Originally posted by Thequ1ck Could these conditions not be said to be better suited toward Silicon life?'.
What is the fascination with the fiction (not science fiction) idea of silicon based life? Look at it this way, we are carbon based life and all life (regardless of what it's base on) respires in one form or another. To give an example, the waste product of our respiration is carbon dioxide due to a process of oxidation. Want to give a try and tell me what the oxide of silicon is?
Originally posted by Phil Hill What is the fascination with the fiction (not science fiction) idea of silicon based life? Look at it this way, we are carbon based life and all life (regardless of what it's base on) respires in one form or another. To give an example, the waste product of our respiration is carbon dioxide due to a process of oxidation. Want to give a try and tell me what the oxide of silicon is?
The only reason why all life respires is because we have defined it that way. There are plenty of self reproducing 'things' that we don't typically call life that do not respire (virus's for example)
In fact, the vast majority of genes are in non-life. Virus's constitute a fairly large proportion of biological diversity, and there is another large portion that we are yet to identify.
Originally posted by twhitehead The only reason why all life respires is because we have defined it that way. There are plenty of self reproducing 'things' that we don't typically call life that do not respire (virus's for example)
In fact, the vast majority of genes are in non-life. Virus's constitute a fairly large proportion of biological diversity, and there is another large portion that we are yet to identify.
You don't read very well do you? Had I meant self-replicators I would have said self-replicators. However, in case you didn't realize I said LIFE. Tell me how does a self replicator (not life) exchange energy from the environment and have a metabolism (both requirements of life) without respiring in one form or another?
Originally posted by Phil Hill You don't read very well do you? Had I meant self-replicators I would have said self-replicators. However, in case you didn't realize I said [b]LIFE. Tell me how does a self replicator (not life) exchange energy from the environment and have a metabolism (both requirements of life) without respiring in one form or another?[/b]
Nobody said there couldn't be silicon based life, but the chemistry of silicon says if carbon is around, carbon will win out because carbon has many more ways of making molecules than silicon. Physics is against silicon making life. It could happen perhaps if there was some planet with water and energy sources and little carbon.
BTW, the oxide of silicon is called sand. SIO2, which is also glass. We use SIO2 in our work sputtering it on as a thin layer as an insulator and as a hermetic seal.
Originally posted by Phil Hill You don't read very well do you?
I read fairly well (better than you apparently) and clearly noted that you had specified life. I then pointed out that the definition was 'self proving' of your point as any other 'life form' silicone or otherwise, wouldn't meet your definition of life anyway.
But that does not in any way prove that such 'life forms' do not or cannot exist. It only proves that they are not 'life' as you define it.
Originally posted by sonhouse Nobody said there couldn't be silicon based life, but the chemistry of silicon says if carbon is around, carbon will win out because carbon has many more ways of making molecules than silicon.
I don't see why they can't co-exist, or even have chemistries that include both. I suspect though that silicon simply doesn't have the diversity of molecules required to generate life in an abiogenesis event. We do not find the equivalent of naturally occurring organic compounds based on silicone.
Originally posted by twhitehead I don't see why they can't co-exist, or even have chemistries that include both. I suspect though that silicon simply doesn't have the diversity of molecules required to generate life in an abiogenesis event. We do not find the equivalent of naturally occurring organic compounds based on silicone.
Which is pretty much what I just said. That doesn't mean silicon life is ruled out, just that silicon lost out here on Earth.
And that despite the huge amount of silicon on and under the Earth, 28% by mass in the Earth's crust.
It seems carbon may have been around 3 percent when Earth was formed but now is about 1/10th of one percent, so there is almost 3000 times more silicon than carbon.
In spite of that fact, carbon won out in the race for life.
It seems there better be a total lack of carbon before silicon could stand a chance..
Originally posted by sonhouse That doesn't mean silicon life is ruled out, just that silicon lost out here on Earth.
In spite of that fact, carbon won out in the race for life.
It seems there better be a total lack of carbon before silicon could stand a chance..
I disagree. I don't believe that all life is in competition and I don't see why carbon would 'win' or otherwise cause silicon life to fail. If anything, I think carbon would more than likely make it easier for something like silicon life to get started by providing a lot of complex molecules to utilize.
I must also point out that we haven't actually ruled out silicon based life forms. We haven't even identified half the carbon based life forms, and there indications that there may be carbon based life forms in whole new categories that we know nothing about - yet are widespread.
Originally posted by twhitehead I disagree. I don't believe that all life is in competition and I don't see why carbon would 'win' or otherwise cause silicon life to fail. If anything, I think carbon would more than likely make it easier for something like silicon life to get started by providing a lot of complex molecules to utilize.
I must also point out that we haven't actually rule ...[text shortened]... based life forms in whole new categories that we know nothing about - yet are widespread.
Life IS competition. Competition for reproduction, competition for territory, competition for food.
But you are right about maybe silicon life being here and we just don't see it yet. It's still a big planet and lots of it hasn't been explored, especially on the bottom of the ocean.
Originally posted by sonhouse Life IS competition. Competition for reproduction, competition for territory, competition for food.
Actually most life lives in some form of symbiosis. Competition only happens between similar species. Competition for reproduction only happens within a species.
Humans for example, are not competing with plants. We need plants for our survival.
Originally posted by twhitehead Actually most life lives in some form of symbiosis. Competition only happens between similar species. Competition for reproduction only happens within a species.
Humans for example, are not competing with plants. We need plants for our survival.
Actually most life lives in some form of symbiosis.
this is always true for multicellular life: for they are groups of cells generally not competing against each other but being in symbiosis with each other and the life form as a whole.
But, with a few notable exceptions ( such as some bacteria in our guts and also in leguminosae root nodules ) , most bacteria and viruses are not symbiotic.
But I would still say “Life IS competition” ( sonhouse's quote ) is not quite right.
Originally posted by humy most bacteria and viruses are not symbiotic.
Maybe not directly as in one to one symbiosis. But virus' cannot live without other life forms for their survival, and many bacteria are adapted to the current high oxygen content of our atmosphere created by plants, and a significant proportion live off other living things in one way or another. I realise symbiosis implies a two way dependency whereas these are one way, so I accept that it is the wrong word.
But generally most life depends in one form or another on other life. Also life creates a far more varied environment than that which would exist without life. I believe this variety could only enhance the chances of abiogenesis taking place.
Originally posted by twhitehead Maybe not directly as in one to one symbiosis. But virus' cannot live without other life forms for their survival, and many bacteria are adapted to the current high oxygen content of our atmosphere created by plants, and a significant proportion live off other living things in one way or another. I realise symbiosis implies a two way dependency whereas th ...[text shortened]... ithout life. I believe this variety could only enhance the chances of abiogenesis taking place.
If we assume abiogenesis to be correct then if life already formed, say as a single cell or a group of cells in different parts of the world, then other life forms wouldn't have come about by abiogenisis but the result of preparation by the originator life form.
I am pretty sure live came about as a result of abiogenesis but it has yet to be proven. The proof would indeed be in the pudding in this case.
Originally posted by sonhouse If we assume abiogenesis to be correct then if life already formed, say as a single cell or a group of cells in different parts of the world, then other life forms wouldn't have come about by abiogenisis but the result of preparation by the originator life form.
I am pretty sure live came about as a result of abiogenesis but it has yet to be proven. The proof would indeed be in the pudding in this case.
I am pretty sure live came about as a result of abiogenesis but it has yet to be proven.
but, surely, it wouldn't have to be 'proven' because life couldn't come from anything else other than abiogenesis.
The hole in Mars: incredible close up!
19 Aug '12 12:08
Back to Top