exchemist

I found this rather interesting paper which goes into the reactions in Titan’s atmosphere n some detail: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsearthspacechem.2c00041 It seems one route for acetylene formation involves the methylene radical CH2, in its triplet state, i.e. with 2 unpaired electrons. Two of these can produce acetylene plus hydrogen, apparently. But the chemistry of Titan’s atmosphere is clearly very complex. One key feature is it is a reducing atmosphere, i.e. with no oxygen present. It is this that allows all these hydrocarbon fragments to form and react with one another.

Regarding your ( c ) , if a free radical is formed it will be CH₃• rather than CH₃⁻, and the hydrogen released will be H• rather than H+. The dot denotes an unpaired electron, which makes the species reactive. There is no charge separation so both species are uncharged. CH₃• is known as a methyl radical. A pair of these certainly combine to give ethane, C₂H₆. However the formation of acetylene, HC≡CH, would need further explanation. I could imagine methyl radicals removing H from ethane, perhaps, but 4 would have to be removed before you reached acetylene so this route seems a bit doubtful. Is there a further explanation in Lorentz's book for how acetylene is formed?

Also seems to have been the golden age of teleosts, ammonites, belemnites and, not least, coccoliths, which are responsible for the chalk that gives this period its name. And then there was the takeover of the angiosperms. So perhaps a golden age of life in general.

Good idea. You are now on my Ignore list.

It seems not.

"Quantum" isn't a thing. It is an adjective, or else a noun as in "a quantum" of something. The idea of a singularity at the start of the universe is entirely hypothetical and uncertain. Do not rely on it having been real.

I explained to you almost a year ago that your story is historically completely wrong. Anything the reader "learns" from it will therefore be misinformation. Einstein played no part in any arms race. He did not share information with any military use with both the USA and the USSR. So nobody will use this silly store in any "curriculum", thank God. It is not the dialogue that is silly. It is the false information about Einstein and WW2. If you think it presents "deeper ideas" you are deluding yourself. You have no chance of presenting deeper ideas if you make up rubbish.

Not really. I think love between demanding individuals always involves a certain amount of challenge and proving of one to the other. I think this is healthy and strengthens the bond, even though a certain amount of anxiety is generated in the process. A relationship without challenge would become complacent and dull after a while - and love might fade. (Full disclosure: I was married to an intellectually sharp Parisian woman with definite standards and expectations. She was just what I needed to keep me on my toes.)

Good, at last we are getting some proper information. Thank you. Looking at the first of these, the point it makes appears to be different from what you seem to be suggesting. It is saying that the behaviour of organisms influences how they evolve. I don’t think anyone would have any difficulty with that. There’s an example here: https://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/research/projects/behaviour-evolution.html of how bears beginning to hunt fish in the sea led to the evolution of the polar bear as a distinct species. But this is not to suggest that bears decided to adapt themselves to swimming in Arctic waters. The adaptation followed the emerging new behaviour, because utilising this food source improved reproductive success. So this seems to be an example of teleonomy rather than teleology: a fairly important distinction to draw.

The way I read the abstract, it is just announcing a project to test the hypothesis, using antirrhinum (snapdragon), rather than reporting results of a study. But it would be interesting to read the results in due course. Let's hope they avoid too many buzzwords 😁.............

You never did provide that reference to Pigliucci for me, did you? I don't believe you have read any of these references you claim support your notion. You seem to have extraordinary trouble locating them. I share the suspicion of others that many, or perhaps even all, don't even exist. Listing references you have not read is deceit.

Agree apart from your “therefore”. Augustine (of Hippo, writing in about 200AD) just says mankind is destined to resemble God more closely, not that this is because of any current resemblance. What he writes seems consistent with the Christian teaching that Man possesses an immortal soul that can enjoy eternal life with God in heaven. (But I must admit that these early Fathers of the Church wrote in terms of abstract theology that are not always obvious in meaning to those of us who have not studied theology.) The fact that Augustine says this image is that of the Trinity makes clear the image he is talking about is a theological abstraction, rather than a physical resemblance.

I didn’t cross the equator until I was into my 30s. But I think I had by then realised that water in the N hemisphere doesn’t always turn the same way, i.e. in all plugholes. My grandfather was a civil engineer and liked to tease me because I was studying science at school. His chemistry terminology was Edwardian and flummoxed me completely. He would speak of “muriate of potash”, which at the time I had no idea was just KCl. He was an eccentric and entertaining man.

Well it's not one I really believed, but my maternal grandfather once tried to con me into believing that the reason his dining room carpet used to gradually move anticlockwise so that it periodically needed straightening, was due to the Coriolis Effect. And I think I did for a while believe that one about water swirling down the plughole in opposite directions in the northern and southern hemispheres.

Well we all have to survive, so that hardly narrows the field much.

Yes I think “God-fearing” needs to be read in the context of language at the time of the Authorised Version. Fear of God meant awe and respect as well as being frightened or being in terror. I have never bought the argument of some that, but for this “fear” , they would go around murdering, raping and stealing. What kind of monsters are they claiming to be? It’s ridiculous.

Well that’s true.😁

In my experience of (European mainstream) Christianity, fear of eternal damnation plays a vanishingly small role in moulding people’s attitudes and behaviour. Preaching is mostly about the love of God and our obligation to love one another and what that means. Hellfire sermons seem a rather quaint, c.19th concept. But I admit I do not have experience of wacky sects in the US Bible Belt. The examples of notable hellfire preachers in the Wiki article seem to bear this, being either from long ago or in the USA. It was different in medieval times, I think. In those days life was short and uncertain, and death could come at any moment, so people may well have felt divine judgement was just around the corner.

Oh I read his comment as making the opposite point: that the moral code of atheists owes nothing to religion but comes out the same.

I think you two are agreeing, and also agreeing with me. Religions are (were) one way of expressing and formalising moral codes that already existed in more or less inchoate form in the societies in question.

You speak of "cognition or even consciousness" as an "agency". That would be mysterious, would it not?

And in fact there are quite a lot, according to my Gen Z son, who are voile et vapeur so resist any such simple pigeonholing.

I didn't say that. I look forward to reading what Pigliucci has to say.

This is Godwin's Law in operation. I suggest we stop this line of discussion and get back on topic.

Not at all. The evidence being uncovered suggests no mysterious "agency". It is just a more subtle process than purely simple mutation followed by natural selection. There is no evidence of any mechanism at work that is not explicable by means of biology. If you think there is, you are mistaken. If you care to cite a specific example, we can go through it and explain it to you.