Life And Water

[Lancewen]

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

 

maddog

 

Not even hardly, but go look for yourself. http://www.sciforums.com/

 

It does seem to have a larger membership and it's a more active forum in some ways, but like all science forums it does have conflicting members. The forum software you have here is a bit more advanced but not by much. They have a poster with over 70,000 posts (S.A.M.) if you want to talk Indian and middle Eastern customs and politics she's your go to person.

[Turtle]

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?

 

so, in other words, "i haven't done due diligance, but i'm going to comment anyway." nicely played. :doh:

 

but yes, ice floats and it was discussed in what you didn't read. nicely played again. :rolleyes:

 

by what evidence do you assert that life can't form if ice didn't float?

 

you do not recall correctly water transport in vascular plants.

 

...The major mechanism by which water (along with dissolved materials) is carried upward through the xylem is called TATC (Transpiration-Adhesion-Tension-Cohesion). It should be noted that TATC, while supported by most scientists, is speculated but not proven to be at work in very tall trees. In this theory, transpiration, the evaporation of water from the leaf, is theorized to create a pressure differential that pulls fluids (held together by cohesion) up from the roots. ...

 

i suppose maybe i've said enough for this post.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Turtle

[Lancewen]

so, in other words, "i haven't done due diligance, but i'm going to comment anyway." nicely played. :doh:

 

but yes, ice floats and it was discussed in what you didn't read. nicely played again. :rolleyes:

 

by what evidence do you assert that life can't form if ice didn't float?

 

The following answer sums it up nicely.

 

What would happen if ice didn't float?

 

Answer

The fact that ice floats is of huge biological significance. Because only the top layer of any large body of water freezes, the floating ice will insulate the unfrozen water, allowing for organisms to live in warmer water below. If water was more dense as a solid, and would therefore sink; ponds, lakes, and even oceans and seas would freeze solid, with only a few inches of the top layer thawing in summer. This would effectively stop life from taking root from the beginning, as well as ending life on earth as it is known today.

 

 

http://wiki.answers...._didn%27t_float

 

 

 

 

you do not recall correctly water transport in vascular plants.

 

 

 

i suppose maybe i've said enough for this post.

 

Thanks for setting me straight on this issue.

Edited May 10, 2012 by arKane

[Turtle]

The following answer sums it up nicely.

 

Answer

The fact that ice floats is of huge biological significance. Because only the top layer of any large body of water freezes, the floating ice will insulate the unfrozen water, allowing for organisms to live in warmer water below. If water was more dense as a solid, and would therefore sink; ponds, lakes, and even oceans and seas would freeze solid, with only a few inches of the top layer thawing in summer. This would effectively stop life from taking root from the beginning, as well as ending life on earth as it is known today.

 

citing these facts about water does not mean the conclusions attached logically follow. for example, there are oceans that never freeze, as well as hot springs both undersea and terrestrial where life may have formed in conjunction with water. go to yellowstone in the dead of winter and see the bacterial colonies living in the waters. water isn't life; life is life.

 

to sum up your link nicely, it's not worth the virtual ink to write it. moreover, as several others have pointed out, just because we only have seen life with water does not lead to the logical conclusion that life must have water or that only "unique" characteristics such as water has can lead to life.

 

then of course, hbond is not really about science & logical reasoning arkane. you likely didn't read that either. :rolleyes:

 

 

Thanks for setting me straight on this issue.

 

de nada. :)

[Lancewen]

citing these facts about water does not mean the conclusions attached logically follow. for example, there are oceans that never freeze, as well as hot springs both undersea and terrestrial where life may have formed in conjunction with water. go to Yellowstone in the dead of winter and see the bacterial colonies living in the waters. water isn't life; life is life.

 

to sum up your link nicely, it's not worth the virtual ink to write it. moreover, as several others have pointed out, just because we only have seen life with water does not lead to the logical conclusion that life must have water or that only "unique" characteristics such as water has can lead to life.

 

Maybe, I should have said higher order life such as human life. While it might be nice to find off world microbial life in some unlikely spots. It takes a well established bio-system to support the development of more intelligent life forms. Also, we know for sure that life on earth needed water and can't live without it. No life that we have ever discovered can live with out water. I won't say that life can't exist in another non-water bio-system, but I do think the odds are against it.

[maddog]

No life that we have ever discovered can live with out water. I won't say that life can't exist in another non-water bio-system, but I do think the odds are against it.

I would say the Kingdom Archea (live in those steam vents at the bottom of the oceans) that metabolize sulfur anerobically might be a good if not perfect example. There might be a lot of steam in their environment, though not liquid water.

 

maddog

 

ps: I remember (about the time of Viking - '75 or so) that speculation about where life could now be:

 

1. Mars? No water now, maybe then?

2. Europa under the ice appears to be an ocean - maybe there.

3. Titan (thought it might be based on other hydrocarbons - ethane - like)... Silicon, or ?

4. Triton - I remember Carl Sagan thought this one up using liquid methane/ammonia as a substitute solvent over water.

5. I throw this one in (maybe I'll write a SF -- who knows), upper clouds of Venus where pH levels might be more acceptable, pressure lower - and even some water (vapor).

 

I still didn't understand why HB's agitation for any discussion with a protagonist begs for a antagonist. I mean, really?!? :doh:

 

maddog

Edited May 11, 2012 by maddog

[maddog]

Sorry HB left so soon. I finally found that book I mentioned among all misplaced ones, etc.

 

The book is "The Hidden Messages in Water"", by Masaru Emoto.

 

This book is about all the interesting things water does as it freezes. What fascinates me about it is this behavior seems fractally driven. Nonlinear behavior with small input changes can drastically change the output (a completely different crystal).

 

The neat thing about water is the shape of the triple point. Equilibrium is easy to get to here and once there an apparent resistance to move away. Once at (or in its neighborhood) there, a lot of strange behavior - simultaneously in all three phases, etc.

 

It is kinda' dynamic even.

 

I am not forming any conclusions, just marvel at the pictures in his book and what he is describing. It is an interesting read. B)

 

maddog

Edited May 11, 2012 by maddog

[Moontanman]

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.

 

Yes, no doubt about it, 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. The question is why is water to singular with respect to life as we know?

 

Again, because life as we know it evolved in water and has evolved to fit water with a fair amount of perfection.

 

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.

 

Again, why would you expect another result? Who would expect that to happen if you soaked it in ammonia, alcohol, or methane? Water, in respect to life as we know it, is indeed perfect for that life, i don't understand why you seem to think this is somehow unique or unexpected. Given what we do know about life and it's ability to adapt and evolve I would be surprised if water didn't appear to be perfect for life as we know it...

 

To be honest I tend to agree with the assertion that water and life go hand in hand, I might even go so far as to say that multicellular life is only possible in water using carbon, lots of evidence points in that direction. i would be much surprised if at some point we discover a planet full of life as the earth is and it not be based on carbon and water. i can give many reasons for this but I can also point out that other solvents might do some things better. It's even possible that other elements might be better at bearing the scaffolding of life better than carbon but since we have only one example of life any ideas about any other kind of life is speculation at best... But if there is life based on or dissolved in other chemicals i would be amazed if that life wasn't as adapted to that scaffold or solvent as our life is adapted to carbon and water...

[Moontanman]

I would say the Kingdom Archea (live in those steam vents at the bottom of the oceans) that metabolize sulfur anerobically might be a good if not perfect example. There might be a lot of steam in their environment, though not liquid water.

 

 

Actually they live in super critical water. Too much pressure for it to be steam, it's a super critical fluid. There is some evidence that the properties of water that makes it a good solvent for life are magnified when it is a super critical fluid...

 

On second thought I'm not so sure about the super critical part, I'm not sure any life has been found at the temps necessary for water to be super critical, but the pressures and temps i do know Archea have been found at allow for water to be a liquid.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Moontanman

[Lancewen]

I would say the Kingdom Archea (live in those steam vents at the bottom of the oceans) that metabolize sulfur anerobically might be a good if not perfect example. There might be a lot of steam in their environment, though not liquid water.

 

Water is water, whether it be ice, liquid, or steam vapor, and I believe it's bacteria that metabolizes the sulfur and makes the energy available to host partner.

 

ps: I remember (about the time of Viking - '75 or so) that speculation about where life could now be:

 

1. Mars? No water now, maybe then?

 

Some speculation that underground water still exist on Mars, and ice at the poles.

 

2. Europa under the ice appears to be an ocean - maybe there.

 

Maybe, but where would life there find a source of energy there? Very cold and virtually no sunlight. Even if life could eek out a living there, that's a far cry to getting started there.

 

3. Titan (thought it might be based on other hydrocarbons - ethane - like)... Silicon, or ?

 

Maybe at very cold temperatures, silicon could be a carbon substitute for life, but again, very long odds against it.

 

4. Triton - I remember Carl Sagan thought this one up using liquid methane/ammonia as a substitute solvent over water.

 

Liquid methane/ammonia don't even come close to being the universal solvent that water is, and the chilly temperature makes life there dubious at best.

 

5. I throw this one in (maybe I'll write a SF -- who knows), upper clouds of Venus where pH levels might be more acceptable, pressure lower - and even some water (vapor).

 

Let me know when it's finished and I'll buy a copy.:rolleyes:

 

I still didn't understand why HB's agitation for any discussion with a protagonist begs for a antagonist. I mean, really?!? :doh:

 

maddog

[Turtle]

citing these facts about water does not mean the conclusions attached logically follow. for example, there are oceans that never freeze, as well as hot springs both undersea and terrestrial where life may have formed in conjunction with water. go to yellowstone in the dead of winter and see the bacterial colonies living in the waters. water isn't life; life is life.

 

to sum up your link nicely, it's not worth the virtual ink to write it. moreover, as several others have pointed out, just because we only have seen life with water does not lead to the logical conclusion that life must have water or that only "unique" characteristics such as water has can lead to life.

 

Maybe, I should have said higher order life such as human life. While it might be nice to find off world microbial life in some unlikely spots. It takes a well established bio-system to support the development of more intelligent life forms. Also, we know for sure that life on earth needed water and can't live without it. No life that we have ever discovered can live with out water. I won't say that life can't exist in another non-water bio-system, but I do think the odds are against it.

 

in biological evolution, higher-order life evolved(s) from lower-order life, i.e. unicellular life. "well established bio-system" is an undefined unqualified measure. again, it is a logical fallacy [Affirming the consequent ] to draw conclusions on qualities of life not discovered from qualities of discovered life.

 

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.

 

this being a science site and evolution being a scientific subject, "evolutionist troll" is oxymoronic. you have no one to blame for the condition of your tools but yourself.

 

Sorry HB left so soon. I finally found that book I mentioned among all misplaced ones, etc.

 

The book is "The Hidden Messages in Water"", by Masaru Emoto.

 

This book is about all the interesting things water does as it freezes. What fascinates me about it is this behavior seems fractally driven. Nonlinear behavior with small input changes can drastically change the output (a completely different crystal).

...

 

here's an abstract on ice crystallization and fractals:

 

The Dimensional Characteristics of Ice Crystal Aggregates from Fractal Geometry

Abstract

Ice crystal aggregates imaged by aircraft particle imaging probes often appear to be fractal in nature. As such, their dimensional properties, mass, and projected area can be related using fractal geometry. In cloud microphysics, power-law mass (m)– and area (A)–dimensional (D) relationships (e.g., m = aDb) incorporate different manifestations of the fractal dimension as the exponent (B ). In this study a self-consistent technique is derived for determining the mass and projected area properties of ice particles from fractal geometry. A computer program was developed to simulate the crystal aggregation process. The fractal dimension of the simulated aggregates was estimated using the box counting method in three dimensions as well as for two-dimensional projected images of the aggregates. The two- and three-dimensional fractal dimension values were found to be simply related. This relationship enabled the development of mass–dimensional relationships analytically from cloud particle images. This technique was applied to data collected during two field projects. The exponent in the mass–dimensional relationship, the fractal dimension, was found to be between 2.0 and 2.3 with a dependence on temperature noted for both datasets. The coefficient a in the mass–dimensional relationships was derived in a self-consistent manner. Temperature-dependent mass–dimensional relationships have been developed. Cloud ice water content estimated using the temperature-dependent relationship and particle size distributions agreed well with directly measured ice water content values. The results are appropriate for characterizing cloud particle properties in clouds with high concentrations of ice crystal aggregates.

[maddog]

Actually they live in super critical water. Too much pressure for it to be steam, it's a super critical fluid. There is some evidence that the properties of water that makes it a good solvent for life are magnified when it is a super critical fluid...

 

On second thought I'm not so sure about the super critical part, I'm not sure any life has been found at the temps necessary for water to be super critical, but the pressures and temps i do know Archea have been found at allow for water to be a liquid.

Moontanman,

 

I stand corrected. Yes, I knew the pressure was much higher (more than 4 atm), and the temp was about 180 deg F. Hotter than any cellular

life of the two kingdoms we know and love. What is the definition of "super critical fluid". I have a paper in the last year (Science I think) that showed these cells thriving in an environment rich in arsenic. Another typical poison. Enough to immediately any cell in our bodies.

 

I was not using these extreme microbes to counter water other than to show what we expect water to do or be in what form may not be the same.

Highly toxic, hot, high pressure, etc are examples where the average cellular creature would not last long.

 

maddog

[maddog]

this being a science site and evolution being a scientific subject, "evolutionist troll" is oxymoronic. you have no one to blame for the condition of your tools but yourself.

Turtle,

 

If one were to accept "evolutionist troll"what would you call the flipside of the coin? "Creationist zombie" or maybe "mutant"?

 

Of course only lefties are the only one in their right-minds anyways, so maybe we're all a bunch of crazies. -- Yeah, that could be it

 

Creationist Crazies!!!

 

Even better

 

Creationist Zealots... That just could be the opposite! ;)

 

maddog

[Lancewen]

in biological evolution, higher-order life evolved(s) from lower-order life, i.e. unicellular life. "well established bio-system" is an undefined unqualified measure. again, it is a logical fallacy [Affirming the consequent ] to draw conclusions on qualities of life not discovered from qualities of discovered life.

 

Yes, but how can we make long shot assumptions about life without water, when we have no examples of such a thing? I believe there may be many places where primitive lower order life can get started and live, but because of a fairly extreme environment will never evolve past that stage. On earth life was able to change the environment by producing free oxygen that allowed higher life forms to develop and evolve to fill all available niches where life can get the energy it needs to survive and procreate. This doesn't appear to be the case with any other world in our solar system. Who can say what other solar systems might be like, but I'd like to think that anywhere life can exist it will exist.

 

It seems to me that if a non-water based life could exist, it should exist here, for the simple reason there should not be any competition between water needy life and non-water life. Which means they could develop and evolve next to each other without conflict.

[Turtle]

Yes, but how can we make long shot assumptions about life without water, when we have no examples of such a thing?

 

hypothesis

1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.

3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.

 

the key here is whether or not the "assumption" is testable. if something, such as an assumption, is not testable, then the someth-umption is not an hypothesis and so not science. because we know a great deal about water's role in life, and a great deal about it's chemistry and the chemistry of other compounds, we can "assume" some things true and design, if not conduct, experiments to affirm or deny the assumption, nothwithstanding the experiment may raise new questions and neither affirm or deny the assumption.

 

on the topic of this thread, supernatural agents are by definition untestable and so not science.

 

I believe there may be many places where primitive lower order life can get started and live, but because of a fairly extreme environment will never evolve past that stage.

 

again, this as an argument, is a logical fallacy. erroneous logic. wrong. (did you bother to read the link i gave you on logical fallacy? if you don't understand your errors, how will you correct them?)

 

 

On earth life was able to change the environment by producing free oxygen that allowed higher life forms to develop and evolve to fill all available niches where life can get the energy it needs to survive and procreate. This doesn't appear to be the case with any other world in our solar system.

 

logical fallacy.

 

Who can say what other solar systems might be like, but I'd like to think that anywhere life can exist it will exist.

 

science isn't about what people "like to think". it's about what people can come to know.

 

It seems to me that if a non-water based life could exist, it should exist here, for the simple reason there should not be any competition between water needy life and non-water life. Which means they could develop and evolve next to each other without conflict.

 

it seems to me you have no idea about solid reasoning.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Turtle

[maddog]

... because of a fairly extreme environment will never evolve past that stage. On earth life was able to change the environment by producing free oxygen that allowed higher life forms to develop and evolve to fill all available niches where life can get the energy it needs to survive and procreate. This doesn't appear to be the case with any other world in our solar system. Who can say what other solar systems might be like, but I'd like to think that anywhere life can exist it will exist.

I think this was the point I was driving at, though admittedly went unstated.

 

It seems to me that if a non-water based life could exist, it should exist here, for the simple reason there should not be any competition between water needy life and non-water life. Which means they could develop and evolve next to each other without conflict.

Personally, I'm not so sure. Even so, there may actually be and we just haven't found them yet. I admit for Earth this probability is Extremely low.

 

I was actually considering these possibilities at exoticly extreme environment (maybe definitely not earthlike).

 

maddog

[Lancewen]

I think this was the point I was driving at, though admittedly went unstated.

 

 

Personally, I'm not so sure. Even so, there may actually be and we just haven't found them yet. I admit for Earth this probability is Extremely low.

 

I was actually considering these possibilities at exotically extreme environment (maybe definitely not earth like).

 

maddog

 

After giving it some more thought, and considering this is basically a water world it doesn't seem reasonable that a non water based life would ever develop here. In many SF plots I've come across chlorine breathing aliens that were probably not water based life. I assume the chlorine serves the same function for them as oxygen does for us. Without seeing proof of this type of life, I will only continue to enjoy the SF plots in the correct context.