 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Biology / Biology / January 2008What if water did not freeze?
Or to be more precise, the stacking of water molecules when water went from the liquid to the solid state was at about the same density for both phases, or if ice was generally not crystalline but instead something structurally closer to glass? If a large macroscopic organism, either plant or animal, could easily freeze in winter, suffer few internal microscopic effects from the phase transition, and then thaw without ill effects and this was an easily obtained or already inherent ability for virtually all forms of life, what differences might have happened in terms of evolution and the development of all life on this planet throughout geologic history? Dear Strange Creature: On Jan 17, 2:59 pm, Strange Creature <strangecreatu...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Or to be more precise, the stacking of > water molecules when water went from [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > instead something structurally closer > to glass? The density is about the same, if there are no gases present. > If a large macroscopic organism, either > plant or animal, could easily freeze in winter, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > of all life on this planet throughout geologic > history? There are such creatures on Earth now. DMSO might (in non-fatal quantities) prevent a human from suffering "frost-bite". Additionally, a blend of hydrogen peroxide and water freezes just as you describe. There was life on Mars, and we killed (some of) it. In answer to your question, it would be a survival characterisitc for larger-than-thumb sized organisms that could not migrate to warmer climes, or a planet-wide ice age. David A. Smith On Jan 17, 4:59 pm, Strange Creature <strangecreatu...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Or to be more precise, the stacking of > water molecules when water went from [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > of all life on this planet throughout geologic > history? Evolution wouldn't have occured. Since the tranistion energy form liguid to solid is where most of the energy storage comes from. And without that, ice would be just a mirror, and never change anything. My thought, for what little it's worth, is that this would lead to a much larger utilization of high altitudes and latitudes by living creatures. A secondary effect would be a change of albedo of the Earth, the polar lands would be much darker, leading to a slightly warmer environment all around. The freezing would be akin to long term hibernation, so I expect that there would be more "living fossils" around, and the re-emergence of creatures after a long period of isolation would have an effect on the global rate of molecular evolution. In addition, some individual creatures would be able to live longer. > Or to be more precise, the stacking of > water molecules when water went from [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > of all life on this planet throughout geologic > history? Solutes would be excluded from the solid water phase during formation. Death by that is as effective as cell membrane puncture.  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > > Or to be more precise, the stacking of > > water molecules when water went from [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 I guess a lot of things happen when you initiate crystalline stacking. Maybe if water simply increased viscosity as you lowered the temperature without a phase transition. Then you might have a lesser level of exclusion of some ions, because they would not have to deal with the problem of how well they can be placed within the lattice . I am not sure if a cold liquid pseudo-tar could be thought of in the same way as solid ice, however. So much for shelled hibernaters, carniverous warm blooded ice boring worms, and glacier forests. > Or to be more precise, Doesn't matter how precise you are. If water behaves differently the entire universe is different as the fundamental constants are different. SignatureHow can anyone sign a 1040 form under penalty of perjury saying they totally and completely understand all the tax laws? -- The Iron Webmaster, 3908 http://www.giwersworld.org a1 On Jan 17, 11:47 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote: > > Or to be more precise, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > -- The Iron Webmaster, 3908 > http://www.giwersworld.orga1 What if water did not freeze? Well, what if a dog sh.t square bricks? Then we could bake them, stack them up and have a nice little house out of the deal. But a dog don't sh.t square bricks. The shape of its a.shole makes them round. So we can't do that. - Gus Richter while drilling a well on the Nut Farm, circa 1966. see also GEB, Contrafactus. What if.......the whole earth were self-organizing into a ...a....a...aaaahuge, brainlike..... AAAAAHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGGGHHHHHAAAAHHHGAHAGAG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BLAM!!!!!!!!!! > Or to be more precise, the stacking of > water molecules when water went from [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > instead something structurally closer > to glass? This is an essential part of freezing bioloigcal specimens for storage- we add DMSO to prevent the water from forming ice crystals. The cells must be thawed quickly and rinsed, but the overwhelming majority survive the process of freezing to LN2 and thawing. Supposedly, one can immerse a live goldfish in LN2 to freeze it, drop it back in the water tank, and when it thaws it swims away as though nothing has happened. Similar techniques are used for cryo-EM. > If a large macroscopic organism, either > plant or animal, could easily freeze in winter, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > of all life on this planet throughout geologic > history? Some acquatic animals and plants do survive sub-freezing temperatures by using "antifreeze proteins". It's not fully understood how they work. SignatureAndrew Resnick, Ph.D. Department of Physiology and Biophysics Case Western Reserve University > > Or to be more precise, the stacking of > > water molecules when water went from [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The cells must be thawed quickly and rinsed, but the overwhelming > majority survive the process of freezing to LN2 and thawing. So it seems Uncle Al's objections about solute exclusion are not fatal. Perhaps you require sufficiently rapid freezing to avoid solute segregation. > Supposedly, one can immerse a live goldfish in LN2 to freeze it, drop it > back in the water tank, and when it thaws it swims away as though > nothing has happened. Supposedly? Scientific urban legend? I tried a similar experiment with an untreated cockroach, immersing its head until the nitrogen stopped bubbling. On thawing, the roach was definitely non-functional: it retained bodily reflexes -- righting itself when pushed to one side -- but just didn't seem to want to do anything: after a frozen head, one suffers from teriffic enui. > Similar techniques are used for cryo-EM. > Some acquatic animals and plants do survive sub-freezing temperatures by > using "antifreeze proteins". It's not fully understood how they work. This makes me doubt that the arctic would be noticably more fecund if there were a greater distribution of biological anti-freeze: bio anti- freeze exists _now_, and the limitation would seem to be more a matter of free-energy budget. Or maybe it's the size of the creature. UIAM there is a food chain active even in the arctic oceans, starting with plankton. Perhaps the plankton are able to carry on something like life at ambient temperature... hmm... but then so are fish, apparently. But the seals and the bears -- and I suppose the birds -- maintain an elevated temperature. Something about air breathing? Dear Edward Green: ... > But the seals and the bears -- and I suppose > the birds -- maintain an elevated temperature. > Something about air breathing? Probably more their position in the food chain. Victory goes to the swift, survival to the alert. David A. Smith > Victory goes to the swift, survival to the alert. > > David A. Smith Awesome! Did you make that up? Looking at at the groups this is crossposted to leads me to ask a question that has been bothering me recently. I've always looked askance at the idea that rainy weather could somehow influence arthritis pain but now I have it in my shoulder and I have no more skepticism. It came on rather suddenly this summer and I've had two especially bad days with it recently. Just today I made the correlation with recent stormy weather here in Santa Cruz, CA. Now why would that be? How on earth can barometric pressure or moderate elevation in external humidity cause internal connective tissue and/or bearing surfaces to hurt? Bob Signature"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein Dear Bob Cain: >> Victory goes to the swift, survival to the alert. > > Awesome! Did you make that up? I have no recollection of having read that precise quote before, but it is pretty close to others. I just thought of advantages to having a higher metabolism... > Looking at at the groups this is crossposted to > leads me to ask a question that has been bothering [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > external humidity cause internal connective tissue > and/or bearing surfaces to hurt? How can intercranial pressure cause stroke, etc? There is plenty of soft tissue all around... with big openings in the cranium... http://arthritis.about.com/od/weather/Weather_Arthritis_Barometric_Pressure_Affe ct_Humidity_Climate.htm There is very little (if any) circulation in joints. Stuff that gets in, tends to stay in. Largely why the joint is also lost in gangrene cases. This would apply to dissolved gases, and an impending storm usually brings with it *lower* barometric pressure, causing (perhaps) swelling of the tissues, and consequent friction. My guess... David A. Smith On Jan 21, 12:09 am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote: > There is very little (if any) circulation in joints. Stuff that > gets in, tends to stay in. Largely why the joint is also lost in > gangrene cases. This would apply to dissolved gases, and an > impending storm usually brings with it *lower* barometric > pressure, causing (perhaps) swelling of the tissues, and > consequent friction. My guess... I am led to believe that joint cracking actually depends on the movement of gas bubbles (not mere disolved gasses) in the joints. Given that the joint is in pain/damaged already by arthritis, expanding gas bubbles would be likely to increase the pain. Dear Edward Green: > On Jan 21, 12:09 am, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > by arthritis, expanding gas bubbles would be likely to > increase the pain. I had opportunity to see the inside one of my knee joints recently, and the ends of the bone were "fuzzy" with tiny spurs or spikes of bone (prior to being cauterized down). Frankly, I don't see how barometric pressure changes could make that feel any worse... For some it does, clearly. David A. Smith > I've always looked askance at the idea that > rainy weather could somehow influence arthritis pain but now I have it in my > shoulder and I have no more skepticism. I've noticed that the longer I live, the more things I find which I was skeptical of, that actually have a basis in fact. OTH, a lot of stuff is absolute BS. |-) Maybe it's the habit of BS-detection which leads us to surprise at the inevitable false positives. On Jan 20, 1:07 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote: > Dear Edward Green: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Probably more their position in the food chain. Victory goes to > the swift, survival to the alert. I think even relatively large and quite carnivorous fish are cold- blooded. Or maybe they are mixed cases -- sharks may warm up their swimming muscles. But you are saying in general that mental and physical agility requires that metabolic processes by carried on well above freezing? Maybe. > On Jan 20, 1:07 pm, "N:dlzcD:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > that metabolic processes by carried on well above freezing? > Maybe. No, I'd rather say the more successful species, either in terms of "rundown capability" or "sharp senses with keen avoidance capabilites" run body temperatures higher than those that are less successful. Higher metabolism also carries a price tag. "Higher than freezing" body temperatures would only apply if the competition was also higher than freezing. David A. Smith Ooo Ooo. Wat if there were no protons? And no tits on cows? OOoo OOoo. > Or to be more precise, the stacking of > water molecules when water went from [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > of all life on this planet throughout geologic > history? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.