Classic
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Is it made of cement?
Of course. And I've made sure not have anything in it that was made in china!
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
The Marxist rays penetrate cement! Do you have metal dental fillings?
-
Ilíon wrote:
[edit:] When H-O-O-H "degrades" into H-O-H and O (obviously, intermediate steps happen), does that not leave a "free" atmospheric O atom? And, since atmospheric O atoms are "unstable," will not two of them "join" to from a "stable" atmospheric O-O "atom?"
Hydrogen peroxide (in water or otherwise) is formed by superoxide (O2-) dismutation (which is a reduced form of atmospheric oxygen). O2- + O2- --> 2O2(2-) + 2H+ --> 2 H2O2 i.e. you need oxygen to create H2O2. When it degrades (2H2O2 --> 2H2O + O2), there is no net O2 created.
- F
Ah, perfect. I was trying to work out that reaction.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Is it made of cement?
Of course. And I've made sure not have anything in it that was made in china!
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Ilíon wrote:
[edit:] When H-O-O-H "degrades" into H-O-H and O (obviously, intermediate steps happen), does that not leave a "free" atmospheric O atom? And, since atmospheric O atoms are "unstable," will not two of them "join" to from a "stable" atmospheric O-O "atom?"
Hydrogen peroxide (in water or otherwise) is formed by superoxide (O2-) dismutation (which is a reduced form of atmospheric oxygen). O2- + O2- --> 2O2(2-) + 2H+ --> 2 H2O2 i.e. you need oxygen to create H2O2. When it degrades (2H2O2 --> 2H2O + O2), there is no net O2 created.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Hydrogen peroxide (in water or otherwise) is formed by superoxide (O2-) dismutation (which is a reduced form of atmospheric oxygen). O2- + O2- --> 2O2(2-) + 2H+ --> 2 H2O2 i.e. you need oxygen to create H2O2.
There is one-and-only-one possible chain of chemical reactions by which hydrogen peroxide is generated? I find that rather hard to believe. The initial assertion[^] was: "Because at one point before green plants, there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. No oxygen, no ozone." But a further assertion, which I introduced, is that the cells of plants and animals generate hydrogen peroxide ... with the implication being that *all* cells, going back to some hypothetical Last Common Ancestor, do this. Now, IF there was no atmospheric oxygen prior to photosynthesis, and IF hydrogen peroxide cannot be generated in the absence of atmospheric oxygen, then there is another interesting logical implication: no cell could possibly have generated hydrogen peroxide prior to the emergence of photosynthesis as a biological process. And this leads one to wonder: were all the multiple (and by then, separate) cell lineages descended from that hypothetical Last Common Ancestor packing (for hundreds of millions of years) genes which enabled them to begin generating and utilizing hydrogen peroxide once atmospheric oxygen *did* exist (because of photosynthesis)? Or, did all these lineages separately "learn" how to begin generating and utilizing hydrogen peroxide once atmospheric oxygen did exist?
Fisticuffs wrote:
When it degrades (2H2O2 --> 2H2O + O2), there is no net O2 created.
Who said anything about "created?" What *is* it with you people?
-
Ah, perfect. I was trying to work out that reaction.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Ah, perfect.
Yet, it's too bad that your (singular and plural) focus is on attempting to humiliate me ... rather than getting at some truth (even if it is minor).
73Zeppelin wrote:
Ah, perfect. I was trying to work out that reaction.
That *specific* reaction? Could it be because the assertion that that specific reaction is the only one possible ... so long as the assertion is unchallenged ... might serve to hide the fact that you are not humiliating me, but rather are but once again showing your own true colors? What's the problem? Didn't some other possible chain-of-reactions (of which you two are asserting there are none) serve your misguided purpose?
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Hydrogen peroxide (in water or otherwise) is formed by superoxide (O2-) dismutation (which is a reduced form of atmospheric oxygen). O2- + O2- --> 2O2(2-) + 2H+ --> 2 H2O2 i.e. you need oxygen to create H2O2.
There is one-and-only-one possible chain of chemical reactions by which hydrogen peroxide is generated? I find that rather hard to believe. The initial assertion[^] was: "Because at one point before green plants, there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. No oxygen, no ozone." But a further assertion, which I introduced, is that the cells of plants and animals generate hydrogen peroxide ... with the implication being that *all* cells, going back to some hypothetical Last Common Ancestor, do this. Now, IF there was no atmospheric oxygen prior to photosynthesis, and IF hydrogen peroxide cannot be generated in the absence of atmospheric oxygen, then there is another interesting logical implication: no cell could possibly have generated hydrogen peroxide prior to the emergence of photosynthesis as a biological process. And this leads one to wonder: were all the multiple (and by then, separate) cell lineages descended from that hypothetical Last Common Ancestor packing (for hundreds of millions of years) genes which enabled them to begin generating and utilizing hydrogen peroxide once atmospheric oxygen *did* exist (because of photosynthesis)? Or, did all these lineages separately "learn" how to begin generating and utilizing hydrogen peroxide once atmospheric oxygen did exist?
Fisticuffs wrote:
When it degrades (2H2O2 --> 2H2O + O2), there is no net O2 created.
Who said anything about "created?" What *is* it with you people?
Ilíon wrote:
There is one-and-only-one possible chain of chemical reactions by which hydrogen peroxide is generated?
As Stan pointed out, there are plenty of random reactions, but only a few are thermodynamically favourable and therefore meaningful.
Ilíon wrote:
Now, IF there was no atmospheric oxygen prior to photosynthesis, and IF hydrogen peroxide cannot be generated in the absence of atmospheric oxygen, then there is another interesting logical implication: no cell could possibly have generated hydrogen peroxide prior to the emergence of photosynthesis as a biological process.
Hydrogen peroxide is a byproduct of the electron transport chain (mostly due to the superoxide reactions above). Why should we even assume that cells needed hydrogen peroxide back then? It's more likely that H2O2 simply became a useful component of cells over time. There are numerous examples of evolutionary adaptation of a challenge to a necessary component of the organism. ERVs, mitochondria, etc.
Ilíon wrote:
And this leads one to wonder: were all the multiple (and by then, separate) cell lineages descended from that hypothetical Last Common Ancestor packing (for hundreds of millions of years) genes which enabled them to begin generating and utilizing hydrogen peroxide once atmospheric oxygen *did* exist (because of photosynthesis)? Or, did all these lineages separately "learn" how to begin generating and utilizing hydrogen peroxide once atmospheric oxygen did exist?
Anthropomorphism aside, certainly, because the cells that can catalyze the benign degradation of H2O2 and/or utilize it to protect against other free radicals have a SIGNIFICANT evolutionary advantage over those that didn't. Strong selective pressure = multiple forms of adaptation. If you're interested, go look up the vast array of peroxidases.
Ilíon wrote:
Who said anything about "created?" What *is* it with you people?
Generate, created, whatever. Is that distinction really important? Is that what you have to offer to this discussion? Enjoy your arguing on the internet.
- F
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
but here he is in real life... Just incredible. And from the looks of things he's got no intention of admitting he was/is wrong.
I suspect that, as a child, he was beaten or humiliated by his parents whenever he was wrong. It's a common form of abuse. Now, as an adult he's terrified of admitting failure -- especially since I suspect his vest pocket god is now the one who punishes him.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I suspect that, as a child, he was beaten or humiliated by his parents whenever he was wrong
It could also well be the opposite, parents unable to teach limits to the child, making him an asshole sure to be Superman when others are shit - I doubt humiliated children become overconfident adults
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
You can't break both without a large input of energy. Stripping the H from the OH- radical is extremely difficult because after H is removed the binding energy increases considerably. The entire point, which you seem unwilling to accept, is that atmospheric ozone arises from the oxygen cycle which has 4 main components: Photosynthesis (land) Photosynthesis (ocean) Photolysis of N2O Photolysis of H2O Oxygen is destroyed by the following processes: Aerobic Respiration Microbial Oxidation Combustion of Fossil Fuel (anthropogenic) Photochemical Oxidation Fixation of N2 by Lightning Fixation of N2 by Industry (anthropogenic) Oxidation of Volcanic Gases Chemical Weathering Surface Reaction of O3 It is not possible for Earth to sustain an oxygen atmosphere and thus an ozone layer from the production of oxygen/ozone/whatever you like by sunlight interactions with water, despite what your creationist cronies would have you believe.
73Zeppelin wrote:
The entire point, which you seem unwilling to accept, is that atmospheric ozone arises from the oxygen cycle which has 4 main components:
The entire point, which you are unwilling to admit, is that the initial assertion[^]: "Because at one point before green plants, there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. No oxygen, no ozone" is false.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
The entire point, which you seem unwilling to accept, is that atmospheric ozone arises from the oxygen cycle which has 4 main components:
The entire point, which you are unwilling to admit, is that the initial assertion[^]: "Because at one point before green plants, there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. No oxygen, no ozone" is false.
Ilíon wrote:
The entire point, which you are unwilling to admit, is that the initial assertion[^]: "Because at one point before green plants, there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. No oxygen, no ozone" is false.
The best evidence suggests that it is true. The evidence for no oxygen in the atmosphere comes from the radiographically dated rock layers from ~3.5 billion years ago that contain predominantly unoxidized iron deposits. After oxygen was introduced as a waste product from the photosynthetic aerobic prokaryotic ancestors that developed the ability to use H2O instead of H2S as electron donors, the more recent layers predominantly contain FeO. If you would like to suggest that there were sporadic molecules of oxygen around before photosynthesis, you would be correct (just like trace amounts of all kinds of other compounds) - but there were too few to produce any meaningful ozone concentration in the atmosphere that could be considered protective. Tim is right. You're wrong. Shut the fuck up already.
- F
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Ah, perfect.
Yet, it's too bad that your (singular and plural) focus is on attempting to humiliate me ... rather than getting at some truth (even if it is minor).
73Zeppelin wrote:
Ah, perfect. I was trying to work out that reaction.
That *specific* reaction? Could it be because the assertion that that specific reaction is the only one possible ... so long as the assertion is unchallenged ... might serve to hide the fact that you are not humiliating me, but rather are but once again showing your own true colors? What's the problem? Didn't some other possible chain-of-reactions (of which you two are asserting there are none) serve your misguided purpose?
-
Ilíon wrote:
The entire point, which you are unwilling to admit, is that the initial assertion[^]: "Because at one point before green plants, there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. No oxygen, no ozone" is false.
The best evidence suggests that it is true. The evidence for no oxygen in the atmosphere comes from the radiographically dated rock layers from ~3.5 billion years ago that contain predominantly unoxidized iron deposits. After oxygen was introduced as a waste product from the photosynthetic aerobic prokaryotic ancestors that developed the ability to use H2O instead of H2S as electron donors, the more recent layers predominantly contain FeO. If you would like to suggest that there were sporadic molecules of oxygen around before photosynthesis, you would be correct (just like trace amounts of all kinds of other compounds) - but there were too few to produce any meaningful ozone concentration in the atmosphere that could be considered protective. Tim is right. You're wrong. Shut the fuck up already.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Tim is right. You're wrong. Shut the fuck up already.
It's like nailing Jell-O to the wall with him; an exercise in absolute frustration. Thanks for your additions.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Ah, perfect.
Yet, it's too bad that your (singular and plural) focus is on attempting to humiliate me ... rather than getting at some truth (even if it is minor).
73Zeppelin wrote:
Ah, perfect. I was trying to work out that reaction.
That *specific* reaction? Could it be because the assertion that that specific reaction is the only one possible ... so long as the assertion is unchallenged ... might serve to hide the fact that you are not humiliating me, but rather are but once again showing your own true colors? What's the problem? Didn't some other possible chain-of-reactions (of which you two are asserting there are none) serve your misguided purpose?
Ilíon wrote:
Could it be because the assertion that that specific reaction is the only one possible ... so long as the assertion is unchallenged ... might serve to hide the fact that you are not humiliating me, but rather are but once again showing your own true colors? What's the problem? Didn't some other possible chain-of-reactions (of which you two are asserting there are none) serve your misguided purpose?
Cut the drivel. You were wrong. Just admit it for fuck's sake. It's not the end of the bloody world.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Tim is right. You're wrong. Shut the fuck up already.
It's like nailing Jell-O to the wall with him; an exercise in absolute frustration. Thanks for your additions.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
It's like nailing Jell-O to the wall with him; an exercise in absolute frustration.
and it's because you're inherently dishonest.
Ilíon wrote:
and it's because you're inherently dishonest.
Absolutely not. We already sorted out that one and it's you that's dishonest.
-
Oakman wrote:
Which explains why there aren't any large bodies of water in Earth. I'm glad he cleared that up.
Yeah me too. I was getting worried about a flood. Whew!
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
I was getting worried about a flood.
Naw, god already did the flood thing. He's gonna do fire next time. :laugh:
2 75 22 6
Tim Craig wrote:
Naw, god already did the flood thing.
I wonder how Noah managed to get a male and a female of all 360,000 species of beetles and 120,000 species of flies on his wooden boat. :laugh:
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Naw, god already did the flood thing.
I wonder how Noah managed to get a male and a female of all 360,000 species of beetles and 120,000 species of flies on his wooden boat. :laugh:
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
DemonPossessed wrote:
I wonder how Noah managed to get a male and a female of all 360,000 species of beetles and 120,000 species of flies on his wooden boat.
Oh, haven't you heard? He wasn't mandated to take a pair of every species. Only certain ones. :laugh:
2 75 22 6
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
It's like nailing Jell-O to the wall with him; an exercise in absolute frustration.
and it's because you're inherently dishonest.
-
DemonPossessed wrote:
I wonder how Noah managed to get a male and a female of all 360,000 species of beetles and 120,000 species of flies on his wooden boat.
Oh, haven't you heard? He wasn't mandated to take a pair of every species. Only certain ones. :laugh:
2 75 22 6
Actually, the majority of animals went in groups of SEVEN! :wtf:
Drawing on my fine command of language, I said nothing.
-
Actually, the majority of animals went in groups of SEVEN! :wtf:
Drawing on my fine command of language, I said nothing.