those that claim there could be no liquid water so life couldn't have started.
I could write a thesis on Real Lie's "Young Sun" B.S. but why bother. Let me just point out two things that define his idiocy. First of all Sagan was a traditional mainstream Astronomer and was tireless in bringing REAL SCIENCE to the lay audience. He would have plenty'o ridicule for everything Real Lie says. Second, isn't it amazing how Real Lie can move from a young Earth scenario to one that talks about 5+ million year old geologic strata and then to stellar evolution, which in our Sun's particular case is on the timeframe of 10+ BILLION years, and back again!
If anyone ever asks you why ID/Creationism shouldn't be taught in science class just point them to Real Lie's posts and ask them how they would like it if their children's school day was made up of this kind of B.S. Talk about scared straight!!!
TCR, The real problem lies in the simple fact that their fears are based on eternal hell-fire. Their ability to rationalize the illogical and senseless god creation is but a symptom of their overall inability to think for themselves.
They play mind-games by themselves to manipulate facts into fiction. It's a self-defense mechanism - beyond their control.
That someone like Real Lie is so pathetic you have to look at the information on the links he posts and basically explain to him what the post was trying to say before you can even begin to refute it is bizarre. That about 30% of the adults in the U.S. would agree with his B.S. is something our country may live to regret for the next 100 years.
How many people will needlessly suffer and die because we can't do real stem cell research, for example. They don't want to allow it, they don't have a clue why but they don't want to allow it. Remember we even elect these idiots to the presidency.
And twice at that! Hopeless.
neo, You gave the wrong response to the right post by TCR. Evolution and stem cell research are relative issues.
cicerone imposter wrote:neo, You gave the wrong response to the right post by TCR. Evolution and stem cell research are relative issues.
Well, technically, all medical research is related to evolution, as it explains similarities between species, thus justifying animal research in a scientific manner.
Nope, just don't respond to Real Lie. Still point out the lies from time to time. Although Parados does it religiously and does it better; almost makes a science out of it. Two puns intended!
If you could get my client in gear I wouldn't have the time and you could really get rid of me. Then you would only be stuck with Ros, Parado, Setana, USA, etc, etc.
