Did Life Evolve in Ice - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Did Life Evolve in Ice

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
maulorn
Aug 15, 2008 12:47:58 http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/did-life-evolve-in-ice/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=

Neat article.
#2
Faerieheart_Wolf
Aug 17, 2008 10:51:52 That's so COOL!!!

No really, puns aside. That's an awesome article. Especially as I've had my finger's crossed and a hunch we will find lots of life on Europa. I just hope I live long enough to find out.
#3
maulorn
Aug 17, 2008 14:37:00 There is theories that they will find life in more places than just Europa. It would be interesting to see all sorts of life all over.
#4
Crimson_Concerto
Aug 17, 2008 18:04:03 I thought the whole Europa deal was because there's possibly liquid water in there, isn't it? Of course, this certainly couldn't hurt.

In either case, I don't see why life could only evolve one way or the other. I should think there are many possibilities.
#5
maulorn
Aug 17, 2008 18:28:28 Yes...but it was debatable because of how deep the ice is believed to be. Yet with this evidence, among other recent discoveries there is more possibility.

Really there are plenty of places in the Solar system where life could conceivably exist Venus, Mars, and numerous other moons...like Callisto
#6
Titanium_Dragon
Aug 17, 2008 19:16:38 The real reason life elsewhere in the solar system which is independent of Earth's life would be interesting is not because it would tell us all that much but rather because it would tell us that life is pretty common in the universe. When you've only got a sample of 1 of 1, that's not very informative. But if you've got two seperate examples of life in a single solar system, then it is much more likely life is very common.
#7
Dralenan
Aug 17, 2008 23:43:46 It's funny how it's assumed that terrestrial biology is assumed universal. The idea behind evolution seems to dictate that the surviving organisms are those best adapt to the environment, not the environment best adapt for organisms. It's quite possible, in my mind, that when we discover other life, it won't fit our definitions at all.

Back on topic, that was an interesting article. And all these Europa comments are making me think of Arthur C. Clarke...
#8
bane13
Aug 18, 2008 6:33:32
It's funny how it's assumed that terrestrial biology is assumed universal. The idea behind evolution seems to dictate that the surviving organisms are those best adapt to the environment, not the environment best adapt for organisms. It's quite possible, in my mind, that when we discover other life, it won't fit our definitions at all.

Back on topic, that was an interesting article. And all these Europa comments are making me think of Arthur C. Clarke...

Life could be quite common in the universe but we must not forgot that life could be as simple bacteria or simple cell. Not necessarily life with human intelligence (or greater). And like your said, life adapt to the environment (altough life also influence the environment, the earth being the proof), not the reverse, so life could adapt differently for a different environment.

But the idea of ice being a kind of «catalesist» for life it's quite interesting. And don't forget that in some ancient geological time, the earth was a complete ice ball, totally covered with ice (unlike ice ages where the equator is not covered with ice). Maybe it's during this time that simple molecule react to become more and more complexe molecule to finally become a very simple cell.
#9
nowiwantmydmg
Aug 19, 2008 12:07:37 Thanks, that article was awesome.
#10
maulorn
Aug 19, 2008 21:42:25
The real reason life elsewhere in the solar system which is independent of Earth's life would be interesting is not because it would tell us all that much but rather because it would tell us that life is pretty common in the universe. When you've only got a sample of 1 of 1, that's not very informative. But if you've got two seperate examples of life in a single solar system, then it is much more likely life is very common.

Ya I think that is the coolest thing too...

I also find it interesting that there is good chance that it is not carbon-based life and that will be huge.
#11
bane13
Aug 20, 2008 6:34:28
Ya I think that is the coolest thing too...

I also find it interesting that there is good chance that it is not carbon-based life and that will be huge.

I doubt that life could be not carbon-based. Carbon as unique properties that can't be find on any other element. Even Si don't have the properties of carbon. Only the tetravalent carbon could create very complex molecule like amino acid (the basics of life). The whole organic chemistry is based on carbon and there is no other elements that have that much attention.

For the size of life, it's in fonction of the size of the planet; planet bigger than earth (with greater gravity) will have less heavy life (more smaller) and planet smaller than earth (with lesser gravity) will have more heavy life (more bigger).
#12
maulorn
Aug 20, 2008 8:43:53 It has been suggested that silicone-based chemicals would be more stable than equivalent hydrocarbons in a sulfuric-acid-rich environment.

Nitrogen and phosphorus also offer possibilities as the basis for biochemical molecules. Like carbon, phosphorus can form long chain molecules on its own, which would potentially allow it to form complex macromolecules if it were not so reactive. However, in combination with nitrogen, it can form much more stable covalent bonds and create a wide range of molecules, including rings.

There are really many different possibilities and some of those do include carbon, while others could run the gambit. There are environments out there that may allow for other chemicals to form complex bonds that could potentially create life. The composition of a planet is a big factor.
#13
bane13
Aug 22, 2008 6:48:56
It has been suggested that silicone-based chemicals would be more stable than equivalent hydrocarbons in a sulfuric-acid-rich environment.

Nitrogen and phosphorus also offer possibilities as the basis for biochemical molecules. Like carbon, phosphorus can form long chain molecules on its own, which would potentially allow it to form complex macromolecules if it were not so reactive. However, in combination with nitrogen, it can form much more stable covalent bonds and create a wide range of molecules, including rings.

There are really many different possibilities and some of those do include carbon, while others could run the gambit. There are environments out there that may allow for other chemicals to form complex bonds that could potentially create life. The composition of a planet is a big factor.

As a chemist, I would say that nothing equal the carbon for creating complex molecul necessary to life. Phosphorus and nitrogen are find in organic molecule but in no way match the tetravalence of carbon. Maybe silicon could match the tetyravalence of carbon in some very special circonstance.
#14
maulorn
Aug 22, 2008 13:50:38 Yes on earth...but you also have to take into account that other environments would be favorable and allow for other chemicles to form complex chains. For instance Silicon based, like you mentioned, would theoretically be more stable than carbon based in a sulfuric-acid rich environment.

I think it would be largely based on environmental factors as to what we may find...and who knows we may be in for a bit of a shock.
#15
bane13
Aug 22, 2008 18:04:29
Yes on earth...but you also have to take into account that other environments would be favorable and allow for other chemicles to form complex chains. For instance Silicon based, like you mentioned, would theoretically be more stable than carbon based in a sulfuric-acid rich environment.

I think it would be largely based on environmental factors as to what we may find...and who knows we may be in for a bit of a shock.

First, you must take into account that primordial earth environment when life emerge was very different than the environment today. Life arose in a particular kind of environment then change it (that give earth today).

Okay, maybe a particular kind of primordial environment could help non-carbon based life to arose but don't forget that chemical laws are universal and that for as far that we know, nothing beat tetravalent carbon to create complex molecules in most kind of environment (for the knowledge of today at least).

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 maulorn Aug 15, 2008 12:47:58	http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/did-life-evolve-in-ice/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C= Neat article.
#2 Faerieheart_Wolf Aug 17, 2008 10:51:52	That's so COOL!!! No really, puns aside. That's an awesome article. Especially as I've had my finger's crossed and a hunch we will find lots of life on Europa. I just hope I live long enough to find out.
#3 maulorn Aug 17, 2008 14:37:00	There is theories that they will find life in more places than just Europa. It would be interesting to see all sorts of life all over.
#4 Crimson_Concerto Aug 17, 2008 18:04:03	I thought the whole Europa deal was because there's possibly liquid water in there, isn't it? Of course, this certainly couldn't hurt. In either case, I don't see why life could only evolve one way or the other. I should think there are many possibilities.
#5 maulorn Aug 17, 2008 18:28:28	Yes...but it was debatable because of how deep the ice is believed to be. Yet with this evidence, among other recent discoveries there is more possibility. Really there are plenty of places in the Solar system where life could conceivably exist Venus, Mars, and numerous other moons...like Callisto
#6 Titanium_Dragon Aug 17, 2008 19:16:38	The real reason life elsewhere in the solar system which is independent of Earth's life would be interesting is not because it would tell us all that much but rather because it would tell us that life is pretty common in the universe. When you've only got a sample of 1 of 1, that's not very informative. But if you've got two seperate examples of life in a single solar system, then it is much more likely life is very common.
#7 Dralenan Aug 17, 2008 23:43:46	It's funny how it's assumed that terrestrial biology is assumed universal. The idea behind evolution seems to dictate that the surviving organisms are those best adapt to the environment, not the environment best adapt for organisms. It's quite possible, in my mind, that when we discover other life, it won't fit our definitions at all. Back on topic, that was an interesting article. And all these Europa comments are making me think of Arthur C. Clarke...
#8 bane13 Aug 18, 2008 6:33:32	It's funny how it's assumed that terrestrial biology is assumed universal. The idea behind evolution seems to dictate that the surviving organisms are those best adapt to the environment, not the environment best adapt for organisms. It's quite possible, in my mind, that when we discover other life, it won't fit our definitions at all. Back on topic, that was an interesting article. And all these Europa comments are making me think of Arthur C. Clarke... Life could be quite common in the universe but we must not forgot that life could be as simple bacteria or simple cell. Not necessarily life with human intelligence (or greater). And like your said, life adapt to the environment (altough life also influence the environment, the earth being the proof), not the reverse, so life could adapt differently for a different environment. But the idea of ice being a kind of «catalesist» for life it's quite interesting. And don't forget that in some ancient geological time, the earth was a complete ice ball, totally covered with ice (unlike ice ages where the equator is not covered with ice). Maybe it's during this time that simple molecule react to become more and more complexe molecule to finally become a very simple cell.
#9 nowiwantmydmg Aug 19, 2008 12:07:37	Thanks, that article was awesome.
#10 maulorn Aug 19, 2008 21:42:25	The real reason life elsewhere in the solar system which is independent of Earth's life would be interesting is not because it would tell us all that much but rather because it would tell us that life is pretty common in the universe. When you've only got a sample of 1 of 1, that's not very informative. But if you've got two seperate examples of life in a single solar system, then it is much more likely life is very common. Ya I think that is the coolest thing too... I also find it interesting that there is good chance that it is not carbon-based life and that will be huge.
#11 bane13 Aug 20, 2008 6:34:28	Ya I think that is the coolest thing too... I also find it interesting that there is good chance that it is not carbon-based life and that will be huge. I doubt that life could be not carbon-based. Carbon as unique properties that can't be find on any other element. Even Si don't have the properties of carbon. Only the tetravalent carbon could create very complex molecule like amino acid (the basics of life). The whole organic chemistry is based on carbon and there is no other elements that have that much attention. For the size of life, it's in fonction of the size of the planet; planet bigger than earth (with greater gravity) will have less heavy life (more smaller) and planet smaller than earth (with lesser gravity) will have more heavy life (more bigger).
#12 maulorn Aug 20, 2008 8:43:53	It has been suggested that silicone-based chemicals would be more stable than equivalent hydrocarbons in a sulfuric-acid-rich environment. Nitrogen and phosphorus also offer possibilities as the basis for biochemical molecules. Like carbon, phosphorus can form long chain molecules on its own, which would potentially allow it to form complex macromolecules if it were not so reactive. However, in combination with nitrogen, it can form much more stable covalent bonds and create a wide range of molecules, including rings. There are really many different possibilities and some of those do include carbon, while others could run the gambit. There are environments out there that may allow for other chemicals to form complex bonds that could potentially create life. The composition of a planet is a big factor.
#13 bane13 Aug 22, 2008 6:48:56	It has been suggested that silicone-based chemicals would be more stable than equivalent hydrocarbons in a sulfuric-acid-rich environment. Nitrogen and phosphorus also offer possibilities as the basis for biochemical molecules. Like carbon, phosphorus can form long chain molecules on its own, which would potentially allow it to form complex macromolecules if it were not so reactive. However, in combination with nitrogen, it can form much more stable covalent bonds and create a wide range of molecules, including rings. There are really many different possibilities and some of those do include carbon, while others could run the gambit. There are environments out there that may allow for other chemicals to form complex bonds that could potentially create life. The composition of a planet is a big factor. As a chemist, I would say that nothing equal the carbon for creating complex molecul necessary to life. Phosphorus and nitrogen are find in organic molecule but in no way match the tetravalence of carbon. Maybe silicon could match the tetyravalence of carbon in some very special circonstance.
#14 maulorn Aug 22, 2008 13:50:38	Yes on earth...but you also have to take into account that other environments would be favorable and allow for other chemicles to form complex chains. For instance Silicon based, like you mentioned, would theoretically be more stable than carbon based in a sulfuric-acid rich environment. I think it would be largely based on environmental factors as to what we may find...and who knows we may be in for a bit of a shock.
#15 bane13 Aug 22, 2008 18:04:29	Yes on earth...but you also have to take into account that other environments would be favorable and allow for other chemicles to form complex chains. For instance Silicon based, like you mentioned, would theoretically be more stable than carbon based in a sulfuric-acid rich environment. I think it would be largely based on environmental factors as to what we may find...and who knows we may be in for a bit of a shock. First, you must take into account that primordial earth environment when life emerge was very different than the environment today. Life arose in a particular kind of environment then change it (that give earth today). Okay, maybe a particular kind of primordial environment could help non-carbon based life to arose but don't forget that chemical laws are universal and that for as far that we know, nothing beat tetravalent carbon to create complex molecules in most kind of environment (for the knowledge of today at least).