wade.daniel.w Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 Is it just me or is there anything that doesn't need water to live? why is life so attracted to water? If you think about it, if that's the case any planet with water should be capable of supporting some form of life. From what I can determine, it seems water and sun created the first life then new life stemmed from that, water+light hmmm... what's goin on here, anyone heard anything about this or any thoughts on this?
Moontanman Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 There is nothing we know of that doesn't need water to live. Life on Earth is dissolved in water and only works in water, the apparent perfection of water can be seen a essential for life or that life just happened to use water on the Earth because it was the most available solvent and adapted to it. There are other possibilities but so far they are just speculations.
Sayonara Posted April 8, 2009 Posted April 8, 2009 Errr... Or maybe, just maybe, it might actually be due to water's particular chemical properties.
Moontanman Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Since water is all we know and all life we know uses it I would expect life to adapt to all the qualities of water, some extremely well. If for example we lived on a planet where life developed in concentrated sulfuric acid we would no doubt think CSA was the most amazing fluid in the universe and expound on it's magical qualities!
Sayonara Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 ... Or we could just look at its chemical properties. There really is exactly no magic involved.
Moontanman Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Yes but since we only know water how can we be sure which of those properties is essential for life and which one are properties life has adapted to?
Sayonara Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Well which do you think came first, water or life?
wade.daniel.w Posted April 9, 2009 Author Posted April 9, 2009 moontanman, so you believe that there may be an unknown substance out there capable of supporting life in the same manner as water? or that a know substance perhaps in a different environment is capable of supporting life. This is definitely possible because of the vastness of space that is unaccounted for. But what we do know is that water itself is capable of sustaining every form of live on earth so it's save to say that something in water "sparks" the creation of life. Finding out what that "spark" is I think would help determine if life can be created from any other substances and furthermore from any known substances. This being the case, with waters "particular chemical property" what of those properties is creating this life. You have a better insight into this by considering this, life needs water & energy to exist, the only life that doesn't eat other life is plants, they eat light via photosynthesis and drink water, (i believe mold was prob one of the first life forms, yes I'm saying we evolved from mold) so it's safe to say the first life form was plant, from there all other life formed, with this in consideration what was it that caused the partical to start gaining the characteristics of life? I believe there is a special connection with water and life, and that water may hold some important secrets for the reason behind the origin of life. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged"Well which do you think came first, water or life?" water is the obvious answer since it can be created without life and life needs water to exist. I believe water started life with the help of the sun.
Moontanman Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 On our planet it is obvious that water came first but to say that all life has to use water is simply conjecture and nothing more. Of course the idea that life could use another solvent is also conjecture, we simply do not know. We do know that other chemicals are better in some ways than water but not in others. I still contend the reason water seems so perfect for life is because on our planet life evolved in water, so life on earth is perfectly adjusted to H2O. Life on say Titan for instance might use a liquid hydrocarbon as a solvent. That life would look at that hydrocarbon as perfect for life and wonder how life could exist using anything else. Water may indeed be the only solvent of life but we have no reason to think so at this juncture.
Psycho Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 (i believe mold was prob one of the first life forms, yes I'm saying we evolved from mold) so it's safe to say the first life form was plant, from there all other life formed, with this in consideration what was it that caused the partical to start gaining the characteristics of life? What are you talking about, you are just making things up and claiming them to be fact, it is well known that the first forms of life is thought to be a hyperthermophile and before that universal ancestor most life is thought to be based on an RNA world and therefore nothing like plants.
A Childs Mind Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Fungus is closer to animals than plants anyway. Wut Fungas i think would be closer to the plant group than animals
Mokele Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Moontanman has a very good point - it may have more to do with being liquid than what the particular liquid actually *is*.
Kaeroll Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 On our planet it is obvious that water came first but to say that all life has to use water is simply conjecture and nothing more. Of course the idea that life could use another solvent is also conjecture, we simply do not know. We do know that other chemicals are better in some ways than water but not in others. I still contend the reason water seems so perfect for life is because on our planet life evolved in water, so life on earth is perfectly adjusted to H2O. Life on say Titan for instance might use a liquid hydrocarbon as a solvent. That life would look at that hydrocarbon as perfect for life and wonder how life could exist using anything else. Water may indeed be the only solvent of life but we have no reason to think so at this juncture. Very true. I hope we find ET during my lifetime, for this reason if no other. (What, I'm a geek...)
A Childs Mind Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 Except that it's not. But how i honestly think it would be much closer to plants.
A Childs Mind Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 Yes, you mentioned that. But it isn't. but how
insane_alien Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 It doesn't matter what you think. Reality has habit of not caring what people think is right. 1
A Childs Mind Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 It doesn't matter what you think. Reality has habit of not caring what people think is right. umm. it should mater wut i think. because if i wasint thinking then would that make me not human. i think about everything. more than most people do in there life time
CaptainPanic Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 (edited) Water is everywhere on earth. There is so much of it that I think it's really logical that life needs it. Even if you don't need it, it still comes to you. Even in the driest desert there is some water in the air (as a gas). Since life adapts, and probably started in water, it's only logical that it adapted to make good use of water. Also, water plays a role in many basic chemical reactions such as hydrolysis, photosynthesis and it's also a powerful solvent. And regarding plants and fungi - you can investigate this. My guess is wikipedia. But you can also just look at the metabolism. Plants need light, fungus does not. Plants "eat" CO2 and water. Fungus produces CO2 and water. The fact that a fungus does not run around like a happy puppy is irrelevant. [edit] adding a link to another thread with better answers than my answer here (check Mokele's post). Edited April 10, 2009 by CaptainPanic
insane_alien Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 umm. it should mater wut i think. because if i wasint thinking then would that make me not human. i think about everything. more than most people do in there life time why your being human or not affect reality? the reality is fungi branched of from proto animals after plants went their own way. hence, fungi are closer to animals than plants as the common ancestor is not so far back down the line. whether you think this is wrong or not does not affect the truth. just like if you think the sky is made of solid gold doesn't change the fact that it is not solid gold.
Sayonara Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 but how My post was a link to a thread where the closeness of fungi with plants and animals is being discussed. Go back up and check it out.
A Childs Mind Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 the reality is fungi branched of from proto animals after plants went their own way. hence, fungi are closer to animals than plants as the common ancestor is not so far back down the line. QUOTE] thank you for the explination thats wut i was asking for. not some ignorint remark about wut i was thinking
insane_alien Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 thank you for the explination thats wut i was asking for. not some ignorint remark about wut i was thinking 1/ swansont already linked you to a thread containing that explanation and you chose to ignore. 2/ you said you still thought they were closer to plants 3/ i fail to see how my comment was ignorant. it was an observation on how thoughts do not influence the reality of a situation.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now