Life And Water

[HydrogenBond]

Hydrogen bonding within water has two stable states. This is represented in the graph below.

 

Hydrogen bonding can be either polar or partial covalent. The energy well at position A represent the polar and van der Waals state. Opposite charges attract, so this state is all about distances getting close so the energy is minimized. This state contains more entropy because it is not directional. The second stable state at position B, is the opposite in that it is highly directional and hydrogen bonds expand. The entropy is lower. The directional expansion is due to the partial covalent hydrogen bonding. The atoms need to align covalent bonding orbitals to get the best overlap. This needs a slight expansion.

 

 

The energy between these two states is small, so water can move back and forth. Because there is a small activation energy hill between these two states, both states are very distinct. Both states exists in their own energy wells, so both are stable. The value of this, to life, is connected to extended structuring in water.

 

Below is a picture of Icosahedral water clusters. Based on transitions between state A and B, such water clusters can assume expanded and contracted shapes, both of which are stable. The simple volume changes gives push and pull, while allowing significant changes in entropy and enthalpy (free energy). The cell is a very crowded places with molecules shoulder to shoulder with other molecules. Water provides push-pull within the cell (like a little pump) while also allowing significant local enthalpy and entropy changes depending on which stable state it takes.

 

Edited April 29, 2012 by HydrogenBond

[Moontanman]

HB, do you know the concept of evolution? The idea that life adapts to it's surroundings? Life of course uses all the advantages that water offers, if it didn't it would be quite weird. but to say that water is some how responsible for life or that water is some how uniquely suited for life is simply not supportable with the one data point we have.

 

If we found life forms, lets make it interesting and say silicone life forms on a a planet with oceans of concentrated sulfuric acid instead of water I would be willing to bet my life that life would use sulfuric acid to the exact limits of it's usefulness. Any intelligent life forms that evolved under those conditions would, when they closely examined that life, find that sulfuric acid was uniquely suited for their type of life and would find it silly that someone might think H2O is better suited for life.

 

It might turn out that all life depends on water, i honestly see no reason to assume that at this point but you cannot make that assertion from one data point HB, it's quite dishonest to do so...

[Turtle]

Again all my references are available in that one book.

 

Nucleic acid hydration

 

 

your link is not to a book, but Dr. Chaplin's web page. while he gives permission via Creative Commons license "to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work", he specifically forbids derrivative works such as you are building here.

 

Creative Commons license of Mr. Chaplin's link

 

No Derivative Works — You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.

 

you are in violation of not only our site rules, but copyright law.

Edited April 30, 2012 by Turtle

[maddog]

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

Though interesting this website has an agenda promoting "Intelligent Design" (which to me is not so bright). So I do find this

hard to be credible.

 

maddog

[maddog]

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.

This link is slightly better. What Ideally to me as most credible would a scientific source, with citations of papers where vindicated and corroborated experiments have been done to demonstrate such a list. This would be a bar in which to measure credibility. Not some lone student at an institution creating a website without any experiments of any kind. Good maybe, yet not good enough.

 

maddog

[maddog]

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?

The guy who rights bad SF and wrote Dianetics? That guy? This seems to be a real off-the-wall comment. Science of Aristotle was shot done centuries ago. It was example of what some of the comments: empirical evidence is good enough evidence to "prove" a theory. Really??!?? <_<

 

maddog

[maddog]

Showing data and proof is not a one way street, that is only applicable to those who dare to differ. Maybe someone can show us proof that another solvent can be used to create life, If not, will this be in violation of the site rules for proof? In my experience there is a dual standard. If you support the status quo, there are a different set of rules. Nobody required proof for that claim but just let it slide without question, as t hough it had been prove

To me, you are free to differ. I just ask when you make a claim that might fly in the fact of other inducible facts, that you might be challenged to corroborate your findings with a "credible" source (credible means research grade not some wily post that was found somewhere on the internet).

 

The entire argument of other solvents or the uniqueness of water cuts to the heart of the validity of one basic assumption of a statistical mechanical approach for life. The organics of biology are complicated enough so water as the solvent, is assumed to be inert. If we assume other solvents are possible for life, even without proof, this appears to supports that premise. The laws of scientific proof are waived since the ends justify the means. If we make water unique to life, like I claim, with water very anomalous, the inert water assumption is not valid. What is the proof other solvents can work? If the inert assumption of the solvent is invalid, does the statistical mechanical approach become pseudo-science or is it grandfathered in?

Life on earth evolved within water. I am not sure how I am suppose to prove that other than with common sense. If you don't want to accept that or wish to set up a diversion and smoke screen, there is no amount of proof that will even be acceptable.

Like Moontanman said, water being part of our origin for life was not in dispute.

 

maddog

[maddog]

I view the symbols of Bible Creation as connected to the evolution of modern human consciousness. To me the symbols reflect the transition from pre-human (human DNA but a natural mind) to when humans became ripe for civilization (still human DNA but a new modern human mind).

 

To me biological evolution is a separate matter. I am considered as much a rebel in religion as in science, since I think on my own. My opinion is water and organics both contributed to evolution on earth, with natural potentials within the water, setting constraints for the organics.

 

For example, phospholipids in water forms a bilayer membrane. This shape is not random or based on statistics, but is defined by the interaction of water with lipids; surface tension and energy; In that respect, I differ from existing evolutionary theory in that I look for aqueous cause and effect which places limits on random assumptions.

 

I talked about oil and water and how these phase separate. This is not random but based on energetics. As life evolves the oil-water effect is always in affect and will place limits in terms of shapes, placement and composition. Proteins place hydrophobic moieties inside and hydrophilic outside. This is not random but again is defined because of the interaction of water and organics.

 

If life evolved in water and water is based on hydrogen bonding, life would naturally be based on hydrogen bonding, too. This is not random but is based on chemical potentials created by water, with organics following suit. This is my position.

I guess where you and I differ. You see, I do not see God as a requirement that water behaves in this way, no all the other statement in this post about DNA, etc. This is not to say I deny there is a God. I am just stating when discussing a scientific discussion then religion of any faith does not enter into it at all. No if you would like to discuss theology or philosophy, there are other threads in other areas of this forum to do so. Like oil and water, in my mind religion and science don't mix well.

 

maddog

[maddog]

I completely agree with you that biology is chemistry and chemistry is physics, but think you mischaracterize Martin Chaplin. He’s a well-educated biochemist with bona fides from respected schools. A google search of his name and “pseudoscience” doesn’t do him justice, I think, as from what I’ve read, he’s often a strong critic of pseudoscience. His criticism of how other scientists attack pseudoscientists may, and this being taken as a defense of pseudoscience, has confused his reputation somewhat, and I get the impression, from writings of his such as Homeopathy, and Memory of Water, that he privately wishes that some pseudoscientific ideas to be elevated from the realm of pseudoscience to that of legitimate science, but he appears to me to “play by the rules” of legitimate science, refusing to accept what can’t be theoretically explained and experimentally verified.

To everyone,

 

Lest I not be understood - I am not denigrating in any way Homeopathy or those who promote it. I was not aware Marin Chaplin was a biochemist (I did not find that fact on his website). I do retract any dissatisfaction with this link. I do find the premise of Homeopathy though incredible, admittedly. I have been personally healed by this process.

 

maddog

[Turtle]

To everyone,

 

Lest I not be understood - I am not denigrating in any way Homeopathy or those who promote it. I was not aware Marin Chaplin was a biochemist (I did not find that fact on his website). I do retract any dissatisfaction with this link. I do find the premise of Homeopathy though incredible, admittedly. I have been personally healed by this process.

 

maddog

 

i don't presume to speak for craig, but as i pointed out in post #48, his take on homeopathy in the thread on that topic is unfavorable.

 

again as to chaplin, the validity of homeopathy aside, he forbids the use of his material such as it is used in this thread. again; it is a copyright violation. inasmuch as i expect no action on this from any here and because Mr. Chaplin (and/or his attorney) is the sole determiner, i have notified him at the e-mail address he gives at his link.

Edited April 30, 2012 by Turtle

[Turtle]

Though interesting this website has an agenda promoting "Intelligent Design" (which to me is not so bright). So I do find this hard to be credible.

 

maddog

 

perhaps you misunderstand sman's intent. he posted precisely because the source is not credible, in support of my [many] assertions that "Intelligent Design" is what h-bond is on about here.

[maddog]

again as to chaplin, the validity of homeopathy aside, he forbids the use of his material such as it is used in this thread. again; it is a copyright violation. inasmuch as i expect no action on this from any here and because Mr. Chaplin (and/or his attorney) is the sole determiner, i have notified him at the e-mail address he gives at his link.

I do hope that I have not myself infringe in a copyright violation by using his name in a response. Oops. :o

 

maddog

[Turtle]

I do hope that I have not myself infringe in a copyright violation by using his name in a response. Oops. :o

 

maddog

 

not at all. the license at his page is quite clear.

Creative Commons license of Mr. Chaplin's link

[maddog]

As to the more general notion of water being a "universal solvent", I did find a wiki link that was helpful:

 

Wiki - Polar Molecules

 

There also was the notion of Aqua Regia (Nitro-Hydrochloric Acid) which will even dissolve gold (Au).

 

The link above did mention HF that Moontanman discussed earlier, also BF3 (Borotryptoflouride).

Also was mention of Turpentine even though be a non-polar molecule, being to dissolve oils.

 

Another point, I made here earlier was at what temp and pressure as STP is not the only area

that life can form (this is more unique to an Earthly environment).

 

maddog

[maddog]

perhaps you misunderstand sman's intent. he posted precisely because the source is not credible, in support of my [many] assertions that "Intelligent Design" is what h-bond is on about here.

Turtle, You are right - I did misinterpret. Oops.

 

maddog

[Turtle]

Turtle, You are right - I did misinterpret. Oops.

 

maddog

 

to further clarify, hbond did not cite that source as it would be admitting his real purpose which would affirm my assertions which would put an end to this nonsense once and for all. i would also point out that sman's "intelligent design" page appears to be lifting Mr. Chaplin's material as well, in violation of his copyright. :naughty: i'll have a closer look and notify Mr. Chaplin if it is warranted. :email:

[CraigD]

What the hell did I do wrong?

Nothing! :)

 

I’ve always liked your signature line about wrestling with trolls, so just threw your name in by way of attribution when I repeated it. Though I don’t think you invent the saying, you introduced me to it, years ago :thumbs_up

 

first, hbond introduced chaplin in support of pseudo-science. second, that seems to be a common occurence on the web. moreover, you seem to have a different opinion of homeopathy in a discussion on that topic when you describe it as related, if not reliant, on spiritual belief.

To be clear, I don’t believe homeopathic medicine works, other than, in non-critical cases, by improving patient’s morale via the suggestion that it does. In his webpage on homeopathy, Chaplin concludes that there’s no empirical evidence that it works, no legitimate theoretical explanation of how it might, and cautions that

“A major problem in this area is that, without a testable hypothesis for the generally acknowledged potency of homeopathy, there is a growing possibility of others making fraudulent claims in related areas, as perhaps evidenced by the increasing use of the internet to advertise 'healthy' water concentrates using dubious (sometimes published but irreproducible) scientific and spiritual evidence.”

this is what i just don't get. how you and the other moderators in the full knowledge of hbonds ongoing troublemaking do little to nothing about it. i'm reminded of the current TV show What would You Do?, whose central message is that most people don't do the right thing even when it's obvious there's a wrong going on right in front of them.

 

you think this is fun!? and yet, you scold me? good grief. i'll point out that as i earlier responded to moontan's pop-in here, it seems to me he is not following his own stricture.

This is a tough balancing act, trying to extend to “science for everyone” principle to include arguably trollish folk like HBond, yet not be so open star members like you and Moontanman get disgusted and leave. We often end up trying just to keep exchanges polite, often feeling about as effective a referees in pro wrassl’in performances. :( (though at least we’re real and unrehearsed ;))

 

A thing is, I actually learn stuff from HBond’s posts, sometimes during the exercise of debunking some bogus claim, but also sometimes interesting stuff like

An interesting fact, is that the atoms in water H2O only stay together about 1 millisecond. Water is constantly breaking apart and swapping atoms with other water.

Like anyone with at least a minimal science education, I knew that liquid water, being a conductor, freely exchanged electrons between molecules. That it also exchanges protons (hydrogen nuclei) dramatically changes my intuitive microscopic mental picture of it. For me, these shifts in scientific imagination are among life’s most pleasant sensations.

 

So, everyone, please, stick to the science.

this thread was never about science except to denegrate it. no less is it true for virtually all hbond's posts. it's as plain as the noses on our our faces.

So let’s not let that happen!

 

The OP’s key claims

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.

have not, in this thread or in any other of which I know, been confirmed or refuted, and constitute an interesting and important question.

 

I’m really interested in knowing if this is true or not. I quickly found an online article suggesting it isn’t:

A naïve google search for “non-water based life” turns up some references that seem to say “yes” [a non-water DNA solvent is possible], such as the 2007 Astrobiology magazine article Life in Asphalt.

and immediately wondered

However, despite the article’s statement

Moreover, these bacteria survive with no water and little or no oxygen.

I’m unsure if it’s intended to assert that a bacterium can survive with no water within, or just with no water surrounding its cell.

As I understand them, practically all metabolically active (AKA “living”) biological molecules require some solvent to “structurally support” them as they perform their biomechanical actions. I know that liquid water is one such possible solvent. What I’m unsure of is whether others, such as the hydrocarbons described in Life in Asphalt, are another.

 

This isn’t a deep philosophical, political, religious, or paradigm-threatening question, but a technical, biological one, that inquiring minds want to know the answer to. :)