Difference between a "human atom" and an "air atom"

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Beats me!

Any thoughts??

[Enmos]

There are no such things as human atoms or air atoms.. seriously..

[Wisdom_Seeker]

There are no such things as human atoms or air atoms.. seriously..

lol, then I´m way off base when I say we are all made of the same thing? Air, humans, stones, water...

[Enmos]

Humans, and air for that matter, exist of many kinds of molecules.
A molecule is defined as a sufficiently stable electrically neutral group of at least two atoms in a definite arrangement held together by strong chemical bonds ~ Wikipedia

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Humans, and air for that matter, exist of many kinds of molecules.
A molecule is defined as a sufficiently stable electrically neutral group of at least two atoms in a definite arrangement held together by strong chemical bonds ~ Wikipedia

so all atoms are the same?

[Enmos]

lol, then I´m way off base when I say we are all made of the same thing? Air, humans, stones, water...

All atoms contain neutrons, electrons and protons. Well except Hydrogen.

[Enmos]

so all atoms are the same?

No...

There are many different atoms. Did you ever hear of elements ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_element

[Wisdom_Seeker]

No...

There are many different atoms. Did you ever hear of elements ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_element

oh, now it makes more sense

[Wisdom_Seeker]

I feel like... punk´d

[Enmos]

I feel like... punk´d

LOL why ?

[Wisdom_Seeker]

LOL why ?

´Cause I was in an alternative reality were I didn´t remember that the elements are actually atoms. All of a sudden, I was in a Universe were everything is literally the same substance.

[Nickelodeon]

Human atoms taste better.

[Communist Hamster]

Yup, no difference at all between an oxygen atom in, say ATP in your cells and an oxygen atom in CO2 in the air. Pick a human apart and you'll find a pile of atoms, none of which would have been alive, but all of which would once have been a person.

Are humans more than the sum of their parts? Is life more than the sum of its parts? Philosophy is next door.

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Yup, no difference at all between an oxygen atom in, say ATP in your cells and an oxygen atom in CO2 in the air. Pick a human apart and you'll find a pile of atoms, none of which would have been alive, but all of which would once have been a person.

Are humans more than the sum of their parts? Is life more than the sum of its parts? Philosophy is next door.

This is were I was trying to get with my OP.
Is an "oxygen atom" in the human body different than an "oxygen atom" in the air?
Scientists often approach this as if the human body is just a compilation of the random atoms in an organized manner. But, hypotetically, if you bring all the atoms from the environment to form a human body; there would be something missing in the equation: life itself.

[Enmos]

This is were I was trying to get with my OP.
Is an "oxygen atom" in the human body different than an "oxygen atom" in the air?
Scientists often approach this as if the human body is just a compilation of the random atoms in an organized manner. But, hypotetically, if you bring all the atoms from the environment to form a human body; there would be something missing in the equation: life itself.

So why didn't you say so ?

Is an "oxygen atom" in the human body different than an "oxygen atom" in the air?
No, they are exactly the same.

But, hypotetically, if you bring all the atoms from the environment to form a human body; there would be something missing in the equation: life itself.
Hypothetically, the human would be alive. But it can't be done.

[quadraphonics]

Scientists often approach this as if the human body is just a compilation of the random atoms in an organized manner.

Err, maybe atomic physicists have that view, but I can assure you that biologists (i.e., the scientists who actually study the human body) don't think in those terms.

But, hypotetically, if you bring all the atoms from the environment to form a human body; there would be something missing in the equation: life itself.

What makes you so sure of this?

[Nasor]

Scientists often approach this as if the human body is just a compilation of the random atoms in an organized manner. But, hypotetically, if you bring all the atoms from the environment to form a human body; there would be something missing in the equation: life itself.

Life is a chemical reaction.

[James R]

If you add up the value of the "raw materials" in a human body, it comes to a few dollars worth of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and so on.

What makes a human different from a rock is how the raw materials are organised. Thus, a better estimate of the value of a human being would be the cost of constructing one from scratch (in a non-biological manner) - that is, taking the raw materials and building up the proteins, cells, organs etc. by hand.

[Wisdom_Seeker]

If you add up the value of the "raw materials" in a human body, it comes to a few dollars worth of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and so on.

What makes a human different from a rock is how the raw materials are organised. Thus, a better estimate of the value of a human being would be the cost of constructing one from scratch (in a non-biological manner) - that is, taking the raw materials and building up the proteins, cells, organs etc. by hand.

Even then, all you get is a dead body.

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Err, maybe atomic physicists have that view, but I can assure you that biologists (i.e., the scientists who actually study the human body) don't think in those terms.

In what terms do they think then?

What makes you so sure of this?

Because life cannot be measured (or quantified) with current technology.