Originally posted by dj2beckerOn earth it might get reduced after having been transformed into an amino acid. Conditions in space are totally differant, radiation comes in bundles and a definite trajectory, in other words there are gaps between these bundles so there can be a conversion and a long time before another quanta of energy whacks it. Besides that, certain membranes can form and reduce the damage to those molecules inside, a non living cell form that has been proven to exist in nature. Those cell can provide the shelter from some forms of energy to allow more complex molecules to be built up inside.
[b]First off, UV light causes DNA damage and cancer by dimerizing thymine, it doesn't break down anything, it actually attaches two things (thymine molecules) to each other.
But that is less complex than a thymine and adenine attachment is it not?
We absorb some solar energy through our skin to generate vitamins.
Plants absorb solar energy ...[text shortened]... otherwise the high energy radiation destroys them as quickly as they are produced.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseYou sound like a speculating man...
On earth it might get reduced after having been transformed into an amino acid. Conditions in space are totally differant, radiation comes in bundles and a definite trajectory, in other words there are gaps between these bundles so there can be a conversion and a long time before another quanta of energy whacks it. Besides that, certain membranes can form a ...[text shortened]... ide the shelter from some forms of energy to allow more complex molecules to be built up inside.
Do you have any clue how many different amino acids are needed to form the simplest of proteins?
Then you still don't have life...
Originally posted by dj2beckerThat would make it even with your God who hasn't made rocks live either.
Not intelligent enough to make the rocks live, I don't think...
Why don't you simply admit that your assertion that there wasn't any such thing as a non-intelligent sorting mechanism is just flat out wrong?
Originally posted by dj2beckerSo that is your best response to my yes or no question? Do you know what a hydrogen molecule is? Trying to pretend that I don't understand chemistry up to at least the grade 9 level wont help you here.
Do you have the foggiest notion what the difference between a chemical compound and a single molecule is?
Now I suggest you get yourself a grade 9 chemistry textbook.
You are really wasting my time.
I asked you a direct question and you have failed to give an answer.
I think you need to re-read my post and answer the question. If you do not I will take it as an admission that you were wrong and stop bothering with this thread as I have successfully proved my point.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by no1marauderThat would make it even with your God who hasn't made rocks live either.
That would make it even with your God who hasn't made rocks live either.
Why don't you simply admit that your assertion that there wasn't any such thing as a non-intelligent sorting mechanism is just flat out wrong?
People believe God made man from the dust of the earth.
Abiogenesis theory has it that for millions of years it rained on a rock and man arose from that mush...
Why don't you simply admit that your assertion that there wasn't any such thing as a non-intelligent sorting mechanism is just flat out wrong?
I simply cannot see how intelligence can arise from non-intelligence.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by scottishinnzUnless there is free hydrogen in the mixture no amino acids form. Also if there is the slightest trace of oxygen in the mixture no amino acids form.
20.
But you don't need that many to catalyse many chemical reactions.
It was proposed (in fact put forward as proven!), that the earth did indeed have such an atmosphere at some stage.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead4.
So that is your best response to my yes or no question? Do you know what a hydrogen molecule is? Trying to pretend that I don't understand chemistry up to at least the grade 9 level wont help you here.
I asked you a direct question and you have failed to give an answer.
I think you need to re-read my post and answer the question. If you do not I will ...[text shortened]... that you were wrong and stop bothering with this thread as I have successfully proved my point.
Originally posted by dj2becker
It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex.
So I will ask you a yes or no question:
If left to itself will a single hydrogen molecule break apart into two separate hydrogen atoms?
Now I am going to type this extra specially slow, and I suggest you clean your glasses before you attempt to read this, and I will put it in caps so that you won't have any excuse why you could not understand it...
I said, "CHEMICAL COMPUNDS ULTIMATELY BREAK INTO SIMPLER MATERIALS..."
THE HYDROGEN MOLECULE IS NOT AND I REPEAT, NOT A CHEMICAL COMPOUND. AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHY THIS IS THE CASE I AGAIN SUGGEST THAT YOU READ A GRADE 9 CHEMISTRY TEXT BOOK.
Hint: A chemical compound is a chemical substance consisting of two or more different chemically bonded chemical elements, with a fixed ratio determining the composition. The ratio of each element is usually expressed by chemical formula. For example, water (H2O) is a compound consisting of two hydrogen atoms bonded to an oxygen atom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_compound
Originally posted by dj2beckerNow I am going to type this extra specially slow, and I suggest you clean your glasses before you attempt to read this, and I will put it in caps so that you won't have any excuse why you could not understand it...
Now I am going to type this extra specially slow, and I suggest you clean your glasses before you attempt to read this, and I will put it in caps so that you won't have any excuse why you could not understand it...
I said, "CHEMICAL [b]COMPUNDS ULTIMATELY BREAK INTO SIMPLER MATERIALS..."
THE HYDROGEN MOLECULE IS NOT AND I REPEAT, [ ...[text shortened]... DON'T KNOW WHY THIS IS THE CASE I AGAIN SUGGEST THAT YOU READ A GRADE 9 CHEMISTRY TEXT BOOK.[/b]
ARE YOU CAPABLE OF ANSWERING THE FOLLOWING QUESTION WITH A YES OR NO?
IF LEFT TO ITSELF WILL A SINGLE HYDROGEN MOLECULE BREAK APART INTO TWO SEPARATE HYDROGEN ATOMS?
Hint: at no point have I stated or implied that the hydrogen molecule is a chemical compound.
Hint2:Resorting to attempts at ridiculing me or my lowly maths degree wont get you anywhere.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe answer is no and you know it.
Now I am going to type this extra specially slow, and I suggest you clean your glasses before you attempt to read this, and I will put it in caps so that you won't have any excuse why you could not understand it...
ARE YOU CAPABLE OF ANSWERING THE FOLLOWING QUESTION WITH A YES OR NO?
IF LEFT TO ITSELF WILL A SINGLE HYDROGEN MOLECULE BREAK APART INTO T ...[text shortened]...
Hint2:Resorting to attempts at ridiculing me or my lowly maths degree wont get you anywhere.
Now my question is what does that have to do with the price of eggs?