Life And Water

[Pincho Paxton]

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?

 

I'm not sidetracking the thread, I didn't reply to the thread, I am replying to you. In the thread I said, I can't reply else the thread will not be science, then you forced me into replying.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Pincho Paxton

[maddog]

it is about creationism maddog. and dissembling of course.

Actually Turtle, I was borrowing a pun (maybe a bad one) from the ad (old) of the "National Enquirer". This was a magazine (rag) my mother used to read avidly when I was a child. Let's just say she was using something other than logic in forming opinions. :rolleyes:

 

maddog

 

ps: I tend to ignore "creationism" like Clarence Darrow in Scopes trial, "who are we to say how long God believes a day is?"

[maddog]

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.

Turtle, can I get that on a bumper sticker, I find that quite memorable. :rolleyes:

 

"Any opinions can be your to hold and cherish.

However, facts are for everyone, once found they

are to be accepted or refuted, not messed with."

 

maddog

[maddog]

... maths.

Why is it that I see this everywhere...??? I mean this is like people use the word "math"

and think the plural is "maths"... ??!?!?! <_<

 

The actual word is Mathematics (plural) or Mathematical (singular adjective) as there

are many branches thereof. See the word Math is now commonly used "slang" from

Mathematics that is appears here to stay in English.

 

maddog

[Turtle]

Turtle, can I get that on a bumper sticker, I find that quite memorable. :rolleyes:

 

"Any opinions can be your to hold and cherish.

However, facts are for everyone, once found they

are to be accepted or refuted, not messed with."

 

maddog

 

yes you can. >> collection of freethought, humanist, atheist, pro-science, anti-war, progressive, liberal stickers. in keeping with the op, i'm pretty sure these stickers use non-water-soluable adhesive.

 

i had to look up who said the quote i gave as i either forget or didn't ever know. :P >> Daniel Patrick Moynihan

[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.

 

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.

 

 

There is another way to look at this. Is water perfect for life or is the life on our planet evolved to be perfect for water? Boron chemistry can be said to be as complex as carbon chemistry, maybe even more so, but boron is rare but it would work in water, but maybe work better in ammonia. Silicon life (not silicone) might work better when dissolved in liquid methane (think Titan) Silicone life might work in concentrated sulfuric acid.

 

Life on earth may very well make water look like the perfect solvent but it could also be because life on earth evolved in water. Life that evolved in oceans of concentrated sulfuric acid would make that solvent look perfect for it's self.

 

My point is that we have a data point of one, until we amass more data points all we can do is speculate and not with much in the way of confidence.

[labelwench]

The subject of water and how it relates to life on this planet is a fascinating one to me. I was reading an article in National Geographic which contained the statement that there is virtually the same amount of water on this planet as there was during the time of the dinosaurs, that we are drinking the same water that they did, and that much of this water was once the very bodies of the dinosaurs themselves.

 

Our bodies are largely comprised of water and once we die, that water is reclaimed and recycled.

 

We are but ambulatory water is the thought that comes to my mind.

 

 

Photo by Zena Holloway http://www.digitalpi...water-pictures/

[Pincho Paxton]

Why is it that I see this everywhere...??? I mean this is like people use the word "math"

and think the plural is "maths"... ??!?!?! <_<

 

The actual word is Mathematics (plural) or Mathematical (singular adjective) as there

are many branches thereof. See the word Math is now commonly used "slang" from

Mathematics that is appears here to stay in English.

 

maddog

 

The Firefox dictionary allows Maths in English UK. As for the other replies.. well I can't really show my disgust.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Pincho Paxton

[HydrogenBond]

Life on earth may very well make water look like the perfect solvent but it could also be because life on earth evolved in water. Life that evolved in oceans of concentrated sulfuric acid would make that solvent look perfect for it's self.

 

 

This is not true, simply because water is the most unique substance found in nature, with 69 known anomalies relative to trends found in other materials. Life takes advantage of many of these anomalies. For example, the most common anomaly is water expands when it freezes. This is one anomaly that is very beneficial to life on earth. For example, when a body of water freezes in the winter, the ice floats on the top and the heavier liquid water will sink to the bottom, bringing O2 to the plants and animals, below. Any other material would freeze, sink and pin life in the muck. This would narrow life to only the warmest areas of a planet. Water has selective advantage.

 

Relative to life on earth, water acts as a reactant in photosynthesis and a terminal products of metabolism. Water defines the energy book ends of life. Water is more than just a solvent.

Edited April 26, 2012 by HydrogenBond

[Turtle]

This is not true, simply because water is the most unique substance found in nature, with 69 known anomalies relative to trends found in other materials. Life takes advantage of many of these anomalies. For example, the most common anomaly is water expands when it freezes. This is one anomaly that is very beneficial to life on earth. For example, when a body of water freezes in the winter, the ice floats on the top and the heavier liquid water will sink to the bottom, bringing O2 to the plants and animals, below. Any other material would freeze, sink and pin life in the muck. This would narrow life to only the warmest areas of a planet. Water has selective advantage.

 

Relative to life on earth, water acts as a reactant in photosynthesis and a terminal products of metabolism. Water defines the energy book ends of life. Water is more than just a solvent.

 

you never fail to fail to give any bona fide reference for your unscientific claims. not that i expect them, as you never have. your dissembling anti-science postings will not stand.

 

"most unique" has no scientific meaning, let alone that as every "substance" has unique properties, "they" are therefore unique in their own rights. moreover, you have not listed the 69 "anomalies" or your source for this claim.

 

lacking any authentic listing or definition of water's "anomalies", the claim that water's expansion on freezing is the "most" common is baseless. without statistical data corroborating all "anomalies" of water and their occurrences, as well as those of all other "substances", "most" is an unscientific measure.

 

then, since a body of water is just that, no other "material" is there to freeze and float or sink. moreover, if there were another "material" (whatever that means) in a body of water that did freeze and sink, then its sinking would do the muck pinning.

 

all-in-all, this is nothing more than yet another of your sneaking petty misguided misinformed ideological diatribes attacking science and its methods. i know you're down there in the muck and sooner or later you will have to breach.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Turtle

[sman]

you never fail to fail to give any bona fide reference for your unscientific claims.

 

Wasn't hard to find. Like turning over most any cool stone on a summer day:19 Unique Properties of Water

 

At the time of creation, eight of what I call the H2 hydrogen atom in Chapter 9 combined to make the oxygen atom. When one more H2 hydrogen atom and the oxygen atom combined to make the water molecule, it was necessary for this molecule to possess at least twenty-one anomalies, properties that the laws of chemistry and physics says it should not have, in order to produce and perpetuate life.

[Turtle]

Wasn't hard to find. Like turning over most any cool stone on a summer day:19 Unique Properties of Water

 

you da s, man. :thumbs_up hbond must have miscopied 19 as 69. ooops! :doh: let the dissembling resume...not.

[HydrogenBond]

I didn't bother listing the anomalies because I was trying not to divert the discussion. This is biology and not physical chemistry. Here is a link: My link

 

The link discusses 67 anomalies. These are the explained anomalies. There are also a few unexplained anomalies.

 

Turtle gave a good example of what Pincho was talking about. Science forums have distracting elements pretending to be knowledgeable of science. There is no burden of proof on the science critic and they can attack you as a creationist. If I held out this link and continued to claim its the truth was true, I might get expelled. Blind leading the blind. Maybe the staff can address this issue or the unrestrained critic or is that company policy? Is Turtle one of the science forum bouncers?

Edited April 26, 2012 by HydrogenBond

[maddog]

This is not true, simply because water is the most unique substance found in nature, with 69 known anomalies relative to trends found in other materials. Life takes advantage of many of these anomalies. For example, the most common anomaly is water expands when it freezes. This is one anomaly that is very beneficial to life on earth. For example, when a body of water freezes in the winter, the ice floats on the top and the heavier liquid water will sink to the bottom, bringing O2 to the plants and animals, below. Any other material would freeze, sink and pin life in the muck. This would narrow life to only the warmest areas of a planet. Water has selective advantage. Relative to life on earth, water acts as a reactant in photosynthesis and a terminal products of metabolism. Water defines the energy book ends of life. Water is more than just a solvent.

HydrogenBond,

 

I would admit this might be odd among liquids (though it is not alone, there are others), you mentioned 68 more. I like Turtle is curious to see your source on this. For myself, I am studying anomalies in general (though I specifically thinking physics more than chemistry). I can guess that a specific neighborhood of temperature and pressure where three separate phases of H2O can exist in the same region. So can you now furnish 67 more and the source please. I am curious.

 

Sagan intrigued the minds of young scientists so much that a good novel by David Brin, Physicist at UCSD wrote the "Code of the Lifemaker" (I forget when). I introduces a lifeform based on silicon and methane living on Titan. Good read. I recommend it.

 

I will have to look into Moontanman's notion of Boron ( B )chemistry. It is just above Carbon ( C ) so would have similar properties.

 

Then there was the novel by Robert L. Forward, "Dragon's Egg". In that a lifeform living on a Neutron star. Another example.

 

I think it is best to keep options open. You only need on couterexample to disprove. Like Moontanman says, one data point (example) such as life on Earth does not "prove" that Carbon ( C ) or H2O is the only way to create it.

 

maddog

Edited April 26, 2012 by maddog

[Turtle]

I didn't bother listing the anomalies because I was trying not to divert the discussion. This is biology and not physical chemistry. Here is a link: My link

 

The link discusses 67 anomalies. These are the explained anomalies. There are also a few unexplained anomalies.

 

Turtle gave a good example of what Pincho was talking about. Science forums have distracting elements pretending to be knowledgeable of science. There is no burden of proof on the science critic and they can attack you as a creationist. If I held out this link and continued to claim its the truth was true, I might get expelled. Blind leading the blind. Maybe the staff can address this issue or the unrestrained critic or is that company policy? Is Turtle one of the science forum bouncers?

 

biology is chemistry and chemistry is physics and martin chaplin is a pseudo-scientific crackpot* and you are a dissembling creationsit troll and this is a science site and i am a bouncer. you are correct that if you were truthful you would be expelled. you would cut off your own nose to spite your face.

 

*Martin Chaplin pseudoscience @ Google

Wonky Water weirdness and quackery: Junk Science in the Marketplace

Edited April 26, 2012 by Turtle

[Guest MacPhee]

biology is chemistry and chemistry is physics and martin chaplin is a creationist and you are a dissembling creationsit troll and this is a science site and i am a bouncer. you are correct that if you were truthful you would be expelled. you would cut off your own nose to spite your face.

 

Some posters on here, seem blatant re-incarnations of past lives. You can see them cackling: "Science is Aristotle, and Martin Luther is a dissembling heretic troll, and this is an Orthodox site, and I am an Inquisitor with thumbscrews.... the iron grows hot, recant now..."

 

Maybe L Ron Hubbard was right?

[Turtle]

Some posters on here, seem blatant re-incarnations of past lives. You can see them cackling: "Science is Aristotle, and Martin Luther is a dissembling heretic troll, and this is an Orthodox site, and I am an Inquisitor with thumbscrews.... the iron grows hot, recant now..."

 

Maybe L Ron Hubbard was right?

 

do you have anything of merit to post that includes a reference per our rules?

 

Science Forum Rules

How should I behave?

Be yourself. But please respect these ground rules:

 

■ In general, back up your claims by using links or references.

 

■ If you make strange claims, please provide proof or at least backup of some kind. If you fail to do so, or the backup you provide is not deemed adequate, the moderators may move your post to the Strange Claims forum.

...

■ Avoid short, witty, off-topic remarks ("hit-and-run posts") in a thread where people are having a serious discussion

...

 

this is not a democracy here, it is a privately owned web site. membership is free, but speech is not. if you don't like the rules and/or can't control your behavior within them, then you would do well to look for another forum suited to your inclinations.