cypress

The earth does have the right conditions to spontaneously maintain life. But we don't know if it has or had the right conditions to spontaneously generate life from non-life. Available evidence suggests that the process of generating life from non-life requires purposeful design because life contains attributes that thus far, only a designing mind has been observed to generate. Since life on earth self-assembles versions if itself, functional specified information is a required element of biologically active systems because plans are required in order to generate specific functional systems. But only a mind has been shown to generate the quantities of functional information observed in live organisms. Until some natural process is discovered that does generate functional information at sufficient rates, we should consider that it is more plausible that the natural world alone does not include the right conditions to produce life from non-life.

By your measure, plagiarism would be a valid method of generating a new research paper or report. The example fails on two levels. 1) it is a copy of existing function and therefore not new. 2) Stepping off and back onto a target, which is something completely within the capability of a pure random walk is not outside what would be predicted from information entropy and information theory. The balance of your argument is irrelevant . Generation of functional information by intentional design is observed daily. The question being asked is what other than design is known to be capable of generating functional information? I am not speculating about who or what designed life. No it is not simpler or more correct to suggest that because we might not know what caused a particular design activity we should instead assume that processes that have not been shown to generate functional information at sufficient rates, somehow achieved what appears to be unachievable. A better approach would be to find a process that does produce the observed results, and thus the purpose of the question.

The papers and discussions that were largely precipitated by the Solomon et al study (some of which I linked but there are several others as well) refer to the sudden changes in water vapor and note that GHG's can't account these changes. Methane concentrations in the upper atmosphere have not displayed a pattern that could account for the upswings or downswings. It is the changes that I am interested in attributing. Those who have commented on the Solomon findings to date seem to be of the same opinion that the cause is related to sea temperature variations in the tropical area oceans. The driver for variability in these areas is ENSO. Now the staff at World Climate Report noted Chip Knappenberger's article but found he did not go far enough in attributing recent warming to sources other than CO2 GHG. The first additional adjustment is to the temperature record du to urbanization around the historical surface temperature measurement points. "But some of the remaining warming is caused by changes to the temperature observing network from things such as local land-use changes, urbanization influences, changes in thermometers, degradation of station quality, etc." "In work aimed at quantifying the non-climatic influence on the land-based temperature record, WCR’s Patrick Michaels and colleague Ross McKitrick found that as much as one-half of the warming observed over land areas since 1980 was caused by non-climatic factors. There is little reason to think that the situation was much different in the three decades prior. So, factoring out the non-climatic contamination of the land temperature data (remembering that 70% of the world is covered by oceans) as identified by McKitrick and Michaels, reduces the total warming from 1950 to 2009 to 0.468°C or 67% of the original “observed” warming." Noting that the two reports took these attributions in a different order, I get a net reduction from urbanization of surface temperature sources of 0.084 C for a total of 0.420 attributed to non-CO2 GHG's and 0.282 unattributed of the total 0.702 apparent increase.

Let's look at it another way to confirm. If the stage glass is in 0.1 mm graduations, and ten ocular units spans 2.5 stages then 10 OU is .25 mm so eight times .25 mm is still 2.0 mm. so 80 OU at 40x is 2 mm unless the stage glass is not 0.1 mm.

Yes, but try not to do it from memory, instead reason through the problem based on the information provided. In the second case you have 2.5 stage units / 10 OU and each stage unit is 0.1 mm so ---> (2.5 SU/10 OU) * 0.1 mm/SU = 0.025 mm/OU You know to multiply because the stage units must cancel this gives you the distance per ocular unit and since you have 80 OU you again multiply so the OU's cancel to get total length of 2.0 mm.

I believe this is correct. 25 stages/10 ocular units * 0.1 mm/stage = .25 mm or 250 um per ocular unit at 4x. 25 um / OU at 40x * 80 OU = 2.0 mm You just need to watch the units to help you avoid dividing when you mean to multiply. It seems like you understand how it works.

OK that looks correct to me. You have to include it if you want the answer to be complete and correct. I might say it is all obvious so n answer is required but I think I might get the problem marked wrong if I were to say that. The trick is to first identify where the function is undefined. 1) You know it is undefined when the denominator is 0 2) You also know that negative square roots are undefined or at least not real... and so I am assuming the problem asks for real values. then once you have the parts where it is undefined you include everything that is defined. I like to do it this way: for 1) it is undefined at -2 and 2 for 2) the numerator is negative from -inf to -1 and from +1 to +inf but the denominator is negative from -inf to -2 and from +2 to inf So including both the numerator and denominator it is undefined between -2 and -1 and then +1 and +2 inclusive It helps to draw this on a line graph. Then you put this information together to get the answer your teacher provided. I find it helps to go one step at a time and write everything down.

Since k = [product1][product2].../[reactant1][reactant2].... what chemical equation will give you units of atm if the concentration units are in partial pressure? this should help you understand which choice is correct.

Your question does not figure into the answer to d) Use the equations and process used in the previous questions to answer what pH would be when 99% of glycine is in its NH3+ form. Lay out the formula and I'll check your work.

I'm not too fond of your answer for a) but if you are ok with it so be it. You described the relationship correctly but why not just use the same equations we have been using to find the pH when 99% of the glycine is in the NH3 form?

The first equation is correct (since you are adding 5M NAOH) and the answer is 0.0104 or 10.4 ml including significant digits its 10 ml. good. What did you come up with for a) ?

I think you calculated it from 0.1/3.512 = 0.028 which is the concentration of the NH3 form at pH 10.0 Not the molarity, the volume of 5M hydroxide that you must add to raise the pH from 9.0 to 10.0. The volume that would contain 0.052 m of OH- which is the amount of OH- required to reduce the concentration of g-NH3+ from 0.08 to 0.028 right?

Yes, you are not finished with the question. To reduce the concentration of the NH3+ form from 0.08 m to 0.028 in 1L you need to add 0.08-0.028 m of OH- if you have 5M NaOH how much hydroxide solution is needed to make this amount of OH- ?

From this equation: 2.512*[g-NH3+] + [g-NH3+] = 0.1 because 2.512 of [g-NH3+] plus 1 of [g-NH3+] is 3.512 of [g-NH3+] so 2.512*[g-NH3+] + [g-NH3+] = 0.1 ----> 3.512*[g-NH3+] = 0.1 Try again..... you start with 0.080 and end with 0.028 so you have to add what amount?

Yes, good but don't mix the values 0.08 is the concentration of the NH3 form of glycine at a pH of 9.0 and we are solving for the concentration of the NH3 form at a pH of 10.0 [ Yes fine this is the concentration of the NH2 form at pH of 9 No, here you mixed the 9.0 pH concentration into the formula for the 10.0 pH concentration. 2.512 = (0.1-[g-NH3+])/[g-NH3+] ---> 2.512*[g-NH3+] = 0.1 - [g-NH3+] ----> 2.512*[g-NH3+] + [g-NH3+] = 0.1 ---> (2.512 + 1)*[g-NH3+] = 0.1 ---> [g-NH3+] = 0.1/3.512

I see the confusion.... Remember the original solution is 0.1 molar glycine so [g-NH2] plus [g-NH3+] together always totals 0.1 unless more glycine is added. so [g-NH2] = (0.1-[g-NH3+]) and the formula is not as you wrote it, rather it is 2.512 = (0.1 - [g-NH3+])/[g-NH3+] edit: to see this notice that the original equation is 2.512 = [g-NH2]/[g-NH3+] but [g-NH2] = (0.1-[g-NH3+]) so 2.512 = (0.1 - [g-NH3+])/[g-NH3+] I put it in this form to solve it for [g-NH3+] .... you know, one equation one unknown....

[g-NH3+] means "concentration of glycine in the protonated form" We are solving for the final concentration first then we will subtract the final from 0.080 which is the beginning right? You need to rearrange the equation to solve for the concentration of g-NH3+ 2.512*[g-NH3+] = 0.1 - [g-NH3+] ----> [g-NH3+] = 0.1/3.512

I get 10^(0.4) = 2.512 edit: by the way g-NH2 refers to the glycine in the NH2 form and g-NH3+ is the glycine in the protonated form. It is not glycine minus NH2. Sorry if this was confusing.

No, when the pH is 1 unit higher or one unit lower than pKa, in other words when the pH is 8.6 or 10.6 then the ratio of the two components will be 1 part to 10 parts (1/10) or (10/1) and the ratio of the whole is 1 to 11 and one out of 11 is about 9%. Thus 9% of the buffering capacity remains (91% is consumed) when the pH is one unit away from pKa. Notice realized I misread your previous question and thought I made an error. I restored it to the original and explained the change hope you are following it. You're headed in the right direction but you made the same mistake as in part b and you are starting at the wrong spot. You don't start with the NaOH you start with the solution you have. Let's take a step back.... You begin with 0.1 molar solution of glycine at pH=9.0 so that is 0.080 moles of NH3+ (from the previous problem) You end with 0.1 molar solution of glycine at pH=10.0 so that is what concentration of NH3+ ? 10.0 = 9.6 + log((0.1 - [g-NH3+])/[g-NH3+]) note the same formula switch as before So do the math and let me know what end concentration you get for g-NH3+ The difference is the molar amount of OH you need to add.

Careful with your math.... 0.25/0.75 is not = .2511. Notice that it is ~1/4 so it is about 0.02/0.08 or 80% g-NH3. this is why you must use (0.1-[g-NH3+])/[g-NH3+] because the two together equals the whole. Your mistake is common. Make sure you don't make that one on a test.

Not a bad answer, but it is subjective and the pH range is unjustifiably unbalanced around the midpoint. I was trying to get you to see that at a pH of 9.6 the concentration of g-NH2 is equal to the concentration of g-NH3+ because when the pH = pKa then the log component is zero and since log(1) = 0 , the ratio of the components is 1 so each component is in equal concentration at that point. Notice that when the log component is log(10/1)=1 or log(1/10) =-1 then the proportion of corresponding components is 1 to 11 or in other words 91% of the buffering capacity is consumed for a change pH change of 1. At what pecentage would you consider the buffering capacity mostly consumed? Ill come back to this. got to eat now. Yes, thanks ... sorry for the typo... my mistake. . ...edit: no sorry I was confused. It is correct as is... the change is that it went from ([g-NH2]/[g-NH3+]) to (0.1 - [g-NH3+])/[g-NH3+]) 0.1 is the concentration of all the glycine. [g-NH2] + [g-NH3+] = 0.1 (all the glycine) so (0.1 - [g-NH3+]) = [g-NH2]

AI'm trying to get you to select the range and explain the basis for the choice. 8.6 to 10.6 was a range I selected... What do you select and why? Ka is 2.52x10^-10 but pKA is 9.6 so I get 9 = 9.6 + log ([g-NH2]/[g-NH3+]) so -0.6 = log((0.1-[g-NH3+])/[g-NH3+]) then ((0.1-[g-NH3+])/[g-NH3+]) = 10^-0.6 = .2511 so [g-NH3+] is what % of the total? edited back when I realized that in my rush I forgot what I was doing. It was correct the first time.

Ok, The formula is pH = pKa + log ([A-]/[HA]) (I assume you understand how this formula was derived, but please ask if you do not) implies a ratio of [A-] to [HA] when pH = pKa because at that point log([A-]/[HA]) is zero. Notice what this ratio is and then notice what the ratio is if log([A-]/[HA]) is +1 and -1 respectively so that pH is 10.6 and 8.6. Note that as the amino group on glycine donates H+ it reverts to the NH2 form or A- form and as it accepts H+ it takes the NH3+ or HA form. Based on this, how much further in either direction of the pH scale is glycine likely to donate or accept H+ significant amounts of H+? How about question b ) did you get the percentage?

Necessary simplifications abound, but I don't see anything that is inaccurate. I don't see how creationism could be worked into cell biology or any description of how cells function.

Actually it can range from 1-14, but don't lose sight of what the question is asking. It is asking about glycine as an "effective buffer", and buffers, well they buffer changes in pH by donating or accepting H+ as needed to make the solution less susceptible to pH changes as H+ or OH- is added to the solution. So look at the equation I offered again and predict where glycine's amino group loses it's ability to donate more H+ to counter the effects of adding OH- and thus raising the pH. Next do the same as H+ is added to reduce pH. Close but remember [A-] + [HA] is 0.1 M and while A- represents the NH2 form of the amino group, it would be more like 9=9.6+log((0.1-[HA])/[HA]) right?