Re: Transitional forms defined by creationists

"On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:43:02 -0000, in article
<1181040182.304356.273100@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stuart stated..."

On Jun 4, 12:43 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 4, 6:23 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 02:20:09 -0000, in article
<1180923609.188496.86...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Steven J. stated..."

On Jun 3, 3:58 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...snip...]

(By the way, I snipped out some nice points that Steve made about
the contradictory arguments of creationists.)

(3)Where did all the 90-plus elements come from (iron, barium,
calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc)?

Hydrogen and most of the helium (and some of the lithium) formed in
the Big Bang; the rest appear to be the product of earlier supernova
explosions. This does not seem to be a question about biological
evolution.

My understanding is that the elements in the range from lithium
(most of lithium, that is) up to iron and nickel are formed by fusion
in "normal" stars. Elements heavier than iron-nickel need more
exotic processes.

Your understanding is probably right. I was thinking more along the
lines of "how does the silicon, oxygen, calcium, etc. that we have
right here on Earth come from?" Elements need to leave the stars
where they're made, which would, I think, involve the stars somehow
ejecting a lot of mass. I don't know whether less violent reactions,
such as those that form planetary nebulae, are important, but I've
always heard the presence of elements heavier than helium on Earth
ascribed to supernovas.


Elements up to Fe can be manufactured by stars. Anything heavier than
Fe was
most porbably produced during a nova or supernova.

In any case in order for planets to contain heavy elements requires
that stars to spill their
guts (supernova) and seed nearby gas clouds

It just occurred to me that there ought to be an article in Wikipedia,
and there is: "Nucleosynthesis".


--
---Tom S.
"When people use the X is not a fact or Y is not proven gambits it is a tacit
admission that they have lost the science argument and they are just trying to
downplay the significance of that failing."
BK Jennings, "On the Nature of Science", Physics in Canada 63(1)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Transitional forms defined by creationists
    ... calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc)? ... lines of "how does the silicon, oxygen, calcium, etc. that we have ... Elements need to leave the stars ... most porbably produced during a nova or supernova. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: World did not end Wednesday: news at 6: was - Re: World to end Wednesday
    ... betelgeuse, or ANY star going supernova, that implies the light (and ... it may have already gone supernova. ... Stars such as our sun aren't going nova anytime soon. ... implies you are UNAWARE of the dangers associated with the LHC? ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • SN 2004et, TV76, 10/15/04
    ... Hole-in-the-Wall campground. ... Using my Tele Vue 76 i easily located galaxy 6946 and nearby open ... identified some of the brighter field stars. ... supernova at first i didn't see anything. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: In Lice, Clues to Human Origin and Attire
    ... It'd be interesting to see if any of the nearby stars went Nova ... Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany, confirmed that aluminum-26 is ... found primarily in star-forming regions of the galaxy. ... the most common type of supernova. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: free-will
    ... doesn't the world, and the universe, exist in a constant stasis? ... Do you will the fact that a star goes supernova? ... about this like "bozo numbnuts thinks we will stars to go supernova", ... We can conjecture and theorize and maybe come up with theories ...
    (misc.writing)
Loading