Leaderboard

Just like that, eh? 😀 Aside from the sheer impracticability of anything so complex, one basic difficulty is that Si is less good at catenation, i.e. forming long chains. Wiki has a nice discussion of catenation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catenation. You will see that although Si can be made to form chains, these tend to be unstable relative to other compounds at higher number of catenated atoms. The valence p orbitals of Si will be more diffuse than those of C because of the higher principal quantum number. This not only makes the Si-Si σ-bond weaker than the C-C bond, but will be especially an issue when it comes to forming π-bonds. So, for instance, any protein-like molecule made from Si in place of C would almost certainly be less stable, not more, than the C-based original. Carbon really does seem uniquely suitable for developing a viable biochemistry.

I'm a pure hobbyist, so just do it for fun. I mostly stumble around trying to figure things out for myself. Of course, this often leads to my doing things the hard way, simply because I don't realize that there is a simpler, quicker method. Kudos to your son, I don't think I would ever try to take on a project that big. About the longest thing I've attempted was this recreation of a sequence from a "Lost in Space" episode, and most of the work involved was with the models, since the animation was pretty straight forward.

Saying that the emergence of life was "guided" puts them squarely into the "divine intervention" camp.

This is begging the question, again. Who says there is “information” that “guides the emergence of life”? Why should life’s emergence be “guided”? And if so, how could that possibly work? How could “information” , whatever you mean by that, physically affect pre-biotic chemistry? How does “information” “flow”, in your opinion? This all sounds as if you are trying the edge the discussion towards “intelligent design” without admitting it.

Don't worry, it is tricky. So I haven't told you all of it. I am trying to do it in bite sized chunks. When you get to the level of Einstein you can dispense with the sigmas altogether, using what is known as the einstein convention. Sadly this is where you will most likely come across the need. Anyway. Yes you can use any letter, but n is by far the most common, followed by i. Remember they are the index, which tells you how many terms you are adding up or how many times you are repeating the formula with differnt values. That is why they have to be integers. Yes the bottom one is the start point (0 is often acceptable but adding zero doesn't add much) And the top one is the last or end one (unless it is infinity where this is no end) Yes that is correct, Gold star point. I will come onto vectors because that is your most likely use. No it is simply a number, but I call it after the sigma not infront of (ie not before) Yes they do end up with a single output, but you will see when I do vectors the formulae are more complicated. I wish . I did invent one once and actually thought about going into production. But there are too many obstacles in blighty. https://editor.codecogs.com/ or https://www.sciweavers.org/free-online-latex-equation-editor

This must be done ALWAYS, regardless of the date! It is not about parking heads, but about flushing the cache from memory to device. Without this, the file system can be corrupted and data lost. For the same reason, click "Start > Turn off computer" instead of simply pressing the power button.

I don't think this is a question of religion. For more than a century America has been the most powerful cultural influence in the world, what happens in America is transmitted across the world; infecting the allies first. You have Trump and we follow with our copy, Boris and Nigel. I think it's more a question of the realisation that the American dream can only be won by the house, so let's make our house impenetrable with a prayer. Fundamentally, I think the USA is starting to collapse under it's own gravity...

EXACTLY! The continued refusal to accept abiogenesis as an objective fact implies @Luc Turpin wants to leave the door open to processes other than natural ones, i.e. magic poofing. I note you cannot agree to my point 1. I regard that as a warning light that you may be a creationist, perhaps of the cdesign proponentsist variety. So I'm afraid I continue to suspect you may not be what you say you are. Regarding this "encoding information" tosh, it is still just as meaningless as it was when I criticised you for it before. What are you talking about? How would "information" be transmitted to molecules so as to react them together and organise them into the structures we think are important for biological processes. This is just Chopra-esque hand waving woo.

So you are not questioning abiogenesis, you are wondering how it works, just like everyone else. Yet the language you continually use suggests otherwise. You need to pick a side and use the appropriate language if you want this conversation to go anywhere.

Bet he didn't include this though:

Abiogenesis involves the search for a 'scientific' explanation for how life may have begun. If you 'challenge' it, you are suggesting an explanation other than one that is 'scientific'. If the mechanism is not natural, supernatural seems to be the only alternative. That is why you are getting so much pushback, despite your claims you are not suggesting some supernatural mechanism.

It will if Trump keeps his promise to his 'beautiful Christians'. Of course, he may renege on it if his more influential 'advisors' disapprove.

If one is aware of the research about population collapse, which is the path the world is currently on, the question isn't who should have children, it's who shouldn't have children. This isn't some far off problem. By 2030, countries in all regions of the world except for Africa and the Middle East will have fertility rates lower than replacement levels - i.e. their populations will begin self-eradicating. https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/newsroom/news-releases/lancet-dramatic-declines-global-fertility-rates-set-transform

This always seemed like an extremist stance. The quotes from the Bible say that green plants are given for food, but it never says "Don't eat the animals!" the way it says "Don't eat apples from that tree over there!" Just like abortion and divorce, isn't it possible their god disapproves of something but allows it in some circumstances? And the idea that all those obligate carnivores were munching nuts and dandelions is just crazy, as is the idea that their god changed up the physiology of everything after A&E got too curious. I don't think there's anything unethical about eating meat, not back then, not today. Animal husbandry and agriculture upgraded us from hunters and gatherers. What we should focus on is being able to raise our food animals without destroying the habitats of all the non-food animals we live alongside of. Diversity in all things. No more monocropping, no more factory farming. There are better ways.

Your assumption is Chistian is the name of the religion, your ideology assumes correctness...