Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
29 online now:
jar, Theodoric (2 members, 27 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,985 Year: 19,021/19,786 Month: 1,441/1,705 Week: 247/446 Day: 45/98 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Water As An Element of Fine-Tuning
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 7 of 100 (155028)
11-01-2004 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RustyShackelford
11-01-2004 2:18 PM


It might also be worth mentioning that we still have no idea where and under what conditions life formed and so can have no idea what impact water's expansion would or could have had on life.

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.

Someone could correct me if I am wrong, but salinity alone, not to mention vents and surface warming by the sun (esp. at the equator) would have kept the possibility of life pretty much open.

I am unsure where this idea that water's not freezing at the bottom first is so "important" to life. That would have its greatest impact on shallow fresh water lakes, ponds and rivers, where most life does not necessarily exist.

One also wonders what important life saving qualities might be had if water did not expand. For example people could be frozen and not suffer cell damage as ice crystals expand and rupture cell walls.

Ah well.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-01-2004 2:18 PM RustyShackelford has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-01-2004 7:07 PM Silent H has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 15 of 100 (155141)
11-02-2004 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by RustyShackelford
11-01-2004 7:07 PM


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?

I don't see this as true at all. Why would it be?

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.

The earth has a large belt where water does not come close to freezing at all. That is also where much of life prospers. And as far as I understand the evolutionary theory regarding human origins, that is where we came from.

You need to establish that water's freezing has much of a connection to life at all. Most human life freezes dead whether from the top or the bottom. Heck, you don't even need ice to kill a human.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-01-2004 7:07 PM RustyShackelford has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-04-2004 12:56 AM Silent H has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 24 of 100 (155769)
11-04-2004 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by RustyShackelford
11-04-2004 12:56 AM


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?

I have already dealt with both questions in previous posts, but I will try to be more clear this time.

I am well aware that ice, if it increased in density when frozen, would begin to form at the bottom. The problem for you position is that that would have no practical impact for the development of life, particularly oceanic marine life and terrestrial life (which is the majority of life).

The concept of ice forming from bottom up as a "problem" is that for freshwater lakes and streams there is a potential for them to freeze completely, where top down freezing allows for the top to act as a thermal barrier and less water freezes.

In practice however, shallow enough bodies of water can still freeze over completely even with top-down freezing, and it is not true that wherever freezing occurs all bodies of water would freeze just because it froze from bottom-up. This is to say that the actual factor for impact on life is the nature of the environment, and not the nature of how water freezes.

Moving from practice to real world facts... The oceans are environments pretty much immune to freezing effects. Given solar and geothermal heating of water and air, there is about 0 chance for the oceans to freeze solid regardless the nature of water.

Indeed there are great areas of the earth where most life exists and absolutely no freezing occurs. This is at least the second time I have mentioned this to you. Perhaps you may conduct a thought experiment to remember this in the future. Think tropical environment: lots of life and never any ice. Think moving from tropics to temperate and eventually to arctic: there is a gradual reduction in life forms until they are very few and far between. That hardly indicates the nature of freezing water has a major impact on life at all.

Thus life could have formed just the same and developed just the same. The only difference would have been around shallow freshwater lakes and streams.

I've heard it stated as fact many times that if ice were denser than water, marine life wouldn't survive.....

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.

Oceanic marine life, which is where life is currently theorized to have begun, would never have been impacted at all. Thermal vents at the bottom would have prevented any ice from forming in their areas, salinity would have prevented much freezing in general, and solar energy would have kept tropical and low temperate ocean environments clear of ice.

If you think the statements you heard earlier trump the facts I just laid out, I would like to hear how.

I suppose I could develop a theory that water expansion during freezing was fine-tuning by the devil since it did not help life form, and icebergs (which are a result) do hinder humans from getting around by sea. The Titanic was sunk after all, and would not have been. It also lures humans into believing walking across certain bodies of water are safe and they end up falling through and drowning.

Fine-tuning arguments can always be shot down. This one is particularly bad as it has no connection to facts regarding the connection between water and life.

Since I had dealt with this before, please have the courtesy to tell me if you plan to avoid dealing with the content of this post in the future and simply repeat your position.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-04-2004 12:56 AM RustyShackelford has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-05-2004 11:47 PM Silent H has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 58 of 100 (156586)
11-06-2004 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by CK
11-06-2004 5:54 AM


Re: Jason Chin Remix
Somehow I missed this Jason person before. Who is he?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by CK, posted 11-06-2004 5:54 AM CK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by jar, posted 11-06-2004 7:39 AM Silent H has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 59 of 100 (156589)
11-06-2004 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by RustyShackelford
11-05-2004 11:47 PM


I need more than just your word,

You had more than just my word, you had my examples.

Perhaps you'd like to explain which ones you had a problem with?

1) To freeze water solid requires exposing a body of water to an environment sufficient that the body will lose enough "heat" or "energy" so that it becomes a solid. Water freezing top down helps shield water beneath the "lid" from external environments and so slows the energy drain and thus solidification... it doesn't prevent it, it merely slows it to a sufficient degree that many lakes and rivers won't freeze solid over normal winters.

2) Water does not freeze in tropical latitudes and some portions of temperate latitudes due to solar heating, which makes those environments "hot" and adds energy to water. Therefore the nature of how water freezes would have no impact on life in those regions.

3) Oceanic water has salinity which will help prevent freezing, perhaps to the same degree or more that an ice "lid" would create. If you have a problem with this I guess you don't salt your driveway in winter?

4) Even if oceans froze bottom-up, heat at the vents is so extreme that no ice would be capable of forming at those ridges. This is of course the only place life forming events are thought to occur when discussing abiogenesis at ocean floors and so ice would have no effect on that either.

These are not just my word, these are explanations of facts. Unless you want me to collect signatures to back this up, why don't you explain the fault with any of them.

since I've had the word of many others to the contrary.

Perhaps you would care to list their explanations of how bottom-up freezing would create the results they are claiming we would see in the world. Right now all I have is you saying that it just would. That is not even an explanation, much less a good one.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-05-2004 11:47 PM RustyShackelford has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-06-2004 6:28 PM Silent H has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 61 of 100 (156592)
11-06-2004 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by jar
11-06-2004 7:39 AM


Re: Jason Chin Remix
Thanks for the clue in. I do remember pimpsalot.

On a side note, I belatedly saw your post on why God is Good. It was nice though I thought one thing might have been inaccurate. In one way it shoots down what you were saying about humans, but at the same time it helps with your self-healing concept.

You said only humans heal others, including other animals, but from what I understand that actually is not true.

I wish I had some cites but I don't. From a couple of news items I have seen and/or read, it is being discovered that some dogs can sense cancer cells and when they do, they try and chew them off of their masters. In testing this, some doctors found they were also relatively good at spotting illnesses in people and focus on those with internal problems.

And it isn't just man's best friend. It is also being reported that dolphins appear able to spot internal disorders in humans using their sonar and when they do they use the sonar to try and help them. For example breaking up cell or crystalline growths using concentrated sound waves. That was a very cool documentary to watch.

I guess dolphins have been known to help humans for some time in many other regards as well, protecting sailors from drowning and sharks.

And it isn't just mammals. Reefs act as great cleaning and maintenaince "pitstops" for fish. I don't know if you've ever seen it on film but it is pretty funny to watch.

Some ants are also caretakers of other species. They have other bugs which they tend and "milk" like we do cows.

In the end I think this all indicates a natural symbiosis. Humans may have a broader capacity to employ tools for diagnosis and treatment, but many interact in beneficial ways.

How is this on topic? Uhmmmmm... This would all involve fine-tuning of nature to be benevolent in symbiosis, and dolphins and reefs are underwater.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by jar, posted 11-06-2004 7:39 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 11-06-2004 8:00 AM Silent H has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 66 of 100 (156639)
11-06-2004 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by jar
11-06-2004 8:00 AM


Re: Jason Chin Remix
Come on over and we can discuss it further there.

Well that thread's not a big thing to me. I just thought I'd mention that little bit of input since we were talking. I don't know if it really adds to the debate over there anyway, but thought it might have been of interest to you in a general way.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 11-06-2004 8:00 AM jar has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 71 of 100 (156814)
11-06-2004 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by RustyShackelford
11-06-2004 6:28 PM


But I don't know if your examples are accurate......I need more info.

You have got to be kidding me.

Also, though I realize the oceans might not freeze entirely, they would become too frozen to support marine life........

What on earth does this even mean? In the tropics? At vents? There wouldn't be any freezing at all much less "too frozen to support marine life."

I heard Lam admit it early on in this thread

If Lam "admitted" this perhaps he can explain why my examples are wrong. You have also had at least one other person on here say the same thing as me. Why does Lam take precedence?

I've been told this by a friend of mine who's a chemistry major

Oh yeah, so what? I have a chemistry and Geology background that extends into graduate work. My examples were pretty common sense and involved facts which are pretty indisputable. What did this friend have as examples that applied to the real world?

I read it in a school book once

Name it so I can send the publisher's a correction notice.

I need more than just your word

You have more than just my word, you have my examples based on facts you should be pretty clear on.

How does water freeze? Does salt prevent water freezing? In the tropics is there any amount of freezing to suggest that freezing could affect life at all? How do you suggest water will freeze at thermal vents on ocean floors where temps are in the high hundreds of degrees? Can water freeze at several hundreds of degrees?

Are you honestly telling me you cannot answer the above yourself?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-06-2004 6:28 PM RustyShackelford has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-06-2004 7:13 PM Silent H has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 79 of 100 (156922)
11-07-2004 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by RustyShackelford
11-06-2004 7:13 PM


Who?

Nic Tamzek. He pointed out the theoretical nature of your hypothesis and the sources of energy which would likely defeat it.

Lam takes precedence because he's one of three seperate sources.......

Well I just took a look at Lam's post and if that is what you are counting on as a source for the opinion if water froze bottom-up all life would not exist, or even that all water would freeze, then it just casts a shadow over all your other claimed "sources".

All Lam agreed to was that marine life in ice would not live, do to metabolism. I have already agreed with that as well. Most life does not do well in really cold temperatures, or to be more specific... ice.

That is not the problem. Or should I say that only becomes a problem if it can be shown that all or most water is likely to freeze on earth due to a change in how water freezes. Well that simply is not the case.

The biggest threat would be to freshwater marine life in temperate zones, or I suppose at high altitudes?

I'm clueless when it comes to chemistry, so I have no idea how accurate your examples are..

I'm not asking you to be a genius in chemistry or even an acolyte. I am asking you to simply remember facts about the world and apply them. The above playing dumb is like saying you aren't sure if a match will light a cigarette because you don't know about chemistry.

If you want to have ice in the tropics, do you set a glass outside or in a refrigerator? If you have no idea what the tropics are like go online and check what the temperature ranges are. Set your fridge for that temp (if it can even get as high as tropical lows) and stick a glass of water in there. Let me know when it freezes.

Put a pan of water on a stove turned all the way up. Will it boil away, or freeze over? The temps at thermal vents are more than likely higher than that of your stove. So will ice form or not?

Take two glasses of water. Put a bunch of salt in one of them. Then put both in the freezer. Check regularly and note which freezes first.

Solar and geothermal energy (combined with our atmosphere of course) prevent the possibility of water freezing over completely in large bands across the globe. That is simply a fact. If it wasn't we'd be frozen solid no matter water froze top down or not.

You should be able to think this through.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-06-2004 7:13 PM RustyShackelford has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 11-07-2004 4:28 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 87 of 100 (157019)
11-07-2004 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by RAZD
11-07-2004 5:21 PM


a lot of areas went to dessert conditions

Would that be the italian ice age, or the ice cream age?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 11-07-2004 5:21 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by RAZD, posted 11-07-2004 5:59 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 88 of 100 (157021)
11-07-2004 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Tony650
11-07-2004 5:08 PM


And here I was thinking that the ice ages turned the Earth into a big, spherical "icecube."

I assume you are just joking, but for other indications we have vary long lived species that lasted through ice ages... including humans.

Indeed if ice ages froze everything, I believe there wouldn't be any reptiles at all. A biologist could correct me on that one.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Tony650, posted 11-07-2004 5:08 PM Tony650 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Tony650, posted 11-07-2004 5:51 PM Silent H has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 94 of 100 (157160)
11-08-2004 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Nic Tamzek
11-08-2004 2:29 AM


One other misconception of RustyShackelford that should be corrected is that water is a "universal solvent." It's a good solvent but not universal.

If he can't figure out that water doesn't freeze in the tropics, do we really think he's going to get the complicated explanation of hydrophobic compounds?

What's funny is he says he has a friend in chemistry that told him the world would freeze over if water froze from the bottom up. I suppose this same friend was the one who told him it was a universal solvent.

One trip to an organic chem lab would dispell that. Water's nonsolvency on many materials is a great way to separate them into different components based on density.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Nic Tamzek, posted 11-08-2004 2:29 AM Nic Tamzek has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2004 8:18 AM Silent H has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 96 of 100 (157187)
11-08-2004 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by RAZD
11-08-2004 8:18 AM


Hey don't tell me, tell him! Right now he thinks he has three sources to my just asserting things like water hotter than it's boiling point can't freeze, or that salt prevents freezing, or that it's hot in the tropics.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2004 8:18 AM RAZD has not yet 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