Water and evolution

[Eric 5]

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.

 

 

I want to make sure I understand you. You think that life is basically some chemical mixture?

 

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 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.

 

 

Look I really appreciate the fact that you are trying to address this topic with a creative point of view.

 

Your statement about water adding something needs to be thought through a bit more. You can add water to a rock and the rock does not come alive. You can add water to a dead animal, person and they do not come back to life. The question you should think about is what is it that changes when some thing that was alive no longer has life. What is that dividing line between alive and dead.

 

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.

 

 

I want to give you some helpful advice. Please think about what you are saying a bit more before posting. I really would like to see you participate in this discussion and not bring on the "wrath" of others.

 

In your statement about dehydration of something that is living, I assume that you want to prove a point that when you take water out of a living thing it will die, the only problem with that is, if you add too much water to something that is alive, you will also kill it. If adding water gave life then adding more water might add more life, but it does not.

 

Evolution is a delusion and a perverse one at that. Apes can't breed human descendants whether in millions of years or 9 months.

 

Alright, Please give us your understanding of how life got on this planet.

Just simply as you can, explain your point of view in a way that would not be considered delusional or perverse.

[iNow]

Alright, Please give us your understanding of how life got on this planet.

Just simply as you can, explain your point of view in a way that would not be considered delusional or perverse.

Slow chemical reactions eventually became biological ones as environmental conditions altered. Eons of small changes later, life as we know it.

 

Do you think that will be simple enough for Knupfer to see past the lies he's been told and has chosen to repeat here?

[Eric 5]

Pioneer. You have given us much in the way of data in your attempt to show the importance of water to sustaining or even starting life. I would like to see if I can whittle all that information down to a concise statement of what you are trying to say.

 

You are saying that water, which is basically chemicals, and these chemicals are basically made of an arrangement of electrons, protons, and neutrons, combine with other arrangements of electrons, protons, and neutrons, such as DNA, RNA, or any other chemical, and from this arrangement springs life.

 

I know that this was over simplified, but I just want you to get to the point. After you simply explain what your theory is then you can go into more detail. It would be of great help for you to explain your point simply so as to get more people on board to your way of thinking, and then once you have achieved that then you can get into your long winded explanations. Do you see what I am saying?

 

Just let me know if I am close to understanding what you are trying to say.

 

Thank You.

[Edtharan]

I want to make sure I understand you. You think that life is basically some chemical mixture?

Actually it would be better to say that life is a process that involves certain "chemical mixtures".

 

Think about it. A computer is made up of a bunch of components (resistors, capacitors, integrated circuits, etc). But unless they are arranged in a particular way and have a particular process going on (driven by electricity), then they do nothing. They are everything that makes up a computer, but they are not a computer.

 

Such is life. You can have all the atoms that make up a living organism, but unless they are arranged in a certain way and have a certain process going on (metabolism) then they are not alive (other processes - like decomposition - occur when they die).

 

The question you should think about is what is it that changes when some thing that was alive no longer has life. What is that dividing line between alive and dead.

Quite obviously: The process.

 

The processes of metabolism stop.

 

Well it is not quite that simple as some metabolic processes continue for a little while, but the process that those processes require for continuation will have stopped, so they will eventually stop too.

 

And the processes of decay start.

 

In fact, much of the processes of decay are caused by other organisms using the material of the original organisms in their processes of metabolism.

 

As an example: If you turn off the power point to your computer, the processes that rely on the process of the flow of electricity will cease to operate. A battery (or capacitor) will allow some processes to continue for a while (like the internal clock), but eventually these will stop if the processes that renew requirements of a process stop (eg: charging the battery in the battery back up for the internal clock).

 

If another computer (say one in a digital watch) was able to utilise the power in the batter backup of the internal clock of a computer, then this would be like a scavenger feeding on a dead body.

 

Alright, Please give us your understanding of how life got on this planet.

Just simply as you can, explain your point of view in a way that would not be considered delusional or perverse.

Actually the problem with Abiogenisis (the beginning of life) on Earth is not that we don't have a mechanism for how it got started, it is that we have too many. We don't know which one it was.

 

Here is one (not mine but a good explanation of one of the possible mechanisms):

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg&feature=PlayList&p=0696457CAFD6D7C9&index=0

[Eric 5]

Actually the problem with Abiogenisis (the beginning of life) on Earth is not that we don't have a mechanism for how it got started, it is that we have too many. We don't know which one it was.

 

 

Great so there are many theories on this whole life business, all that needs to be done is weed out the one that are not plausible. For example, do you think that the theory that all life started from a puddle of chemicals or some such thing. Or you can state what theory you seem to think fits and we can discuss it. OK.

[foodchain]

Great so there are many theories on this whole life business, all that needs to be done is weed out the one that are not plausible. For example, do you think that the theory that all life started from a puddle of chemicals or some such thing. Or you can state what theory you seem to think fits and we can discuss it. OK.

 

 

 

 

 

I think life started as the system tried perpetually to reach equilibrium in most any physical medium. I think the process of geological differentiation which is occurring even today is processed by the same energy that lead to life. I think this is present in biological evolution primarily at the microbial scale life.

 

I don't think the specific chemistry of it becomes to important rather then understanding what environmental mechanism was responsible. I think that is an umbrella statement that includes also the chemistry. I think it also raises other questions such as the definition to life and what is natural selection. I think of what could be variables in natural selection, and with photosynthesis you find quanta being part of the equation, so its a very broad question really.

 

My speculative hypothesis basically is just that. I think the way physics describes why stuff even moves really shows the importance of understanding the energy bit as we are looking I think for a physical mechanism right? My thinking is if you can apply something to chemistry that could show how energy would behave naturally in any kind of a system in relation to all those various elements or molecules present, more so in time and change, would be very powerful. I think current attempts physically at this are done in really tiny steps because you have so much information to deal with though.

[iNow]

Eric 5 has hijacked yet another thread. Not that this one was very scientific to beginning, but I do know that it was NOT about abiogenesis.

[Eric 5]

Actually it would be better to say that life is a process that involves certain "chemical mixtures".

 

I guess that basic consensus is that life is a bunch of chemicals. The only problem I see with all of this is that there is no mention on how chemicals become alive. You see if you say that life is a process that involves certain chemical mixtures, well I would have to say that there are many processes involving chemicals that happen all the time that do not result in life. Can you be more specific on what these "certain chemicals" are?

 

 

 

Think about it. A computer is made up of a bunch of components (resistors, capacitors, integrated circuits, etc). But unless they are arranged in a particular way and have a particular process going on (driven by electricity), then they do nothing. They are everything that makes up a computer, but they are not a computer.

 

 

 

 

I really appreciate that fact that you are trying to help make this topic easier to understand. I think that this is a very interesting topic. Now having said all that I would like to ask you some questions about your computer analogy.

 

We all know that computers are not alive, but I understand where you are trying to go with this, yet in the end no matter what arrangement of parts that are done to a computer it will never become alive. I am sure that someone will jump at this statement and bring up artificial intelligence, which is OK, but lets try and not get to far off the topic.

 

Also, in this arranging of the computer parts in the proper way, it takes life to do the arranging, so in a way your computer analogy requires life to be involved to start or create life. You see what I mean. This analogy of yours does highlight the exact question that I have regarding this life from chemicals idea. Since all of those computer parts are made of atoms, and all chemicals are made of atoms, and when you really get down to it both the atoms in the computer and the atoms in any chemical are made of the same things (electrons, protons, neutrons). So all atoms have the same type of building blocks, it is the arrangement of these building blocks that make different types of matter, whether it be a solid, liquid or a gas. So just arranging atoms together does not seem to be able to make anything more than matter, and we know that matter is dead not alive. So my point is, it seems atoms do not make life, atoms are not alive, so no quantity or arrangement of a non-living substance will ever become alive. You see where I am going with this. This is the question I have, how can anyone say that atoms become alive, there has to be more to life than just a bunch of atoms. Atoms themselves are not alive, so if science would like to pursue that avenue then they will have to show how an atom, electron, proton, neutron, and such become alive. I hope this points out the sticking point I see in this whole life from atoms theory.

 

 

 

 

 

Such is life. You can have all the atoms that make up a living organism, but unless they are arranged in a certain way and have a certain process going on (metabolism) then they are not alive (other processes - like decomposition - occur when they die).

 

You see this is what I am talking about. No matter the arrangement of non-living atoms you will never get life. Arranging atoms only creates different matter, not life. Do you see my point? There needs to be something else that is involved in the creation of life. Any ideas?

[Mr Skeptic]

The basics of life on earth are that DNA codes for RNA which codes for proteins. Proteins do the reading of the DNA and RNA, and use that information to make more proteins, including the proteins involved in reading. Also, a living thing must take energy from outside itself, either as chemical energy or light, or rely on its stored energy.

[pioneer]

Hydrogen bonding is 90% ionic and 10% covalent. I did not make this up but is well established. If we start with a protein in water, the covalent structure is not just just the protein, since the water has a 10% covalent attachment. The real covalent phenomena is protein plus a partial water attachment. The bias that hydrogen bonding is just ionic, is erroneous, resulting in the compounding error we fudge with statistics.

 

There is a way to explain this humanistic affect that will ignore reality and stick with the approximation. The best way to see it is to consider the eyes. We only need one eye to see all the details in the reality. If you cover one eye, you can still everything. The advantage of the second eye is depth of field so we can see things better in 3-D. If we are happy with 2-D, one eye is all you need. In the above paragraph of 10% covalent, I added the second eye. But many people, will try to put a patch on this eye to black it out even though this is real.

 

If anyone wears contact lenses, if you take one contact out, this eye will be fuzzy and out of focus. If we use both eyes, this can make the entire vision look fuzzy because they superimpose. You may gain some depth, but you sort of lose some of the original clarify you had. It is actually easier to put a patch on the fuzzy eye and just use one. The patch will cause you to lose depth perception but it increases your ability to focus on the details.

 

In other words, even if the water is 10% attached covalently, this created a fuzzy haze around in what is now considered a closed deal. Maybe it is easier to patch over this extra eye, than have to go back to the drawing board. If this patch is not just for philosophical reasons, the critics should be able to provide data to prove their detachment assumption, since it goes opposite to the data that says there is 10% covalent attachment.

Edited November 1, 2008 by pioneer

[iNow]

There is a way to explain this humanistic affect that will ignore reality...

 

Well, at least the content of your posts is consistent, Pioneer.

[Eric 5]

Eric 5 has hijacked yet another thread. Not that this one was very scientific to beginning, but I do know that it was NOT about abiogenesis.

 

Please show me where I mentioned abiogenesis. The questions that I have raised are simple and concise. If all life is made of matter and all matter is made of atoms and all atoms are made from electrons, then the next logical question to ask if you are under the belief that life is made of atoms, is what occurs to make electrons become alive. That is all. A plain and simple question. I have not stated how I think life got started or agreed with abiogenesis. If you want to participate in this discussion then please do and try to refrain from personal attacks that have no basis.

 

Thank you.

[mooeypoo]

Please show me where I mentioned abiogenesis. The questions that I have raised are simple and concise. If all life is made of matter and all matter is made of atoms and all atoms are made from electrons, then the next logical question to ask if you are under the belief that life is made of atoms, is what occurs to make electrons become alive. That is all. A plain and simple question. I have not stated how I think life got started or agreed with abiogenesis. If you want to participate in this discussion then please do and try to refrain from personal attacks that have no basis.

 

Thank you.

 

That's not logic...

 

 

All life is made of matter and all matter is made of atoms.

BUT - what makes life life? if it's the GENERAL SYSTEM -- hence, the reactions between the atoms and their sub particles that is responsible for the EXISTENCE of life, it's what CAUSES the effect of "life" then your logic fails.

 

For that matter, if all computers are made of matter and matter is made of atoms and atoms have electrons, could I one day play Donkey Kong with an electron?

 

The fact that big systems are made of small particles doesn't mean that the small particles exhibit the same properties of the big systems they compose.

 

~moo

[Eric 5]

That's not logic...

 

 

All life is made of matter and all matter is made of atoms.

BUT - what makes life life? if it's the GENERAL SYSTEM -- hence, the reactions between the atoms and their sub particles that is responsible for the EXISTENCE of life, it's what CAUSES the effect of "life" then your logic fails.

 

For that matter, if all computers are made of matter and matter is made of atoms and atoms have electrons, could I one day play Donkey Kong with an electron?

 

The fact that big systems are made of small particles doesn't mean that the small particles exhibit the same properties of the big systems they compose.

 

~moo

 

 

Whoa! I think that there is a misunderstanding here. I am saying that if someone concludes that life is matter, and all matter is made of electrons, then how do these electrons become alive. I am not saying that I agree with the idea that life is matter, I was just raising the question that if life is made of electrons then how do these electrons become alive.

 

Again, I am not saying electrons ever become alive. I am saying that life being made of matter does not logically work. There has to be something that is being overlooked in this whole life question. I hope that we can somehow get closer to resolving this matter. This topic really puts to use our ability to apply logic, common sense and science.

 

Look, I may be wrong in my idea that life is not made of matter, but until I see how an electron can become alive I will have to continue to conclude that this life is matter is a dead end.

[foodchain]

Whoa! I think that there is a misunderstanding here. I am saying that if someone concludes that life is matter, and all matter is made of electrons, then how do these electrons become alive. I am not saying that I agree with the idea that life is matter, I was just raising the question that if life is made of electrons then how do these electrons become alive.

 

Again, I am not saying electrons ever become alive. I am saying that life being made of matter does not logically work. There has to be something that is being overlooked in this whole life question. I hope that we can somehow get closer to resolving this matter. This topic really puts to use our ability to apply logic, common sense and science.

 

Look, I may be wrong in my idea that life is not made of matter, but until I see how an electron can become alive I will have to continue to conclude that this life is matter is a dead end.

 

 

The best thing I could suggest would be to look really at life in terms of evolution. I would start with microbes, they are no where as complex as some regards as other forms of life right, such as microbes wont play you at chess. Yet in that you find the same machinery or chemistry or whatever you would like to call it, not exactly but it suffices to say for my post at any rate.

 

If you want to know the chemistry, then study cells, I don't know what else to say. Sure making hot chocolate does not reveal life but its not the same thing.

 

The thing about the chemistry is you have to take into account life, like species becoming geographically separated, or extinction events, just to name a rather large list of effects like natural selection or what not. So you cant look I guess for something to be “perfect” if I can use that word. I mean we had a giant bottleneck according to population genetics. Genes are part of the physical proof for evolution, but there is more that I guess allows you to understand what you see with the gene material, such as studying mutation rates on some culture of bacteria. This can be related between species, or traced.

[Mr Skeptic]

Just like we call certain arrangements of atoms a car, we call certain arrangement of atoms "alive". The atoms and electrons don't care, and do not contain the attributes of whatever they make up. Dumb people don't have dumb electrons, for example.

[mooeypoo]

We define life as we go along, we can't define life as something we haven't met,seen or heard of yet, that would be quite impossible, if not completely besides the point.

 

If one day we see a lifeform that isn't made of matter - let's say, it's a perfectly spherical "something" (ahem, Crichton, ahem) - we might change our definition. So far, all lifeforms we know of and seen and can think of in terms of our reality are made of matter. We have no reason to think otherwise, so far. The "non matter" life forms are, currently, immaterial. It's pointless to change the definition to include them.

 

Think about it this way: Why did Pluto stop being a planet? Because it changed? No. It hasn't. We defined a planet a certain way and that definition included pluto. But then we found other celestial bodies that are, by that definition, planets. They are as big, as massive (some bigger even), they have the same orbit, the same behavior, they are almost indistinguishable from Pluto.

 

Not just one, dozens. Hundreds, even. So the additional information *forced us* to change our definition; we either accept the fact that we have dozens (or hundreds) of planets in our solar system, and treat them as planets (eeek) *or* we change the definition of a Planet, and invent a new definition - planetoid. and another: Plutoid.

 

Our definitions are OUR definitions. We don't create nature or change nature by our definitions, we just use them to describe nature. The more we discover, the more elaborate they are, and sometimes there's enough reason to change them.

 

Going - from the beginning - with an overly generalized definition, just for the chance of, perhaps, one day, discovering something completely and utterly unlike our current definition - makes that definition USELESS, because you no longer have a name for something specific, but rather something so vague and generalized there's no point in using it anymore to describe the things we do know.