Life And Water

[HydrogenBond]

You guys can really trip out. If you took the time to read any section in that site, the site is solid chemistry. At first I was not linking to any site, so I was admonished for not proving my claims. Now I am linking to verify basic chemistry of water claims, now that is evil. Turtle your bias against me knows no bounds. I hope Prof Chaplin responds and participates.

 

Here is what I will do, to be respectful of the laws, I will link to the site but not quote anything. Instead I will explain and paraphrase.

 

I am not interested in discussing alternate solvents for evolving life, any further. I am trying to stick to water and life, as the title says. Maybe we can do anther topic called solvents and life where we can brain storm possibilities. Turtle will cry foul, but what else is new.

 

I talked previously about water clusters, the two hydrogen bonding states that allow high and low density water, and the transition between to higher and lower volume, enthalpy and entropy. I quoted that source, so Turtle would not say "HB made it up because of his creationist agenda". This is science, if you are skilled at chemistry. This is a biology topic so I tried to stay low tech. The purpose was to show how a single change between two stable hydrogen bonding states, with only a small energy difference, can lead to significant changes in variables useful to life processes.

 

The next useful property of water is connected to the concept of activity which is basic to chemical engineering. Here is the link to Prof Chaplin's site.Activity of Water

Essentially the activity of water reflects the ability of water to hydrate materials. Pure water is defined as 1.0, by definition. If we add anything to water, the water will try to hydrate it, such that less activity is left since the water is already busy hydrating. Activity is another way to say the free energy within water. The activity usually increases with increasing temperature and pressure.

 

In the link, Prof. Chaplin discusses water activity in as an important tool in food chemistry and preservation. The higher the activity of the water in the preserved foods (more hydration power) the more vulnerable preserved foods are to decomposition by mold, yeast, bacteria. It not the amount of water that is important to food preservation, but the activity of the water within the preserved food. People want their preserved food fresh, so manufacturers can not always dehydrate. Instead they simply control the activity of the water. In other words, by regulating the activity in the water, you can control single cellular organisms.

 

Life needs a certain level of activity in the water to provide the free energy, via hydration.

 

A reasonable theory for aging might be connected to changes in aqueous activity either locally or globally, that will make harder for cells to maintain life functions. Regardless of this inference, the main point was to show another aspects of waters energy; activity.

[CraigD]

Here is what I will do, to be respectful of the laws, I will link to the site but not quote anything. Instead I will explain and paraphrase.

:thumbs_up This is the correct legal way to use CC:by-nc-nd licensed material. You’re not allowed to take text or images from it, only link to, or make verbatim copies of it, which you can’t use for commercial purposes.

 

I am not interested in discussing alternate solvents for evolving life, any further.

If you’re not willing to discuss the possibility that water is not the only solvent that can support life, you shouldn’t begin a thread with the claim

Life as we know it requires water. No other solvent can be substituted for water. No enzymes will work without water.

You appear to be saying, in essence, that you don’t want to discuss the possibility that your claims that no enzymes will work without water is false, which arguably make it impossible to assert that it’s true.

 

If you merely want to assert that some life is known to require water, there’s not much to discuss, as we all agree this is true.

 

You appear, however, to be make another claim, this one (bolding and italics min):

Life needs a certain level of activity in the water to provide the free energy, via hydration.

Where you mean “activity” in the sense Chaplin describes in Activity of Water.

 

I believe you’re confusing this use of “activity” with the concept of mechanical energy (chemical, thermal, or some other form). Notice that Chaplin never equates these two. Activity, as Chaplin uses it, is a measure of the amount of water available for hydration of materials. It doesn’t mean that the amount of mechanical work (that is, transferred energy) performed by hydrating a material is proportional to the water’s activity, or that more active water contains more mechanical energy of some form, such as heat. For example, cold pure water has a higher activity than hot water in which a high concentration of solutes have been dissolved, even though the mechanical energy available to a heat engine with a fixed temperature cold sink is greater for the lower activity hot water.

 

Although many biological organism become non-functional or are damaged when they’re not hydrated, they don’t “get their energy” from hydration. Chaplin doesn’t claim they do. They get their mechanical energy from metabolic processes, which require chemicals from which energy can be extracted, such as carbohydrates. Adequate hydration (or interaction with some substance that allows the molecules doing the metabolizing to have the necessary shapes) is necessary, but not sufficient, for metabolism.

[maddog]

I am not interested in discussing alternate solvents for evolving life, any further. I am trying to stick to water and life, as the title says. Maybe we can do anther topic called solvents and life where we can brain storm possibilities. Turtle will cry foul, but what else is new.

First I can not speak with authority on the actions of others. I for am not opposed to what you wish to focus on. However, I (and likely others) introduced other possible candidates as possible solvents similar to water, when you appeared to imply (nor not clearly state either way) that water was the Only such possible compound to do such. You are free to focus on what you wish. Those of us (speaking for myself alone) will only bring up counterexamples when such a limitation is present in the discussion.

 

One thing I have stressed is (probably because of our bias) little research has been done on solvent properties far from STP (Standard Temperature & Pressure).

 

maddog

Edited May 1, 2012 by maddog

[Moontanman]

You guys can really trip out. If you took the time to read any section in that site, the site is solid chemistry. At first I was not linking to any site, so I was admonished for not proving my claims. Now I am linking to verify basic chemistry of water claims, now that is evil. Turtle your bias against me knows no bounds. I hope Prof Chaplin responds and participates.

 

I do not dispute the basics of water chemistry, I don't think anyone else does either but you make some totally unsupported conclusions.

 

 

I am not interested in discussing alternate solvents for evolving life, any further. I am trying to stick to water and life, as the title says. Maybe we can do anther topic called solvents and life where we can brain storm possibilities. Turtle will cry foul, but what else is new.

 

How can you know that water is perfect for life? it might be perfect for life on earth but that is all you can actually claim.

 

I talked previously about water clusters, the two hydrogen bonding states that allow high and low density water, and the transition between to higher and lower volume, enthalpy and entropy. I quoted that source, so Turtle would not say "HB made it up because of his creationist agenda". This is science, if you are skilled at chemistry. This is a biology topic so I tried to stay low tech. The purpose was to show how a single change between two stable hydrogen bonding states, with only a small energy difference, can lead to significant changes in variables useful to life processes.

 

yes because life evolved to take advantage of the chemistry of water, saying other wise is just conformation bias.

 

The next useful property of water is connected to the concept of activity which is basic to chemical engineering. Here is the link to Prof Chaplin's site.Activity of Water

Essentially the activity of water reflects the ability of water to hydrate materials. Pure water is defined as 1.0, by definition. If we add anything to water, the water will try to hydrate it, such that less activity is left since the water is already busy hydrating. Activity is another way to say the free energy within water. The activity usually increases with increasing temperature and pressure.

 

Again with the conformation bias.

 

In the link, Prof. Chaplin discusses water activity in as an important tool in food chemistry and preservation. The higher the activity of the water in the preserved foods (more hydration power) the more vulnerable preserved foods are to decomposition by mold, yeast, bacteria. It not the amount of water that is important to food preservation, but the activity of the water within the preserved food. People want their preserved food fresh, so manufacturers can not always dehydrate. Instead they simply control the activity of the water. In other words, by regulating the activity in the water, you can control single cellular organisms.

 

Again we are talking about organisms that have had 4 billion years to adapt to water.

 

Life needs a certain level of activity in the water to provide the free energy, via hydration.

 

Please show us some evidence of this, what does "certain level of activity" mean?

 

A reasonable theory for aging might be connected to changes in aqueous activity either locally or globally, that will make harder for cells to maintain life functions. Regardless of this inference, the main point was to show another aspects of waters energy; activity.

 

 

HB, this pegs the needle on my horse feathers detector and reeks of conformation bias yet again...

[HydrogenBond]

The activity of water reflects the hydrating capacity within the water. If you add anything to the liquid water, the water will interact with it by forming polar, van der Waals and hydrogen bonds; hydration. Even oil and water have surface contact where water will hydrate the oil as best it can.

 

By definition, the activity of pure water is 1.0, since the water has full capacity to hydrate other materials. As we add ions, proteins, RNA, DNA, etc., each of these become hydrated with attached water, causing the original pure water to have less less capacity to hydrate additional materials. The activity then goes down. It can still hydrate more, but less than pure water.

 

If we start with a plant seed, since it is dehydrated, the residual water in the seed is all bound to the seed's biomaterials, such that there is little activity left in the seed's water; very little residual hydrating power. We need to add water to seed to bring it to life. The fresh water begins with an activity equal to 1.0. As this fresh water enters the seed, and the seed hydrates the activitiy of the input water goes down. But since the seed is absorbing water, the activity of the water within the seed rises. Once the activity of the water within the seed gets high enough, life begins.

 

Activity is being defined in terms of the hydrating capacity in water. If we used another solvent, like ammonia, it has its own version of activity. Instead of hydration we might call it ammmoniation. If it was an alternate solvent for life, as ammonia binds with the dissolved materials, it version of activity would decrease, since it has less capacity to further ammoniate.

 

Activity is another tool I was introducing. Once all the tools are outlined them I will use them in a integrated way.

 

The next tool of water is connected to the colligative properties of water. These are properties of water that are dependent of the amount of solute (moles) but not on the structure of the solute. This is different from hydration and activity, which are not only dependent on amount of solute, but also is dependent on structure and properties of the solute. The colligative properties include melting point depression, vapor pressure lowering, boiling point elevation and osmosis. I will focus on osmosis. However, these properties help expand the range of life by keeping water liquified and bound over an expanded range of conditions.

[HydrogenBond]

The next thing I would like to discuss are the colligative properties of water. These properties are only dependent on the mole concentration of solute regardless of the structure of the solute. If we had one mole of sodium chloride or half mole of sodium chloride plus half mole of potassium nitrate, the colligative properties are the same, since both have one mole. These properties include boiling point elevation, freezing point depression, vapor pressure lowering and osmotic pressure.These properties ideally depend on changes in the entropy of the solution on dissolving the solute.

 

Pure water has the lowest entropy. As we add ions and molecules to the water, the entropy of the solution increase in proportion to the number of ions and molecules. Water has a high free energy, due to low entropy. The solute will lower the free energy, by allowing the overall entropy to increase. The logic for the colligative properties is the solute, but lowering the free energy (via entropy increase) results in more energy being needed to boil, to vaporize, etc, the water solute solution compared to pure water.

 

Relative to osmotic pressure, the water will flow through the semi-permeable membrane from lower to higher solute concentration. This is the direction of higher to lower free energy and the direction of lower to higher entropy. This is shown in the figure below from Wikipedia (osmosis).

 

 

The figure on the right side shows the osmotic pressure (proportional to delta H ) . What is important here is free energy in the form of entropy can generate pressure, which means it can generate force, since pressure is force/area. In the case of reverse osmosis, we apply a force to increase the free energy within water (back to pure water) The removal of the solute (reverse osmosis) will cause the water entropy to lower and the water's free energy to increase. This increase in free energy, via entropy loss, can then be used to generate force through the natural direction of increasing entropy. Osmosis connects entropy to force/pressure.

 

I going attempt something which is subtle. In the diagram above, what I would like to add is a cap to the leg on the right side of the osmotic device. The purpose of the cap is when the water flows from right to left, pressure builds on the left side, while a partial vacuum is pulled on the right side due to the cap. The interesting situation that arises is the left side of the osmotic device shown, is under pressure, while the vacuum places the right side under tension. At steady state, water is flowing in both directions across the membrane in equal amounts.

 

If we look at the force vectors, the pressure from the right side is pushing left to right at the membrane, while the tension due to the vacuum is pulling to the right. These two forces are pushing and pulling in the same direction, yet the water flows equally in both directions. This steady state is unique to liquids. Gases cannot be placed under tension. While solids, if you push and pull in the same direction, can never never reach a steady state since it would keep moving in one direction.

 

The invisible force within the water (if it was solid) that appears to balance the push=pull ,is connected to the difference in entropy within the water on each side. The entropy difference in the water is acting like a balancing force. Most people don't normally think of entropy as a generator of directional force, but only randomness. This invisible (not conscious) directional force is useful to life.

Edited May 4, 2012 by HydrogenBond

[Moontanman]

The next thing I would like to discuss are the colligative properties of water. These properties are only dependent on the mole concentration of solute regardless of the structure of the solute. If we had one mole of sodium chloride or half mole of sodium chloride plus half mole of potassium nitrate, the colligative properties are the same, since both have one mole. These properties include boiling point elevation, freezing point depression, vapor pressure lowering and osmotic pressure.These properties ideally depend on changes in the entropy of the solution on dissolving the solute.

 

Pure water has the lowest entropy. As we add ions and molecules to the water, the entropy of the solution increase in proportion to the number of ions and molecules. Water has a high free energy, due to low entropy. The solute will lower the free energy, by allowing the overall entropy to increase. The logic for the colligative properties is the solute, but lowering the free energy (via entropy increase) results in more energy being needed to boil, to vaporize, etc, the water solute solution compared to pure water.

 

Relative to osmotic pressure, the water will flow through the semi-permeable membrane from lower to higher solute concentration. This is the direction of higher to lower free energy and the direction of lower to higher entropy. This is shown in the figure below from Wikipedia (osmosis).

 

 

The figure on the right side shows the osmotic pressure (proportional to delta H ) . What is important here is free energy in the form of entropy can generate pressure, which means it can generate force, since pressure is force/area. In the case of reverse osmosis, we apply a force to increase the free energy within water (back to pure water) The removal of the solute (reverse osmosis) will cause the water entropy to lower and the water's free energy to increase. This increase in free energy, via entropy loss, can then be used to generate force through the natural direction of increasing entropy. Osmosis connects entropy to force/pressure.

 

I going attempt something which is subtle. In the diagram above, what I would like to add is a cap to the leg on the right side of the osmotic device. The purpose of the cap is when the water flows from right to left, pressure builds on the left side, while a partial vacuum is pulled on the right side due to the cap. The interesting situation that arises is the left side of the osmotic device shown, is under pressure, while the vacuum places the right side under tension. At steady state, water is flowing in both directions across the membrane in equal amounts.

 

If we look at the force vectors, the pressure from the right side is pushing left to right at the membrane, while the tension due to the vacuum is pulling to the right. These two forces are pushing and pulling in the same direction, yet the water flows equally in both directions. This steady state is unique to liquids. Gases cannot be placed under tension. While solids, if you push and pull in the same direction, can never never reach a steady state since it would keep moving in one direction.

 

The invisible force within the water (if it was solid) that appears to balance the push=pull ,is connected to the difference in entropy within the water on each side. The entropy difference in the water is acting like a balancing force. Most people don't normally think of entropy as a generator of directional force, but only randomness. This invisible (not conscious) directional force is useful to life.

 

 

HB, are you asserting that only water has these properties? They sound like the properties most fluids possess to some lesser or greater extent.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Moontanman

[Guest MacPhee]

Life seems to need water - without it, plants won't grow. They can only grow, when they get the benefit of water's properties. These properties of water are threefold:

 

1. It contains Hydrogen

2. It contains Oxygen

3. It is a liquid

 

However, water lacks a fourth property - it doesn't contain any Nitrogen. This Nitrogen is needed by plants, but plants have to get their Nitrogen from the air. They can't get it from water, because water is just DiHydrogen Oxide, ie H2O. No Nitrogen in it.

 

Now, suppose a substance could be found, which remedied water's Nitrogen lack, and also included Hydrogen and Oxygen - and was a liquid as well. Wouldn't it be the perfect nutrient and medium of growth, for plant life? Plants should thrive on it.

 

And such a substance does indeed exist! It has the chemical formula HNO3. Popularly known as Nitric Acid. Yet I've not yet seen gardeners spraying with it - why could that be, do you think?

[maddog]

I am not interested in discussing alternate solvents for evolving life, any further. I am trying to stick to water and life, as the title says.

I think in that topic "Water & Life" begs the question - What are the limits where Life ends and Not-Life begins ?

 

Life seems to need water - without it, plants won't grow. They can only grow, when they get the benefit of water's properties. These properties of water are threefold:

1. It contains Hydrogen

2. It contains Oxygen

3. It is a liquid

I think this has been already answered by research in the discovery of a new Kingdom Archea - new form of life that metabolizes anerobically and hardly uses water at all. It likes Sulfur (S). I remember an article (I forget where Science New, Science, something) that it was found that arsenic is also metabolize -- so do a google search on metabolizing and arsenic, you should find it in the last couple of years. These criters live in steam vents under the oceans and now thought to be the oldest living creatures before even eukaryote, and eukaryote type creatures. Yes 98% of things living (on Earth) definitely need water (H2O) because they need Oxidation to exist.

 

I ask is this a Requirement for Life? It appears not. At least not to some kingdoms.

 

Now it may be the wrong question (for me that is) to ask why there is no other solvent than water for DNA for a couple of reasons.

1. DNA does not dissolve in H2O (it floats) -- I remember this in biology.
2. I propose who is to say that DNA + RNA are the ONLY self-recombining molecules in existence
   (It's just all we are aware of).
3. You can't make claims and expect to go unchallenged. ^_^

The more you resist, this will persist. If you engage, the thought will move on to its final end.

 

Personally, I go back some of Leibnitz's early thoughts on Life (yes, he was a Mathimatician who with Newton helped to

invent Calculus). Well, he also pondered (and wrote about it) what makes Life Life. It was he who coined the phrase

(in Latin) Vis Viva (I forget the German) translates to Force of Life. I also ponder if there might be something beyond

the atoms themselves (no I have no proof, so don't ask). In my pondering, I can do that.

 

maddog

Edited May 5, 2012 by maddog

[HydrogenBond]

And such a substance does indeed exist! It has the chemical formula HNO3. Popularly known as Nitric Acid. Yet I've not yet seen gardeners spraying with it - why could that be, do you think?

 

Nitric acid is made by combining water with nitric oxide (NOx), so you still use water. The problem with concentrated nitric acid (minimal water) is it is too powerful an oxidizer for organic compounds. It would be hard to make anything that can last or remain polymerized within conc. nitric acid. Take a stainless steel beaker and burn organics like food in it, so it is impossible to clean with normal detergents. Next, add nitric acid and watch how is cuts through even the toughest carbon gunk. The corrosive Nitric acid combined with the toxic potassium hydroxide forms potassium nitrate in water. Now we have a gentle water solvent with food for plants.

 

DNA does not dissolve in H2O (it floats) -- I remember this in biology.

 

This is partially true. The DNA double helix will not separate; totally dissolve. But the combined double helix will dissolve. You can then add things to the water that will denature the DNA into separate helixes so both can dissolve. This is how water potential can be used to baseline the DNA until enzymes take over the task.

 

The reason I am approaching life, from the solvent side, instead of the biomaterial side, is because solvents like water are simpler and continuous throughout life. The solvent side offers the possibility of manipulating life in wholesale ways with far less complexity. There are endless variations of organics in life with a wide range of primary and secondary interactions; medicine and side effects. Water is complex in its own right but its options are much more finite and predictable. Theoretically, you should be able to manipulate the solvent to generate equilibrium so wholesale changes can occur. There should also be a sweet spot for the solvent. Instead of thousand of meds, it may only need a handful of adjustments. In this time of expensive medical care, there is a market for a more cost effective alternative.

 

To achieve that end you need to know all the tricks water can do.

Edited May 6, 2012 by HydrogenBond

[maddog]

This is partially true. The DNA double helix will not separate; totally dissolve. But the combined double helix will dissolve. You can then add things to the water that will denature the DNA into separate helixes so both can dissolve. This is how water potential can be used to baseline the DNA until enzymes take over the task.

The text above in bold seems to negate the previous statement. However, I get what you might be saying that a double strand is insoluble while a single strand can dissolve in water. I for one was only speaking of the full DNA (double)

 

The reason I am approaching life, from the solvent side, instead of the biomaterial side, is because solvents like water are simpler and continuous throughout life. The solvent side offers the possibility of manipulating life in wholesale ways with far less complexity. ... To achieve that end you need to know all the tricks water can do.

I think I am kind of warming up to that suspicion of Turtle's that you have some Creationist hidden agenda. You kind of ignore our comments that other compounds might also be able mimic what water can do (though maybe not as well) and that DNA/RNA might not be the ONLY self replicating compound. You only seem to pay attention to what you want to deliver not what others have to say. This is somewhat like what Republicans do in Congress everyday and we know how successful they are!!! :naughty:

 

maddog

[HydrogenBond]

I think I am kind of warming up to that suspicion of Turtle's that you have some Creationist hidden agenda. You kind of ignore our comments that other compounds might also be able mimic what water can do (though maybe not as well) and that DNA/RNA might not be the ONLY self replicating compound. You only seem to pay attention to what you want to deliver not what others have to say.

 

The topic is water and life, not life using other compound for solvents other than water. What other compounds would work as a solvent for life?. What would be an alternate replicator molecule for each of the other solvents? How can I address something invisible? I am trying to stick to what we know to be real and proven by reality. The alternates are all sizzle and no bacon. If you wish to start another topic I will use my creativity to suggest other solvents but then I will be attacked for speculation.

 

I will help you indirectly. The things I am discussing about water, like activity, apply to other solvents. Activity in water is a measure of its ability to hydrate things. Water is called the universal solvent because it can interact and hydrate so many things from ions to organics. Alternate solvents, will need to approach the activity level of water. If not the solvent might limit life.

 

Another consideration for life as we know, is water is one of the initial reactants of life; used in photosynthesis. It is also a terminal product of metabolism. Water, as the solvent is also a critical reactant and product for all the energy needs of life. It is not just a solvent but is also involved in its energy economy. Other solvents would benefit if they could also do this.

 

During photosynthesis, the other product is O2, which becomes the terminal electron acceptor. This product defines the energy bandwidth of life. If we burn any compound of life, with the O2, we get our solvent back; water. If you used ammonia or alcohol, you can't get as much energy or else you solvent would metabolize all the way to water. Life needs energy and lots of it. Even of we started in other solvents many will become water as the energy needs of life increase and they self digest. Water is as far as life can go. Maybe life could start in other solvents, but all road lead to water.

[maddog]

The topic is water and life, not life using other compound for solvents other than water. What other compounds would work as a solvent for life?. What would be an alternate replicator molecule for each of the other solvents? How can I address something invisible? I am trying to stick to what we know to be real and proven by reality. ... all road lead to water.

To say a topic as "water and life" as though "biblically" speaking as "water begats life" does not go unchallenged without counterexamples.

You have to have the mustard with the sandwich, if it is included, it is. To bad. See, I know early on in the creation of life on earth, water was not abundant. There was hardly any on the surface that wasn't steam. I know that from the geology of the earth of about 3+ BYrs ago. The conventional wisdom is now that the Kingdom of Archea is the earliest type of life we know of. It seems to get by on little water.

 

Your theory of processes are fine for the two most prevalent being plants and animals -- yes, need water. It is interesting of how/why that transition occurred, if true that Archea proceeded the other forms.

 

To me, you are free to speculate if declaring so, I do. It is when a speculation is passed of as true or strange claim without evidence to back it up.

Without the acknowledging the wonder of it all, consider "what if?" We as a species would likely never figured out how to make a circular device for carrying a load or to chip flint to make better blades for cutting or mixing certain ingredients to a specific temperature to forge metal anything. Civilization would not have even got started. So speculate away. Just let us know you are doing so, in cases where it is not obvious.

 

maddog

[HydrogenBond]

I have come to the conclusion this site lacks technically competent people. The creation tabooappears to be the only tool in the shed and is used too often as a technical substitute.

 

This site has become a mere shadow of what it used to be. I still come here out of a sentimental attachment. I like most of the others who are bored with the incompetence, are sad to see management choses to let the site run down into disrepair. It could be due to laziness, bargain basement staff and the evolutionist trolls.

 

The sciforum site is far more active with 10 times the people. They still got their share of staff trolls but there are far more competent people.

Edited May 9, 2012 by HydrogenBond

[TAMallick]

It is well known that opponent name of water is life. We can't think life any where without water.

[Lancewen]

To say a topic as "water and life" as though "biblically" speaking as "water begats life" does not go unchallenged without counterexamples.

You have to have the mustard with the sandwich, if it is included, it is. To bad. See, I know early on in the creation of life on earth, water was not abundant. There was hardly any on the surface that wasn't steam. I know that from the geology of the earth of about 3+ BYrs ago. The conventional wisdom is now that the Kingdom of Archea is the earliest type of life we know of. It seems to get by on little water.

 

Your theory of processes are fine for the two most prevalent being plants and animals -- yes, need water. It is interesting of how/why that transition occurred, if true that Archea proceeded the other forms.

 

To me, you are free to speculate if declaring so, I do. It is when a speculation is passed of as true or strange claim without evidence to back it up.

Without the acknowledging the wonder of it all, consider "what if?" We as a species would likely never figured out how to make a circular device for carrying a load or to chip flint to make better blades for cutting or mixing certain ingredients to a specific temperature to forge metal anything. Civilization would not have even got started. So speculate away. Just let us know you are doing so, in cases where it is not obvious.

 

maddog

 

I haven't read all the post in this topic, but there is one thing water does that made life possible on this world. It expands when it freezes and becomes less dense than liquid water and it floats on water. If that didn't happen, no life would have ever formed on this planet. I'm sure there are many other characteristics about water that make life possible such as the surface tension of water. Without that aspect, water would not be able to move up in plants via osmosis if I recall correctly. Though I suppose it could still exist in the oceans maybe. Can anybody else come up with with a characteristic of water that make life possible?

[maddog]

I have come to the conclusion this site lacks technically competent {? by whose definition ?} people. The creation taboo {as it all occurred because of some deity?} appears to be the only tool in the shed and is used too often as a technical substitute.

All of the strange claim soothsayers and ID proselytizers aside, I thought this has become a pretty good site all round. It may have become a bit more rigorous for your liking...

 

This site has become a mere shadow of what it used to be. I still come here out of a sentimental attachment. I like most of the others who are bored with the incompetence, are sad to see management choses to let the site run down into disrepair. It could be due to laziness, bargain basement staff and the evolutionist trolls.

Are you saying to believe in evolution (with good hard science) over some belief system based on some mythological story that may come from one or more books with no corroborating evidence, somehow turns one into a troll???

 

Well, I have three questions....

 

The sciforum site is far more active with 10 times the people. They still got their share of staff trolls but there are far more competent people.

Never heard of that one. Is that ID specific ? No one is ever challenged no matter what they might spew forth?

 

maddog

Edited May 10, 2012 by maddog