Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
39 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1, Faith, JonF, PaulK, ringo, Tanypteryx, vimesey (9 members, 30 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,560 Year: 18,596/19,786 Month: 1,016/1,705 Week: 268/518 Day: 32/60 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Water As An Element of Fine-Tuning
RustyShackelford 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 1 of 100 (154895)
11-01-2004 2:18 PM


I've heard it asserted that life could potentially arise without the presence of water. But I've also heard it asserted that, if it wasn't for the fact that water expanded when it froze, the oceans would freeze solid. So, how could life be sustained for long on a world where the basic solvent was ammonia or something other than water? And, if life can't arise without water, shouldn't the existance of a universal solvent that is the only substance in existance which expands when frozen be considered an element of fine-tuning by an intelligent designer?

Or is the nature of water dependant on the physical laws of our universe? In another universe, with different physical laws, could H20 be a less effective solvent? And maybe in another universe, it's ammonia which expands when frozen? I don't know, which is why I'm asking.......but if water is the only concievable solvent, regardless of varying physical laws, which could expand when frozen, then I'd have to say that the existance of water is one of the stronger arguments for fine-tuning.

BTW, Admin, I don't know where this thread should go.......it contains questions on both chemistry (the composition of water) and cosmology (varying physical laws). Wherever you want to place it is fine, I suppose.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Loudmouth, posted 11-01-2004 2:33 PM RustyShackelford has responded
 Message 4 by Lammy, posted 11-01-2004 2:59 PM RustyShackelford has responded
 Message 5 by Coragyps, posted 11-01-2004 3:47 PM RustyShackelford has responded
 Message 7 by Silent H, posted 11-01-2004 5:35 PM RustyShackelford has responded
 Message 12 by sidelined, posted 11-01-2004 9:55 PM RustyShackelford has responded
 Message 16 by Nic Tamzek, posted 11-04-2004 12:29 AM RustyShackelford has responded
 Message 65 by RAZD, posted 11-06-2004 11:23 AM RustyShackelford has responded

  
RustyShackelford 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 8 of 100 (155055)
11-01-2004 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Loudmouth
11-01-2004 2:33 PM


It is dependent on how electrons arrange themselves, ie atomic theory. Because the hydrogens bond on one side of the oxygen atom (think mickey mouse) this causes a slight negative charge on one side and a slight positive charge on the other side of the water atom. When ice forms the water molecules line up in a hexagonal pattern, nose to tail. Kind of like magnets sticking together. The open structure of ice crystal is less dense than water which causes ice to float.

Could this happen, in another universe, with a chemical that wasn't water? Or would water be the same, regardless of physical law? I mean, I know that in some universes water wouldn't exist at all, but are those the only options? Either water doesn't exist at all or water exists and it's the only effective solvent that expands when frozen?

This message has been edited by RustyShackelford, 11-01-2004 06:51 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Loudmouth, posted 11-01-2004 2:33 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

  
RustyShackelford 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 9 of 100 (155058)
11-01-2004 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Coragyps
11-01-2004 3:47 PM


Urban legend. The element bismuth and several of its alloys do that too. They're exceptionally crappy solvents, but they expand when they freeze.

Ok, still, as you said, crappy solvents don't support life.......


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Coragyps, posted 11-01-2004 3:47 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
RustyShackelford 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 10 of 100 (155065)
11-01-2004 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Lammy
11-01-2004 2:59 PM


Again, you are assuming that life can only arise with the presence of water.

Didn't you just refer to an assertion to the contrary as "cloud-talking"?

Again, I'd like to remind you that you can't make any kind of presumption for other kinds of life that we don't know about simply because we don't know that life as we know it is the only kind of life that can exist.

Of course I can, because we understand exactly what role water plays in our origin and existance and, based on that knowledge, it isn't theoretically likely that life would evolve very far without water.......even if ammonia life arose, it's evolution would come to a dead halt with every ice age. And even if microbes survived until the ice melted, and could start to evolve, the more compliacted (I.E. fragile) marine life which evolved would go extinct at the next ice age, leaving evolution to start over with the microbes again......


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Lammy, posted 11-01-2004 2:59 PM Lammy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Lammy, posted 11-01-2004 10:00 PM RustyShackelford has responded

  
RustyShackelford 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 11 of 100 (155066)
11-01-2004 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Silent H
11-01-2004 5:35 PM


For example if life began at undersea vents, which is one of the more popular theories around today, then the nature of water's expansion means absolutely nothing. The vents would have prevented any ice ever forming and so messing with life.

This is not to mention that in any case life is thought to have formed in the ocean which is unlikely to ever have frozen solid (even if ice began to form at the bottom instead of the top) and so the nature of how water freezes is again... moot.

But life wouldn't have evolved very far if ice contracted, correct, since the ice would have killed more complicated (I.E. less harty) life forms?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Silent H, posted 11-01-2004 5:35 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Silent H, posted 11-02-2004 5:27 AM RustyShackelford has responded

  
RustyShackelford 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 17 of 100 (155673)
11-04-2004 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by sidelined
11-01-2004 9:55 PM


Let us examine this.If water was not a universal solvent and life such as ours did not exist and there was a universe here without life such as ours but a universe nonetheless.And this universe were filled with wonderous interactions of a sort totally alien to ours and where the laws of physics were different in their outcome would you then consider it to be intelligently designed?

No. What's your point?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by sidelined, posted 11-01-2004 9:55 PM sidelined has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by sidelined, posted 11-04-2004 6:11 AM RustyShackelford has not yet responded

  
RustyShackelford 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 18 of 100 (155675)
11-04-2004 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Lammy
11-01-2004 10:00 PM


Again, you are using what we know of life as we know it to try to apply to everything that we don't know.

Well, I don't know for sure that there isn't some place in the universe that's filled with talking dogs, but I think it's a reasonable assumption........

Just because you like chocolate doesn't mean everybody you don't know also likes chocolate.

Bad analogy. A better one would be, I like chocolate, and if I didn't eat chocolate I'd freeze to death instantly......therefore, everyone alive likes chocolate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Lammy, posted 11-01-2004 10:00 PM Lammy has not yet responded

  
RustyShackelford 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 19 of 100 (155677)
11-04-2004 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Coragyps
11-01-2004 10:02 PM


It's not so terribly hard to imagine a world where the temperature never gets below 5 degrees Celsius, and ice doesn't happen...

And the temperature remains that stable for 4 BILLION years?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Coragyps, posted 11-01-2004 10:02 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
RustyShackelford 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 20 of 100 (155679)
11-04-2004 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Silent H
11-02-2004 5:27 AM


But for sake of argument let's say this is true. Then you simply wouldn't have them developing, or living in, environments with such temperatures.

How could marine life avoid ice? You realize that if ice weren't less dense than water, ice would form at the BOTTOM of the ocean.......right?

You need to establish that water's freezing has much of a connection to life at all.

I've heard it stated as fact many times that if ice were denser than water, marine life wouldn't survive........since it takes 3 billion years, minimum, to get past the marine life stage, that would mean that intelligent life couldn't have evolved if water didn't have its peculiar properties.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Silent H, posted 11-02-2004 5:27 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Silent H, posted 11-04-2004 8:20 AM RustyShackelford has responded

  
RustyShackelford 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 22 of 100 (155684)
11-04-2004 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Nic Tamzek
11-04-2004 12:29 AM


If you combine the two, you get this scenario: the Intelligent Designer is going to oh-so-carefully fine-tune the physical laws and chemistry of the universe so that after the big bang, after you wait billions and billions of years, you have a universe huge enough that all of the right conditions combine to get a planet in the "just right" zone where there is lots of liquid water...and then the IDer snaps his fingers and "poofs" bacteria into existence? And then waits several billion more years to "poof" eukaryotes, then another billion to "poof" multicellular creatures (or to "poof" the modifications or whatever you like), then the major vertebrate classes, and finally at long last, a few dozen poofs later, humans?

You can't invalidate the fine-tuning argument by raising objections to an entirely different argument.

No one knows. As I understand it we can't even calculate the properties of atoms and molecules in our own universe (except hydrogen) from first principles; so why should we be able to do it in another universe?

As I understand it, from a theoretical standpoint, matter would be matter in any universe........therefore, matter in ANY universe would have the same properties as matter here.

5 elements have solid forms less dense than their liquids, according

But none except water could produce life, correct?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Nic Tamzek, posted 11-04-2004 12:29 AM Nic Tamzek has not yet responded

  
RustyShackelford 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 26 of 100 (156486)
11-05-2004 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Nic Tamzek
11-05-2004 2:32 AM


But interventionist ID + fine-tuning doesn't work because the two positions are derived from contradictory premises (ID denies evolution, fine-tuning assumes it).

ID doesn't deny evolution, it denies naturalistic evolution.

This makes no sense. What the anthropic people do is say, "OK, what happens if we change the energy levels for electrons on an atom, how does this effect fusion, star formation, etc." The whole point is to try and see how the properties of matter might change.

Yeah, but there wouldn't be different TYPES of matter in another universe, as I understand it.......there'd be the same types of matter as here, or no matter at all, or more limited types of matter, but not DIFFERENT matter.......meaning, water would probably be a necessary ingredient for life in any universe.

So, an anti-anthropic argument would be: "Look, you've got 100+ elements and millions/billions of compounds that can be formed from them, is it really so amazing that one of these compounds has "the right stuff" for life

No......it's amazing that there's JUST one.......which means we got in just under the wire. It means there were JUST enough elements present and JUST enough potential compounds......and THAT is fine-tuning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Nic Tamzek, posted 11-05-2004 2:32 AM Nic Tamzek has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 11-05-2004 11:42 PM RustyShackelford has responded

  
RustyShackelford 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 28 of 100 (156489)
11-05-2004 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Silent H
11-04-2004 8:20 AM


That's fine. People state many things as facts which aren't. This is usually true when trying to pretend knowledge in science, or just wow people with a factoid that is taken out of context.

Here are actual facts.

Freshwater "marine" life would have had some problems surviving, though that would only be true as one moved into higher latitudes. Lower temperate and tropical climates, or large freshwater bodies, would have provided continuous living conditiond.

Why should I believe your single discenting opinion? I need more than just your word, since I've had the word of many others to the contrary.


"Atheists are just like theists; they find it highly disturbing when you try to weaken their faith." Myself, a couple minutes ago

"I believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets...
I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen."
The Nicene Creed


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Silent H, posted 11-04-2004 8:20 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Silent H, posted 11-06-2004 7:36 AM RustyShackelford has responded

  
RustyShackelford 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 29 of 100 (156490)
11-05-2004 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by crashfrog
11-05-2004 11:42 PM


Tell me, when a guy wins the lottery, do you immediately assume that he cheated, or that God had a direct hand in his winning?

If he was the ONLY guy who ever won the lottery? Yes, I would.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 11-05-2004 11:42 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 11-06-2004 12:25 AM RustyShackelford has responded
 Message 31 by tsig, posted 11-06-2004 12:38 AM RustyShackelford has responded

  
RustyShackelford 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 32 of 100 (156516)
11-06-2004 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by crashfrog
11-06-2004 12:25 AM


Crash, since when are "first" and "only" synonyms?

These boards are really like intellectual heroine......every time I come here, I say to myself "only one hour"........and, low and behold, four hours later.........


"Atheists are just like theists; they find it highly disturbing when you try to weaken their faith." Myself, a couple minutes ago

I think it's cute that Sidelined changed his quote to be in direct opposition of mine. Internal thought

"I believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets...
I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen."
The Nicene Creed

Winner of the LSS's 2004 Longest Signature Award


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 11-06-2004 12:25 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 11-06-2004 12:44 AM RustyShackelford has responded

  
RustyShackelford 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 35 of 100 (156519)
11-06-2004 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by tsig
11-06-2004 12:38 AM


Re: odds
When an event has happened the odds that it will occur is unity.

This is a circular argument that could be used to defend all sorts of absurdities.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by tsig, posted 11-06-2004 12:38 AM tsig has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by tsig, posted 11-06-2004 1:05 AM RustyShackelford has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019