Water and evolution

[pioneer]

Water is critically important to life. Very few, if any, biological systems or reactions will function without water. There is no substitute for water in life as we know it. Logic would suggest that the evolution of life was also dependant upon the unique properties of water. Is the affect of water taken into consideration within evolutionary theories or is this variable left out even though nothing will work without its unique properties? The answer is this critical variable is left out of the analysis even though it was no doubt critical to every step in evolution.

 

That being said, what is unique about water, is its properties are defined by hydrogen bonding. The observation that hydrogen bonding is also critical to life, in the light of the critical role of water in evolution, suggests that our carbon-nitrogen based life life evolved its hydrogen bonding nature in response to the water. In other words, what better way for water to retain its critical role to life than to push evolution in the direction where it could interface based on the same variable that gives water its unique properties. This keeps water always at the forefront of continuing evolution.

 

Water although just H2O is the most complicated substance in nature with at least 63 anomalies relative to trends of other similar molecules. It makes sense that the energetics in water, which makes these anomalies possible, is also what makes life possible. In terms of speculation, maybe life is evolving to take into consideration the range that is inherent within the water. This is an area of evolution I would like to investigate and discuss in a rational way, even if empirical can ignore this critical variable for a good first approximation.

 

I am not discounting the role of C,N,O, etc, but this doesn't work without water as the mediator. The C,N,O also impacts the water so new states of water become possible for further change in C,N,O, etc. This would make evolution a two-way street.

[pioneer]

I realize this is hard to comment on. The solvent properties of water are critical to life. That solvent power needs to continuously line up with the organics or they don't work right. So we have solvent power always one step ahead so it can be affective.

 

An interesting water affect, may have helped induce the original formation of DNA and RNA. The base pairing on DNA have extra H that can form hydrogen bonds but which don't participate in the base pairing. These are used to support a helix of water within the DNA double helix. The DNA and RNA were designed to include water. This is what one would expect if water was leading the design.

 

So if we needed to insert bases, early in evolution, without enzymes, we need to do it in a way that supports the water's double helix since that is the default which is going to form. It would be an interesting project to see if the double helix of water extends beyond the end of a strand of DNA double helix. If it does, this offers a way to add bases to the end in primal times. Just good ole water pushing evolution. This is not yet replicators but making the first stands of DNA. The idea is that water is adding a little extra to the needs of the energetics.

[Moontanman]

Not hard to comment on at all, I take the opposite stance, I think life has adapted to water not the other way around. If we lived on a planet with seas of Hot Concentrated Sulfuric Acid we would think the same thing about HCSA. Our life would be preternaturally adapted to HCSA and we see water as just another chemical with some attributes that might make it work in a limited way under unusual conditions as a life solvent.

[pioneer]

Existing life as we know it, can not substitute for water. What that implies is life adapted to water. Water was and still is the continuous phase and therefore was/is the bulk affect that surrounds the living state.

 

Although water is just a simple molecule, H2O, it is actually the most complicated chemical substance with about 63 anomalies relative to similar compounds. Water is a unique substance. The many solvents, one could postulate as a substitute for water, do not have anywhere near the same range of anomalies. For example, it is the only natural molecule that expands when it freezes. Another is hot water will freeze faster than cold water. Water does not always follow the rules that dictate the rest of chemistry. This is connected to hydrogen bonding. But it is not just due to hydrogen bonding since alcohols and ammonia don't show the same level of anomalies. Water is totally unique.

 

The angle I see is, since water is so unique in chemistry, and since water is the continuous phase in life, then the uniqueness of water playing a pivotal role in forming that unique state of chemistry called life.

[Moontanman]

Ok, I'm not quite sure what you are saying. Do you mean that water is so unique life cannot exist without water? Or that our type of life has to have water because it has adapted to the properties of water?

[insane_alien]

i'd ignore pioneer if i were you, he tends to live in his own little world where reality need not apply.

[pioneer]

Ok, I'm not quite sure what you are saying. Do you mean that water is so unique life cannot exist without water? Or that our type of life has to have water because it has adapted to the properties of water?

 

Maybe both at the same time. The only proven life we know for certain is based on water. All the rest is speculation and never been demonstrated in reality. But at the same time, water is the most common molecule in the universe. It is also the most complex, especially in the liquid state, allowing the widest range of flexibility as a solvent for life. It is not coincidence both water and life use hydrogen bonding to make life possible. It is also logical that water came first and was always the majority component and therefore the push for life.

 

i'd ignore pioneer if i were you, he tends to live in his own little world where reality need not apply.

 

I am creative and am not afraid to propose new ways of looking at things. Not everything is going to work, but not everything is off base either. Let me go through the logic again. Life on earth will not work without water. If we dehydrate life or use another solvent, life is dead. Therefore, logic says there is something about water that is unique to life on earth.

 

Where this discussion should be going is asking what how does water allow a bunch of biochemical to come to life? A cell is dead without water, correct??? When add water to a plant seed it comes to life. Water is adding something.

[Moontanman]

Yes adding water is adding something, water allows chemical reactions to take place. with out water they take place too slowly if at all. Water is simply the substance that both dissolves the chemicals necessary for life and allows them to interact with each other. This is well known but the is no single mysterious property of water that isn't shared with other liquids. Liquid ammonia isn't as good as water in some ways, in others it is better. Hot Concentrated Sulfuric Acid is different but not inferior as well. Liquids that might substitute for water consist of

 

H2O2

HF

NH3

CH4

various other hydrocarbons

N2

O2

Ar

H2

HCSA

I am sure there are others but the point is that all of these have both good and bad points.

H2O has bad points as well, expanding on freezing is very bad for life, cells burst. a solvent that simply freezes might be much better. I really don't see how you can say water is so great when we have only one data point. For all we know life might be almost always based in a hydrocarbon of some sort. Water life might be a rare fluke. We are biased for water because it is our drink of necessity. It may be that water is rarely used by life, until we get a few more data points there is just no way to know.

 

i'd ignore pioneer if i were you, he tends to live in his own little world where reality need not apply.

 

I've become rather good at nailing jello to a wall on these forums. Arguing evolution with creationists has taught me a lot.

[pioneer]

I am not a creationist. I appear to argue that way, because I am not an empiricist either, since that approach does not have to be logically consistent, only consistent with the data. With evolution we have discontinuous data, therefore logic would indicate empirical models using such data will always end up as some version of discontinuity. It is not clear whether this is logical with reality or just an artifact of only discontinuous data being available.

 

The logical tie breaker is the inability of evolution to make solid predictions of the future. Since evolution, as written, can't be used for that purpose in any solid way, evolution has added the corollary, that life and evolution has no goal in mind, since the model can't give us any indication of a goal. This premise looks like a self serving premise. To help gloss over this, anyone who is not on the boat, willing to swallow evolution, hook line and sinker, is called a creationist.

 

As far as I am concerned evolution should follow the laws of logic. I am looking for logical variables that might make this possible. Water is one of those variables that is left out. Whether other forms of life use other solvents is irrelevant to the discussion of life on earth. Life on earth has evolved in water. You take away the water and dehydrate life there is little if any activity. You add water back, like with a seed, and life returns. The question is how does evolutionary theory take into consideration water, which can be demonstrated to be critical to life on earth? The answer is it doesn't. In fact, most of biochemistry doesn't fully either, even though it is the majority component of life and is interacting at all levels in the cell.

 

Logically if we leave out an important variable what do you expect to happen? That variable will still be in affect, just the theory will find the left out variable's affect appearing, but in random ways, relative to the variables they are willing to take into account.

 

Let me give an example, say we model gravity but ignore distance. We will use mass and time since we have that data, which appears sort of odd and discontinuous. You can never use reality logic. The best we can do is create an empirical model with a random affect. If one was to suggest using distance, if the tradition is up and running giving practical results this would be discredited because it rocks the boat.

 

My approach has always been add some logical variables to see if we can make evolution logical. Water and hydrogen bonding are two variables that appear like good places to look. Water is the solvent used by the living state here on earth. What a solvent does is surround and/or dissolve materials that are within it. The materials within it, have an impact on the solvent and can alter the solvent properties of the solvent. Water can dissolve salt, while the salt changes the properties of water.

 

What makes water such a good solvent for life, is water is polar and uses hydrogen bonding affects. Life also makes use of hydrogen bonding, with this variable critical to the operation of DNA, RNA and proteins. Is this pure coincidence? Probably not, since life evolved in water from simple things and the solvent affect of water, which makes use of hydrogen bonding, may have slanted life to make use of hydrogen bonding. This is a reasonable premise.

 

If we look at photosynthesis and metabolic oxidation the molecule H2O is part of the equation. We start with CO2 and H2O and end with CO2 and H2O. If we look at all enzymes, their shapes have evolved in a way that places their hydrophilic aspects on the surface in contact with the water. The water is attached to the surface adding polar and hydrogen bonding affects to the surface. This is energy. If we dehydrate the enzyme to get rid of the surface water, the enzyme doesn't have this extra energy and won't work. If we tweaked the water around an enzyme we would alter the surface tension and energy that water is able to provide. This will mysteriously appear to be a random affect. This is just a logical extrapolation between the two extreme affects of dehydration and perfect hydration.

 

If we look at the DNA double helix, it has a double helix of water built into its structure. The extra hydrogen bonding hydrogen on the based pairs that don't participate in the base pairing are designed to hold water. When we talk of genes we never mention this water as well as all the extended solvent water that surrounds the DNA and which also hooks into the helical water. Change the solvent properties you can also change the activity of the genes. If we ignore this energy affect it is like ignoring distance for gravity. The affect now looks more random and more mysterious like chaos is in affect. It is a state of mind that will occur when we ignore variables.

 

Life is extremely efficient, meaning things happen in a logical order. Random will not allow such efficiency. Life is also integrated in a 3-D way in the sense that very little is done by chance, with the entire 3-D affect integrated to create high efficiency. One variable that is everywhere at the same time is water. Water is able to transmit affect faster that anything dissolved in the water. In other words, before anything reaches it final destination the water has already reacted to the potential changes that are causing this reaction. If it didn't the local solvent properties would not be optimized creating an energy barrier that would lower the efficiency.

[iNow]

Why is this still being allowed in the biology forum?

[I_Pwn_Crackpots]

I am creative and am not afraid to propose new ways of looking at things. Not everything is going to work, but not everything is off base either.

 

There is a difference between proposing new ways of looking at things, and then spouting unsubstantiated jibberish.

[pioneer]

There is a difference between proposing new ways of looking at things, and then spouting unsubstantiated jibberish.

 

The basic point is water is critical to making life work. To prove this point let us dehydrate something that is living and see if it still works like before. Common sense should be enough to make this connection. Science would need to be pretty blind to require a line of experiments to verify this.

 

Another way to interpret this is, water is needed to put everything into a state of activity. What that implies is water is providing something that is needed for the activity. I have not said what that is, only that water is providing something, which if not there, such as in dehydration, causes life to end up a bunch of dead chemicals.

 

The next logical step is to see if anything else is that critical to life. We all, but not all, put DNA at the critical top. We can take out the DNA, such as in red blood cells and many things will still work. The cell can not reproduce but it can still be partially operational. But if we take out the water, nothing works. Based on the hierarchy of activity H2O is at the top of necessity. There is no need to one-by-one remove things from a cell to see what causes the greatest global affect on everything else. I will tell you the answer with zero cost. It only takes a little common sense and logic.

[Edtharan]

I am not a creationist. I appear to argue that way, because I am not an empiricist either, since that approach does not have to be logically consistent, only consistent with the data. With evolution we have discontinuous data, therefore logic would indicate empirical models using such data will always end up as some version of discontinuity.

Your argument here is actually a logical fallacy: It is both the Nirvana Fallacy and the Perfect Solution Fallacy.

 

By your criteria: No single scientific law is acceptable. All data for all scientific laws are incomplete and therefore can not be accepted by you, according to your criteria. All scientific laws are only "consistent with the data".

 

The logical tie breaker is the inability of evolution to make solid predictions of the future. Since evolution, as written, can't be used for that purpose in any solid way, evolution has added the corollary, that life and evolution has no goal in mind, since the model can't give us any indication of a goal. This premise looks like a self serving premise.

There are two reasons that Evolution can't make solid predictions:

 

1) Life is a complex system.

 

2) There is a random element involved.

 

Quantum Mechanics can not make a solid prediction as to both the position and momentum of a particle. Does this mean that Quantum Mechanics is wrong? Does it mean that any "prediction" made with Quantum Mechanics is useless?

 

No.

 

It is the same with evolution.

 

Evolutionary theory, although it can't make perfect predictions, can give us probabilities of certain things happening.

 

For instance, we know that if a species has variations where some individuals have longer or shorter necks, and the food at lower levels becomes scarce, then those with longer necks will survive better and produce more offspring and so the population will develop longer necks over all.

 

However, if the population also includes creatures with longer legs as well, then evolution does not say which will end up as the final solution, but we can say what the likely hood is (if there are predators the longer legs would be more likely as they give more than just an advantage for food gathering).

 

So yes, evolution can be used to make predictions.

 

As far as I am concerned evolution should follow the laws of logic.

It does. It is just that it is a complex system, so that when you don't precisely know all the data, then your logical conclusions will differ from the actual results. It is not because they are not using logic, it is because the data is incomplete.

 

What makes it harder is that there is a random element (well not strictly random, but it is an influence that comes from outside the system where the system has no effect on what that influence is), in the form of certain mutations.

 

Because of this Unpredictable influence, we can never predict what the effect it is going to have until after it has occurred. But this does not mean that Evolution is not following logic.

 

Let me give an example, say we model gravity but ignore distance. We will use mass and time since we have that data, which appears sort of odd and discontinuous. You can never use reality logic. The best we can do is create an empirical model with a random affect. If one was to suggest using distance, if the tradition is up and running giving practical results this would be discredited because it rocks the boat.

Lets model gravity but ignore the effects of Jupiter on the Earth. Does this mean that we are not following Logic?

 

Or lets model gravity but ignore the effects of the keyboard in front of me on the orbit of Pluto. Doe this mean we are not following logic?

 

Our data is not perfect, but this does not mean we are not following logic, or that we can't make predictions. In the cases where we know we don't have all the data, we can perform several modelling with assumed data to get a spread of likely results. This then gives us a probabilistic prediction and also a more concrete prediction when we are able to get the missing data.

 

Even better, it can tell us what the missing data is, even without actually having to go out and look for it.

 

If the models say that one outcome will occur if the missing data is X but that a different outcome if the missing data is Y. If the second result is what was occurred, then we know that the missing data must have been Y. Then in future situations we can add in that missing data without having to actually get it, but again, this would still be a probabilistic prediction.

 

There is nothing wrong or non logical about probabilistic prediction.

 

My approach has always been add some logical variables to see if we can make evolution logical. Water and hydrogen bonding are two variables that appear like good places to look. Water is the solvent used by the living state here on earth. What a solvent does is surround and/or dissolve materials that are within it. The materials within it, have an impact on the solvent and can alter the solvent properties of the solvent. Water can dissolve salt, while the salt changes the properties of water.

Evolution is not a chemical theory, so trying to include specific chemistry is not really logical.

 

Evolution is about how traits spread through a population due to reproduction, variation and selection.

 

Evolution is NOT about aboigenesis. And this is where I think that people have got you confused with creationists. Creationists commonly confuse aboigenesis with evolution.

[iNow]

HydrogenBond Pioneer has demonstrated time and again that he severely misunderstands evolution, and that he has little to no desire to correct those misunderstandings.

[Moontanman]

HydrogenBond Pioneer has demonstrated time and again that he severely misunderstands evolution, and that he has little to no desire to correct those misunderstandings.

 

I wanted to ask if HB was around, Water is not the end all be all of biology, we are seeing water through "water" glasses, if we lived on a planet where oceans of HCSA rolled up on shore we would be saying the same thing about HCSA, we are water chauvinists, we can't help it, we have no other data to go on but we can avoid the pit fall of claiming water to be some how magical or special in some way that is not quantifiable.

[pioneer]

Lets model gravity but ignore the effects of Jupiter on the Earth. Does this mean that we are not following Logic?

 

We can still use logic, but leaving out the Jupiter variable, will make the rational relationship, that does not include Jupiter, appear to be more random. If we then assume jupiter is not important our rational relationship has a slight problem built into it. Therefore rational is not enough. We need to add a statistical fudge factor. If we institute the avoidance of Jupiter to the analysis, now gravity is no longer fully rational relative to accepted premises. What I am saying Jupiter equals water and hydrogen bonding. If this is ignored we might wrongly conclude rational is not possible, without a fudge factor. I am working under the premise that need for random is due to leaving out variables. This is a practical result of premises.

 

If we go back to the earth gravity example, say we left out the moon. The amount of statistical fudge factor needs to be higher to get the logical relationships to add up properly. Water is the continuous phase, comprising 80-90%. It has to have an impact, with simple dehydration showing it matters. Maybe it is not 50% of the affect. But even of it is 5% of the affect in life, that adds to the logic and reduces the scope of the statistical factors in the original rational relationships.

Edited September 29, 2008 by pioneer

[Edtharan]

If we then assume jupiter is not important our rational relationship has a slight problem built into it.

Nirvana Fallacy

 

Perfect Solution Fallacy

 

[Knupfer]

Water is critically important to life. Very few, if any, biological systems or reactions will function without water. There is no substitute for water in life as we know it. Logic would suggest that the evolution of life was also dependant upon the unique properties of water. Is the affect of water taken into consideration within evolutionary theories or is this variable left out even though nothing will work without its unique properties? The answer is this critical variable is left out of the analysis even though it was no doubt critical to every step in evolution.

 

That being said, what is unique about water, is its properties are defined by hydrogen bonding. The observation that hydrogen bonding is also critical to life, in the light of the critical role of water in evolution, suggests that our carbon-nitrogen based life life evolved its hydrogen bonding nature in response to the water. In other words, what better way for water to retain its critical role to life than to push evolution in the direction where it could interface based on the same variable that gives water its unique properties. This keeps water always at the forefront of continuing evolution.

 

Water although just H2O is the most complicated substance in nature with at least 63 anomalies relative to trends of other similar molecules. It makes sense that the energetics in water, which makes these anomalies possible, is also what makes life possible. In terms of speculation, maybe life is evolving to take into consideration the range that is inherent within the water. This is an area of evolution I would like to investigate and discuss in a rational way, even if empirical can ignore this critical variable for a good first approximation.

 

I am not discounting the role of C,N,O, etc, but this doesn't work without water as the mediator. The C,N,O also impacts the water so new states of water become possible for further change in C,N,O, etc. This would make evolution a two-way street.

 

Yes, your post is logical and factual. The earth was formed out of water as the bible states clearly. But as 2 Peter 3:5 says, "But they deliberately forget that long ago, by God's word, the heavens existed and the earth was form out of water and by water."

 

The earth's surface is composed of approximately 70% water, the human body is composed of approximately 80% water and most animals gestate in water. So as the bible states and reality confirms, water is the irreplaceable life-giving source. So no, the earth didn't start with a bang, nor did it all form together in a ball the exact distance away from the sun and the moon to have enough sunlight during the day, moonlight at night and the influential tidal surges from the oceans. The big bang is thus another made-up fairy tale by scientists.

[TrickyPeach]

But at the same time, water is the most common molecule in the universe.

Hydrogen is in fact the most common molecule.

 

Apart from this small factual error, I get the feeling you haven't properly understood evolution.

[Knupfer]

Hydrogen is in fact the most common molecule.

 

Apart from this small factual error, I get the feeling you haven't properly understood evolution.

 

Evolution is a delusion and a perverse one at that. Apes can't breed human descendants whether in millions of years or 9 months. I just saw a documentary on the history channel where scientists were dismayed to find that not one ounce of neanderthal DNA is found in humans. Surprise, surprise. But unfortunately, scientists are the last group of people to understand why animal DNA, particularly the DNA from fictitious animals isn't found in human DNA. And those who are afraid to question anyone with letters after their names are as much in the dark about it as scientists are.

[Moontanman]

Evolution is a delusion and a perverse one at that. Apes can't breed human descendants whether in millions of years or 9 months. I just saw a documentary on the history channel where scientists were dismayed to find that not one ounce of neanderthal DNA is found in humans. Surprise, surprise. But unfortunately, scientists are the last group of people to understand why animal DNA, particularly the DNA from fictitious animals isn't found in human DNA. And those who are afraid to question anyone with letters after their names are as much in the dark about it as scientists are.

 

 

Knupfer, you are a troll and an ignorant troll at that. If I thought for one moment you were actually looking for knowledge instead of trolling for the creationist cause I would give you information to show just how wrong you are but I am sure that no matter what argument I used you would continue to believe your religious fundamentalist BS and take no heed what so ever of any facts presented that disagree with your narrow stupidity worshiping world view.

[Knupfer]

Knupfer, you are a troll and an ignorant troll at that. If I thought for one moment you were actually looking for knowledge instead of trolling for the creationist cause I would give you information to show just how wrong you are but I am sure that no matter what argument I used you would continue to believe your religious fundamentalist BS and take no heed what so ever of any facts presented that disagree with your narrow stupidity worshiping world view.

 

Sorry, but you're not giving me information; you're giving me made up scenarios from the imaginations of men. ;)An that's why of course, no one knows who the common ancestor is and why of course, apes don't turn into people in reality. And neither do cows breed pigs, monkeys, mules or humans any more than apes or monkeys breed humans in reality. So writing a story of how an ape could have turned into a man is no different than writing a story of how an alien could have turned into a man. I'm sure one could say that an alien who's as fictitious as the common ancestor just...well...mutated into a human being as well. You guys are so funny. What could happen is called science fiction. What does happen is called science. So you first need to get educated on the difference between the two.

[Phi for All]

The earth was formed out of water as the bible states clearly.

The bible is not a scientific reference. Please don't use it as such in the science subforums.

 

And in this instance it's completely wrong. How would water remain liquid in space without an atmosphere to keep it from freezing? Clearly the earth was here before water accumulated on it.

 

Knupfer, you offer no argument that hasn't been debunked thousands of times here in this forum. Everyone is tired of hearing the same junk from creationists, garbage that is distorted (like your misinterpretation of the Neanderthal DNA study), and arguments from incredulity with nothing but your religious beliefs as a foundation.

 

There are other places for you, since you are unwilling to learn even the basics of evolution. If you continue to derail science threads with your faith-based "feelings", you will start accumulating infractions towards a banning. Go ahead and rant about persecution and censorship, as I said we've heard it all before. I don't expect you to change because what you believe is sacred to you, while science remains at least a little bit skeptical about everything.

[insane_alien]

And in this instance it's completely wrong. How would water remain liquid in space without an atmosphere to keep it from freezing? Clearly the earth was here before water accumulated on it.

 

well, the water will partially evapourate to form its own thin atmosphere which, depending on how far from the sun it is, could be sufficient to keep it in liquid form.

 

not to say that the earth was entirely water at one point though, that would just be silly.

[Knupfer]

The bible is not a scientific reference. Please don't use it as such in the science subforums.

 

And in this instance it's completely wrong. How would water remain liquid in space without an atmosphere to keep it from freezing? Clearly the earth was here before water accumulated on it.

 

Knupfer, you offer no argument that hasn't been debunked thousands of times here in this forum. Everyone is tired of hearing the same junk from creationists, garbage that is distorted (like your misinterpretation of the Neanderthal DNA study), and arguments from incredulity with nothing but your religious beliefs as a foundation.

 

There are other places for you, since you are unwilling to learn even the basics of evolution. If you continue to derail science threads with your faith-based "feelings", you will start accumulating infractions towards a banning. Go ahead and rant about persecution and censorship, as I said we've heard it all before. I don't expect you to change because what you believe is sacred to you, while science remains at least a little bit skeptical about everything.

 

Sorry but "You've been debunked" isn't a valid refutation. But since reality demonstrates that apes or monkeys don't turn into humans, I'll stick with reality. ;)You can live in the twilight zone where aliens and half-apes & half - humans live.