HydrogenBond Posted April 23, 2012 Report Posted April 23, 2012 (edited) The topic is life and water. Life as we know it requires water. No other solvent can be substituted for water. No enzymes will work without water. Even the DNA needs to be hydrated at least 30%, to form its active shape. Some theories have proposed life evolving with other solvents. But this lacks any tangible proof, since nobody has actually formed or observed life within any other solvent. The question is why is water to singular with respect to life as we know? I remember years ago thinking about a plant seed. I added water and it came to life. The seeds contains all the DNA and proteins needed for life, but before adding the water, it was inanimate. When I added water it slowly hydrated and life appears. I was always curious how this occurs. My hope is a create discussion that can shed light on the unique role of water. Edited April 23, 2012 by HydrogenBond Quote
maddog Posted April 23, 2012 Report Posted April 23, 2012 The topic is life and water. Life as we know it requires water. ... Some theories have proposed life evolving with other solvents. But this lacks any tangible proof, since nobody has actually formed or observed life within any other solvent.It was Sagan, back in the late eighties that started speculation of alternatives for Water (H2O), such as Methane (CH3) or Ammonia (NH3). Yes, there was no corroboration then or since then. Of course he was only speculating. A lot of science starts with a conjecture. What I find interesting is to what extremes that Sagan had to go to consider such compounds as possible solvents (very extreme cold, or low gravity). The question is why is water to singular with respect to life as we know?I think this is a good question. It may have something to do with the process of Oxidation. Would the organic chemistry be so robust if the atmosphere was severely reduced (as very little Oxygen) ? I wonder. If so, is there a strong correlation of Water (H2O) being the universal solvent and C12 being the best element to base the chemistry on? maddog Quote
Pincho Paxton Posted April 23, 2012 Report Posted April 23, 2012 (edited) Science isn't ready to know why life requires water. The answer doesn't gel well with the standard model. Say if my reply is true, how is anyone able to post an answer? Edited April 23, 2012 by Pincho Paxton Quote
maddog Posted April 24, 2012 Report Posted April 24, 2012 (edited) Science isn't ready to know why life requires water. The answer doesn't gel well with the standard model.Say if my reply is true, how is anyone able to post an answer?I don't know that I could refute your answer other than to say that -- I AM Ready to know! I use science. So therefore, why can "science" be "not ready" ? When Science is made up of people who use the scientific method (as derived by Sir Francis Bacon who discovered/invented the concept -- depending on which one sees things). I would prefer if you were to show how you came to such a conclusion. I will admit your reference to not "gel"-ing and all does remind me of a book by a Japanese author who wrote a book on water by taking pictures of various forms. I forget his name. I do accept we do not know all there is to know about this compound, esp near the triple point in phase space (near freezing, STP). maddog Edited April 24, 2012 by maddog Quote
Pincho Paxton Posted April 24, 2012 Report Posted April 24, 2012 (edited) I don't know that I could refute your answer other than to say that -- I AM Ready to know! I use science. So therefore, why can "science" be "not ready" ? When Science is made up of people who use the scientific method (as derived by Sir Francis Bacon who discovered/invented the concept -- depending on which one sees things). I would prefer if you were to show how you came to such a conclusion. I will admit your reference to not "gel"-ing and all does remind me of a book by a Japanese author who wrote a book on water by taking pictures of various forms. I forget his name. I do accept we do not know all there is to know about this compound, esp near the triple point in phase space (near freezing, STP). maddog Science can ban people for answers that do not agree with the standard model. So I can't reply... that's how science isn't ready. Not only that, but the real answers contradict science... contradict your own beliefs. I know how I came to the conclusion, I got banned from about 6 sites. So now I am just going to ask "How can anyone reply to this?" This thread is UN-answerable. Edited April 24, 2012 by Pincho Paxton Quote
HydrogenBond Posted April 24, 2012 Author Report Posted April 24, 2012 Usually, I like to dive into such questions,but I thought I would start this topic a different manner and build gradually. First of all, water performs many functions and it should not be considered simply as an inert diluent. Water in life transports, lubricates, reacts, stabilizes, signals, structures and partitions. Water can act as a reactant (photosynethesis) or product, and can be a solvent or solute. Cells, via changes in water, can also adopt any of several active physical states such as extending, contracting, streaming and gelling. As such, the living world really should be thought of as an equal partnership between the biological molecules and water. Quote
maddog Posted April 25, 2012 Report Posted April 25, 2012 Science can ban people for answers that do not agree with the standard model. So I can't reply... that's how science isn't ready. Not only that, but the real answers contradict science... contradict your own beliefs. I know how I came to the conclusion, I got banned from about 6 sites. So now I am just going to ask "How can anyone reply to this?" This thread is UN-answerable.Well all I can say in response is "enquiring minds want to know". maddog ps: Sorry to hear you were "banned" elsewhere.. Quote
Turtle Posted April 25, 2012 Report Posted April 25, 2012 Well all I can say in response is "enquiring minds want to know". maddog ps: Sorry to hear you were "banned" elsewhere.. it is about creationism maddog. and dissembling of course. Quote
Pincho Paxton Posted April 25, 2012 Report Posted April 25, 2012 (edited) it is about creationism maddog. and dissembling of course. It's not about either. It's about a style of discovery that I use that isn't permitted. Fractals, and patterns in nature, and no maths, but computer simulations. Edited April 25, 2012 by Pincho Paxton Quote
Turtle Posted April 25, 2012 Report Posted April 25, 2012 (edited) It's not about either. It's about a style of discovery that I use that isn't permitted. Fractals, and patterns in nature, and no maths, but computer simulations. my mistake; i thought maddog had quoted hbond. nevertheless, mentioning that you have something to not-say is dissembling. you literally bragged in your intro about being banned and here you do so again. should we think those other boards were mistaken in giving you the boot? no; of course we should not. post here within our rules and take what you know is not within our rules and find a suitable forum for that. there's plenty of them. fractals are math. the word is an invention of benoit mandelbrot that connotes fractional-dimension. both fractions and dimensions are mathematical terms. computer simulations are likewise math. you have a right to your own opinions, but you do not have a right to your own facts. Edited April 25, 2012 by Turtle Quote
Pincho Paxton Posted April 25, 2012 Report Posted April 25, 2012 (edited) my mistake; i thought maddog had quoted hbond. nevertheless, mentioning that you have something to not-say is dissembling. you literally bragged in your intro about being banned and here you do so again. should we think those other boards were mistaken in giving you the boot? no; of course we should not. post here within our rules and take what you know is not within our rules and find a suitable forum for that. there's plenty of them. fractals are math. the word is an invention of benoit mandelbrot that connotes fractional-dimension. both fractions and dimensions are mathematical terms. computer simulations are likewise math. you have a right to your own opinions, but you do not have a right to your own facts. Fractals in nature are leaves and trees, show me that maths in the tree. I looked under the bark, and everything.. I may have seen a minus sign, I'm not sure. It's opinions like yours that get me banned. The opinion that maths is real. My computer simulations use energy like the tree. Edited April 25, 2012 by Pincho Paxton Quote
Turtle Posted April 25, 2012 Report Posted April 25, 2012 Fractals in nature are leaves and trees, show me that maths in the tree. I looked under the bark, and everything.. I may have seen a minus sign, I'm not sure. It's opinions like yours that get me banned. The opinion that maths is real. My computer simulations use energy like the tree. get a copy of madelbrot's seminal work The Fractal Geometry of Nature; he will show you. it's a matter of efficiency, which is again math. at any rate, we both are off-topic of hydrogenbond's creationism and his dissembling of it as the real topic. we do have threads here on fractals that you can find with our search tool. Quote
Pincho Paxton Posted April 25, 2012 Report Posted April 25, 2012 get a copy of madelbrot's seminal work The Fractal Geometry of Nature; he will show you. it's a matter of efficiency, which is again math. at any rate, we both are off-topic of hydrogenbond's creationism and his dissembling of it as the real topic. we do have threads here on fractals that you can find with our search tool. I have the book "Fractals Images Of Chaos" it's similar. But I copy the universe so I don't use those codes. Quote
Turtle Posted April 25, 2012 Report Posted April 25, 2012 I have the book "Fractals Images Of Chaos" it's similar. But I copy the universe so I don't use those codes. well, they are not the same book. whoever wrote the other one is only following in mandelbrot's wake, as are any other authors. but, i'm not surprised that you ignore such facts. if you are writing computer programs, you are using math; again, i'm not surprised that you do -and likely will continue- to deny it. in this vein, you and hydrogen bond are the same pseudo-science proliferators. small wonder you misjudged the hogwah he is on about. Quote
Turtle Posted April 25, 2012 Report Posted April 25, 2012 (edited) get a copy of madelbrot's seminal work The Fractal Geometry of Nature; he will show you. it's a matter of efficiency, which is again math. at any rate, we both are off-topic of hydrogenbond's creationism and his dissembling of it as the real topic. we do have threads here on fractals that you can find with our search tool. a follow-up in support of my assertion on the efficiency of forms in nature, and involving the topic of water & physics -per se mathematics- to boot. full article: >> Pollen Physics: Energy-Efficiency in Nature and the Generation of “Smart Materials” Pollen is one of nature’s most durable structures. Its toughness is a vital property—the survival of all higher life-forms depends on the precarious enterprise of pollination, which occurs only when pollen grains successfully reach a plant’s female organ. Among the obstacles routinely overcome by pollen is dehydration, a feat made possible by physical mechanisms that allow the grain’s outer layer to fold inward to conserve water. Recently, after decades of mystery, scientists uncovered the mechanics behind this simple action, and in the process they breathed new life into the generation of “smart materials”—human-made systems that mimic natural structures in their design and response to external stimuli. ... Edited April 25, 2012 by Turtle Quote
Pincho Paxton Posted April 25, 2012 Report Posted April 25, 2012 well, they are not the same book. whoever wrote the other one is only following in mandelbrot's wake, as are any other authors. but, i'm not surprised that you ignore such facts. if you are writing computer programs, you are using math; again, i'm not surprised that you do -and likely will continue- to deny it. in this vein, you and hydrogen bond are the same pseudo-science proliferators. small wonder you misjudged the hogwah he is on about. I have been programming since 1980, so I am capable of creating a new style of programming that sidetracks maths. Quote
Turtle Posted April 25, 2012 Report Posted April 25, 2012 (edited) I have been programming since 1980, so I am capable of creating a new style of programming that sidetracks maths. citing the length of time that you have done something as an example/substantiation of that something's correctness or validity is a logical fallacy. appeal to authority or some such. the basis of computer function is mathematical and no matter what you overlay on that basis, the basis remains mathematical. you cannot sidetrack it like you do threads. by the same token, i am not claiming that nature "knows" or conciously "uses" math, rather that math is supremely capable of modeling nature. fractals are just the latest modeling advance. unless you create life from scratch, -a feat yet unachieved- any modeling of it is mathematical. no amount of whining or denying over & over & over & over again it changes that fact. we have several threads here on the nature of math and you're welcome to whine there. here's one such. >> Math: Did we discover or create it? Edited April 25, 2012 by Turtle Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.