I have absolutely no Chemistry news to add to this.

I just wanted to express my joy at a sub-forum for my recently obtained degree!!





Edit: spelling, of course.


Now I just need a job...

Cool
The more knowledgable the people the better I like it

I'm only a chemistry minor, but I totally plan to play in here when the discussions get going.


Question: Would the issue of abiogenesis be better discussed in a chemistry subforum or in a biology subforum?

I think it would be better if it was in chemistry. Maybe theists will start realizing that it isn't evolution if it is in an entirely different section.

Personally I think it belongs here. I don't know very much about abiogenesis, but what little I do know argues for it to be Inorganic Chemistry.

Can someone more knowledgeable than me start a thread on it? I would love to have a detailed account of it.

Rawnaeris wrote:Personally I think it belongs here. I don't know very much about abiogenesis, but what little I do know argues for it to be Inorganic Chemistry.

Why inorganic? I agree with views that abiogenesis should be treated as a chemistry issue, and not just because it puts the smack-down on ignorant fundies, but most of the requisite molecules are considered organic molecules. The old habit of calling chemicals "organic" because they've originated from living cells has been largely discarded now. Methanol is organic whether it's a result of cellular metabolism or it was synthesized in a lab via the oxidation of natural gas (which can be of abiotic origin, though most of the concentrated deposits probably did result from methanogenic bacterial nomming).

Give me a thread with a HOMO/LUMO tutorial
or
a neat new recipe fro LSD
or maybe an organic reaction of the month.
Some protein folding basics?
Would trans-membrane structures belong here or in biology or have to straddle the two?

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Rawnaeris wrote:Personally I think it belongs here. I don't know very much about abiogenesis, but what little I do know argues for it to be Inorganic Chemistry.

Why inorganic? I agree with views that abiogenesis should be treated as a chemistry issue, and not just because it puts the smack-down on ignorant fundies, but most of the requisite molecules are considered organic molecules. The old habit of calling chemicals "organic" because they've originated from living cells has been largely discarded now. Methanol is organic whether it's a result of cellular metabolism or it was synthesized in a lab via the oxidation of natural gas (which can be of abiotic origin, though most of the concentrated deposits probably did result from methanogenic bacterial nomming).

Damn. That's what I get for not doing good research before I say something. The little I know was implying the formation of organic molecules out of inorganic atoms (which would include carbon). Am I totally off base here?

SpeedOfSound wrote:Give me a thread with a HOMO/LUMO tutorial
or
a neat new recipe fro LSD
or maybe an organic reaction of the month.
Some protein folding basics?
Would trans-membrane structures belong here or in biology or have to straddle the two?

Give me some free time after this weekend, and I'll see if I can't get a HOMO/LUMO thread going. I enjoy that stuff and I can harass my fiance who is working on his Ph.D in Inorganic Chem.

I, obviously, am not a chemist, so take this with however much salt you may wish: organic/inorganic is a distinction which has now passed its use-by date, and only serves to confuse people on issues just like the one being discussed here.

*Wanders off to post Boundaries 1 somewhere, and work on Boundaries 2

Goldenmane wrote:I, obviously, am not a chemist, so take this with however much salt you may wish: organic/inorganic is a distinction which has now passed its use-by date, and only serves to confuse people on issues just like the one being discussed here.

*Wanders off to post Boundaries 1 somewhere, and work on Boundaries 2

In that same vein you could argue that because Physics and Biology cross at Biophysics and Chemistry and Biology cross at Biochemistry it's all one thing.

Which I guess it is..

Ok, that's beside the point. Inorganic is specifically the chemistry of metals and non-metals that don't fall under the classification of Organic. Organic is carbon-hydrogen chains with other stuff optionally attached.

You should hear chemistry grad students go at it some time. Analytical vs. PChem vs. OChem vs. Inorganic vs. Comp Chem. It can get pretty funny as all involved are positive that their discipline is superior to the rest.

Goldenmane wrote:I, obviously, am not a chemist, so take this with however much salt you may wish: organic/inorganic is a distinction which has now passed its use-by date, and only serves to confuse people on issues just like the one being discussed here.

Pass the salt. The term "organic chemistry" is a misnomer rather than an obsolete term. It originates from a time when only living organisms were thought to be able to produce carbon-based molecules. "Carbon chemistry" is a more accurate term and is used by some chemists. We do need it as a specialized field of study so the distinction has not passed a use-by date.

I think the distinction is largely an artifact of the level of research carried out with carbon chemistry relative to the rest. Carbon chemistry is known in much greater detail, and typically deals with large and complex molecules. In contrast, "inorganic" chemistry typically focusses on simple systems and small molecules - you rarely see anything about someone making an inorganic molecule that looks like this, for instance:



However, in a couple of hundred years time when the largely unexplored region of more complex inorganic compounds has been mapped out, I imagine that there will be less of a need for a distinction between the two.

My chem grad student fiance just informed me that his OChem prof talks about Inorganic a fair bit. That prof is Inorganic by training, got into Organometallics, and now teaches OChem.

He also said that at higher levels OChem is called 'carbon chemistry' (a name for OChem i didn't learn in undergrad), but they still call the class OChem. I think we chemists are probably going to have a hard time breaking that habit.

Rawnaeris wrote:My chem grad student fiance just informed me that his OChem prof talks about Inorganic a fair bit. That prof is Inorganic by training, got into Organometallics, and now teaches OChem.

He also said that at higher levels OChem is called 'carbon chemistry' (a name for OChem i didn't learn in undergrad), but they still call the class OChem. I think we chemists are probably going to have a hard time breaking that habit.

I think you're going to have to break that habit, eventually. I think it's short-sighted.

As I said, though, I'm not a chemist.

What would we then call Inorganic?

Rawnaeris wrote::ask: What would we then call Inorganic?

"chemistry that may or may not include carbon."

Virus wrote:

Rawnaeris wrote::ask: What would we then call Inorganic?

"chemistry that may or may not include carbon."

That's worthy of IUPAC.

I look forward to this forum. Chemistry is one of the major gaps in my understanding, and I am eager to fill it (but not with a cosmic peeping-tom).

Hey, Hackenslash, is there anything in particular you are curious about?

I know we have a vote for HOMO/LUMO, and abiogenesis, is there anything else?

I can start a HOMO/LUMO explanation thread.
However, I know jack about abiogenesis, someone else will have to take that.

@ Speed of Sound: 1) Is there anything specific you don't understand about HOMO/LUMO?
2) I refuse to do an organic mechanism of the week. I learned to loathe mechanisms when the only class I failed at Uni was OChem II.

Rawnaeris wrote::ask: What would we then call Inorganic?

I think the logical division in the future would be between simpler (what is largely under the label of "inorganic" nowadays) and more complex chemistry (that currently under the label inorganic).

For instance, a reaction such as this one:
C2H5OH + NaH -> C2H5ONa + H2

is much more akin to "inorganic" reactions such as this one:

HClO4 + KOH -> KClO4 + H2O

than what would typically be classed under the banner of "organic chemistry". The fact that one of the reagents has a carbon chain on it doesn't justify classing it under a different label.

In contrast, the chemistry of synthesising the hypothetical molecule I posted earlier would bear a far greater resemblance to "organic chemistry" than "inorganic", despite the fact that it contains not a single carbon atom.

So I think the division of branches of chemistry would probably be like this:

Simple: Acid/base reactions, redox, coordination complexes, simple polymers.
Complex: Larger, more complicated molecules containing such features as extensive pi/delta bonding, aromaticity, and functional groups. May or may not contain carbon.