Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
pioneer

Water and evolution

Recommended Posts

wait your saying water and acids are tuned to fit the pH scale? wtf? NO!

 

we invented the pH scale to represent the concentration ratio of H+ an OH- ions in solution.

 

and of course if you have a different thing its going to behave differently.

 

time for you to stop talking like you are the omnibrain and actually go take a look at what actually happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We defined the pH scaled based on water. It has to do with the concentration of H+ and -OH in solution. Water sets a limit when it comes to the ability of other molecules to gain or release H+. If we change the solvent the H+ release of the acid will not work the same way since the affinity of the solvent for H+ will be different. Nonpolar organic solvents won't accept H+ as easily as water, since there is no good place to put it. It is easier with a negative pole. This means animo acids that should release an H+ or gain an H+, will behave differently in other solvents, depending on the strength of the negative pole. Water has the unique properties which allow the proper release amounts because life evolved in water. If it evolved in NH3, we would need to tweak the design to get the same release rates. Life needs to be tailored to the solvent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it evolved in NH3, we would need to tweak the design to get the same release rates. Life needs to be tailored to the solvent.

 

No shit sherlock, where did you park your squad car? That is exactly what I have been saying, water appears to be so perfect to us because we evolved to fit water, if some other solvent had been used we would be sitting around thinking how perfect it was. If in some distant reach of the universe there is a planet with molten silicate as it's oceans and metal vapor as it's atmosphere and it has life they will think molten silicate is the perfect solvent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The purpose of this post was not to discuss alternate life on other planets. The only life we can prove, exists, uses water. The real goal is to decide what is the role of water and how far does this role extend. The continuous phase of life or water should play a continuity role since it is the medium by which everything is in contact and connects.

 

Picture this situation, we have a cell. We freeze it in time and remove everything except the water. Where a protein was, the adjacent water has taken a given hydrogen bonding structure based on how the surface of the protein impacts the water. If we go slightly away from this, the water is a little different. The same is true of ions, with K+ and Na+ both having different water structures even though both have the same charge. The picture you would see in this freeze frame is water's reaction to everything in the cell, after the bulk water has this pushed this material to minimize its energy in the water. Water can't zero everything, so the material creates an impression on the surrounding water.

 

If we started time, this entire parallel water structure would collapse into a more uniform state with less energy. The difference between these two pictures is how much energy potential the water contains within the cell. When we dehydrate we remove that parallel water and nothing works quite right, because we remove energy potential as well as the continuity between structural components.

 

The high BP, thermal capacity, etc, of water, which set is apart, implies this medium can store more potential energy than almost any solvent. All these affects are connected to hydrogen bonding, and all the parallel structures of water in the cell are also connected to hydrogen bonding. The cell takes advantage of the binding forces of water that gives it extreme behavior. As cells evolve, it cranks up the water for a stronger back pressure. The back pressure then set potential for even more change to occur.

Edited by pioneer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, we know all that, what the hell is your point, seriously you are acting as if biologists(specifically biochemists) haven't quite caught onto the fact that, wait for it.... water is involved in biochemistry.

 

seriously, they concentrated on the other stuff because without that water would be bloody useless.

 

what you are doing is the equivalent of looking at a design for an engine, where some mechanical engineer has spent months making detailed calculations on exactly how much fuel it'll need how much airflow will be required, so on, so on and then claiming that he really hasn't understood the importance of the air as it will work differently if you feed it water instead of air.

 

your position makes no sense whatsoever and makes you look quite the fool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recognize we know about water. However, we don't differentiate the potential in the local and global water. It gets lumped into net affects. I am trying to differentiate the lumped affects into the two contributions. If we go back to dehydration things need water to work. I removed one of the two contributions. If we do it the other way and remove the organics, it also doesn't work. I am not saying water does all, any more than I believe the organics do it all. The latter is a good first approximation but it lumps two affects into one. What we know of water is too fuzzy to differentiate this secondary affect. That is what I am trying to do.

 

For example, the DNA double helix has a double helix of water. What is occurring on genes is occurring on a quadruple helix. But we call it a double helix and lump 4 into 2 for a good approximation that needs fudge. I see 4 helixes, which is the reality of what we are actually dealing with. Making that distinction helps to get rid of some the random affects of the 2 helix assumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Differentiating the water can be done two ways. The first way is labor intensive and requires examining each situation, independently. The other way is to develop some broad based principles that can treat the water affect in a more broad based way. This is less resource intensive but has the requirement of redefining some existing chemistry.

 

Over the years I have developed a number of approaches but many involved theories that required basic research before you could even get started. Recently I made a simple observation that should allow us to get up to steam much quicker. It represents a way to define the potential that can be stored in water and hydrogen bonding.

 

To begin, the following reaction defines the range of energetics within the living state. O2 + H2 <=> 2H2O

 

This is typically written as a forward reaction. I show it as a reversible reaction since life can work within the potential range of this equation in both directions. The production of H2 by life was discovered during research for alternative energy, making H2 gas with bacteria. It is not clear if these bacteria can also eat H2. Most of life uses intermediate reduction and oxidation states, within this energy range, with C-H and N-H as the reduced state since it is easier to store than H2. This energy value is stepped down, with enzymes, all the way to H2O, if O2 is present. Life can go the other way with plants able to make O2 and most of life able to make highly reduced states of C such as saturated lipid material and methane.

 

The area of this equation this is of most interest for the water is the reaction H20 + H2O <=> H2O...H2O. This is just a way of representing hydrogen bonding. If you look at this closely, what happens when a hydrogen bond forms, the H is able to share extra electron density. What that means is the hydrogen bond in water reduces the hydrogen, relative to the zero state of an isolated water molecule. The oxygen is also oxidized relative to this same zero state. One way O shifts this back toward the oxidation of H, is the pH affect, which generates H+ or H3O+.

 

Putting aside the pH affect, liquid water defines an equilibrium between high and low density zones, depending on how the hydrogen bonding is arranged. Relative to the above observation and definition, this can be correlated to each zone defining a different reduction potential, i.e, how well the H is able to share the electron density of water, with the O trying to oxidize this affect. We tend to lump and average this but this average exists within a bandwidth of reduction potential, slightly to the left of the water in the H2 + O2 <=> 2H2O equation. What this means is everything in the cell is assisted by a slight reduction potential in the water, which can be tweaked locally and globally, around this bandwidth depending on how the bio-materials impacts the local and global water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. Can someone PLEASE move this thread out of the Biology section, and put it in Speculations where it belongs? :mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Differentiating the water can be done two ways. The first way is labor intensive and requires examining each situation, independently. The other way is to develop some broad based principles that can treat the water affect in a more broad based way. This is less resource intensive but has the requirement of redefining some existing chemistry.

 

Over the years I have developed a number of approaches but many involved theories that required basic research before you could even get started. Recently I made a simple observation that should allow us to get up to steam much quicker. It represents a way to define the potential that can be stored in water and hydrogen bonding.

 

To begin, the following reaction defines the range of energetics within the living state. O2 + H2 <=> 2H2O

 

This is typically written as a forward reaction. I show it as a reversible reaction since life can work within the potential range of this equation in both directions. The production of H2 by life was discovered during research for alternative energy, making H2 gas with bacteria. It is not clear if these bacteria can also eat H2. Most of life uses intermediate reduction and oxidation states, within this energy range, with C-H and N-H as the reduced state since it is easier to store than H2. This energy value is stepped down, with enzymes, all the way to H2O, if O2 is present. Life can go the other way with plants able to make O2 and most of life able to make highly reduced states of C such as saturated lipid material and methane.

 

The area of this equation this is of most interest for the water is the reaction H20 + H2O <=> H2O...H2O. This is just a way of representing hydrogen bonding. If you look at this closely, what happens when a hydrogen bond forms, the H is able to share extra electron density. What that means is the hydrogen bond in water reduces the hydrogen, relative to the zero state of an isolated water molecule. The oxygen is also oxidized relative to this same zero state. One way O shifts this back toward the oxidation of H, is the pH affect, which generates H+ or H3O+.

 

Putting aside the pH affect, liquid water defines an equilibrium between high and low density zones, depending on how the hydrogen bonding is arranged. Relative to the above observation and definition, this can be correlated to each zone defining a different reduction potential, i.e, how well the H is able to share the electron density of water, with the O trying to oxidize this affect. We tend to lump and average this but this average exists within a bandwidth of reduction potential, slightly to the left of the water in the H2 + O2 <=> 2H2O equation. What this means is everything in the cell is assisted by a slight reduction potential in the water, which can be tweaked locally and globally, around this bandwidth depending on how the bio-materials impacts the local and global water.

 

Yes there are organisms that use hydrogen to combine with carbon to make hydrocarbons and I still don't see your point. Just because we don't have an example of life with out water doesn't make water special or even necessary to any life but our own and that is easily explained by life evolving in water. Of course water has had an effect on life, if the solvent was HF it too would have an effect on the evolution of life. I'm not trying to be obtuse i just don't see the point of pointing out the painfully obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a chemist so chemical notation might as well be a foriegn language to me but how is it that O2 + H2 <=> 2H2O instead of H2O2 or H2O + O? Am I confused that the sides should be equal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Differentiating the water can be done two ways. The first way is labor intensive and requires examining each situation, independently. The other way is to develop some broad based principles that can treat the water affect in a more broad based way. This is less resource intensive but has the requirement of redefining some existing chemistry.

 

Pioneer, for goodness sake, read some biochemistry.

 

To begin, the following reaction defines the range of energetics within the living state. O2 + H2 <=> 2H2O

 

There are other energetics. The most common one is C6H12O6 + 6O2---> 6CO2 + 6 H2O. It's called "combustion" and occurs in mitochondria. It is the energy source for your body.

 

This is just a way of representing hydrogen bonding.

 

Hydrogen bonding is already adequately represented by other means. We know that hydrogen bonds are ~ 7 kcal/mole.

 

What this means is everything in the cell is assisted by a slight reduction potential in the water, which can be tweaked locally and globally, around this bandwidth depending on how the bio-materials impacts the local and global water.

 

You are forgetting nucleophilic reactions where the oxygen is inserted into a molecule during the reaction.

http://www.usm.maine.edu/~newton/Chy251_253/Lectures/NucleophilicAdditionII/NucleophilicAdditionII.html

http://www.usm.maine.edu/~newton/Chy251_253/Lectures/NucleophilicAdditionII/NucleophilicAdditionII.html

 

Will someone please move this thread to "pseudoscience"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reaction I presented H2 + O2 <=> 2H2O was presented in terms of the energy given off per mole of hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms. The reactions of life give off energy within the outer boundaries of these energetics, with the right side connected to H bonding in water. I am not discounting life reactions but none give off as many Kcal/moles. We can start with any final product and burn it and it will give off less energy per mole of H. Nature does not use full combustion but will do this is little steps, with each step given off or gaining energy at levels that are closer to the right side of the equation to form larger molecules. But relative to energetics they all lie within this range.

 

The focus is on differentiating the water and not rehashing what we already know about the C aspect, which is much better defined. To isolate the water we need to focus on water and not reactions connected to C. I am only trying to isolate the water, which does not require using C reactions at this point in the analysis.

 

The point I made is if we start with isolated water molecules and form liquid water the formation of a hydrogen bond implies hydrogen is gaining electron density. This causes the H to becomes slightly reduced. This is not the normal way to present this, but it explains other things in a consistent way. Hydrogen bonds have partial covalent character implying these water polymers are structures with a reduction potential relative to isolated water.

 

This situation creates an interesting paradox. It amounts to H oxidizing oxygen and oxygen reducing H, which is counter intuitive, even though that is how it stacks up. As such, one would expect the opposite to also occur since O is a better oxidizer.

 

One observation that shows this latter affect is pH, where the H becomes oxidized or loses electron density to become H+. But this is short lived with the reaction reversing and the H becoming reduced again.

 

Another observation is an isolated H2O molecule, because the bonds are very strong, can last a long time. In liquid water, any given water molecule will only exist about 1 millisecond. Essentially what occurs is the H of a given water molecule forms a hydrogen bond. The hydrogen is then swapped to another O, with the hydrogen bond becoming covalent and the covalent bond becoming a hydrogen bond. There is no net change other than a partner swap. We still get H2O.

 

But the H doesn't carry electrons with it, but surfs between the electrons that are attached to the O. For a short time, it is in a transition state where it is oxidized by the O. But it quickly regains reduction. But this will only last for 1 millisecond until the oxygen oxidizes the reduced H again. But as quickly as this happens the H is regains its reduction. This process allows the strong -OH bond to break constantly using hydrogen bonding. The pH affect takes this one step further, with the H more oxidized.

 

What we have going on in water is a tug of war between H and O. The H can self reduce by picking Oxygen's back pocket or one of its two bonded electron orbitals. The oxygen, being more electronegative, tries to compensate for this to assert its higher electronegativity. This oxidizes the H. But this is short lived with the H reducing itself by picking another oxygen's back pocket. What this does is keep water in a constant state of flux due to two agenda's that are in constant conflict with each other. Even hydrogen bonded water may look like a fixed structure, but there is constant H trading within the time average. Water can also swap between high and low density hydrogen bonded structures, with one state more reduced and one state more oxidized. In this case, the oxidation and reduction becomes a team effort of H and O.

 

This is a theory. Breaking strong 0-H covalent bonds with a hydrogen bond does not seen logical, but still occurs constantly. This suggests a team afford. Water forms very distinct extended shapes and can form reversible transitions between these shapes, with the entire affect coordinated. Below is one such shape from: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/clusters.html

 

equil2.gif

 

Like in life, water doesn't display huge energy changes in proportional to the strong covalent bonds that are breaking. Like life, this change occurs in a step down way, with water using H-bonding. We can place water in the dark, shield it from the visible spectrum and UV, and hydrogen bonding bonding can break all the covalent bonds in a millisecond. There is no net change in the bonds.

 

ATP is an Oxidation

 

Hydrogen bonding type reduction is also common to the living state. The hydrogen bonding within the DNA double helix will reduce the hydrogen in a more stable way than within water. It is not subject to the same constant reversal-oxidation by the O in water. The double helix of water, that is also part of the DNA double helix, is also more reduced than in the bulk water due to less reversibility. But being in water, there is still an oxidation potential, which is expressed when the double helix separates and the double helix of water increases entropy oxidizing this water. By the very nature of the stored reduction potential in DNA there is a innate potential in water to separate the quadruple helix via an oxidation. It may not happen spontaneously, but required evolving oxidizing type catalysts at the level of hydrogen bonding.

 

The energy molecule of life is ATP. If you look closely, the way this energy is utilized is by adding an oxygen, since ADP and phosphate contain one additional oxygen atom. At an enzyme, this is done with an OH group, with the release of H. The phosphate is a tri-acid implying a weakly held H compared to the OH group. This reaction is a net oxidation of H. To recycle the phosphate we begin with H2O. The OH group of the enzyme gets reduced but the bulk water gets oxidized in terms of losing a water molecule and placing one of the H in an acid state. This reaction also follows the push in water which is to oxidize the H.

 

To reiterate; O is more electronegative than H and because of that should always oxidize H. But H is able to overcome this in a sneaky way by picking O's back pocket. Nature designed a vulnerability within the O that works in contradiction to its higher electronegativity. But because O is still more electronegative it has ways to assert its higher oxidation power. In the ideal case it would like to maximize water entropy and form an isolated H2O molecule. This is not easy to do in the liquid state because of its built in vulnerability. The hydrogen, on the other hand, is looking for stability within fixed hydrogen bonding that is less vulnerable to the countering affect of the aqueous O. Life structures are helping the goal of the H while ATP is designed to help the goal of the O. But in the end, the H wins the battle in terms of life enhancing reduction of H.

 

Cell cycles require a lot of energy. When the cell stores enough reduction potential in terms of both food and proteins the requirement becomes an oxidation on the DNA. Modern cells do this in an elaborate way but the net affect is still an oxidation. We can tweak links in the chain to inhibit this, or with cancer, maybe use easier pathways that help oxidation more. I don't know enough about cancer, but I would look in terms of oxidation pathways since it is displaying this capability. In a loose sense, cancer is helping O or oxidation. This is true not only in terms of high metabolism but death allows dehydration into that isolated H2O state O only dreams about. Life holds water for the H. It is not coincidental that anti-oxidants are helpful against some cancer.

 

DNA and RNA

 

Defining hydrogen bonding as reduction of hydrogen creates a logical consistency. DNA and RNA differ in only a couple of minor ways at the atomic level. The sugar unit on RNA has an -OH group at the same place the DNA has a -H. One of the bases on DNA has an -CH3 group whereas RNA has an -H group in the same spot. The net affect is DNA is slightly more reduced. If we compare surface tension in water, relative to single helixes, DNA will create a slightly higher surface tension. The result is the double helix of DNA has more potential to form to help bury the extra reduction.

 

If we look in terms of commonalities, both are bulk slanted toward the O side of the potential. The most obvious is the phosphate group which limits hydrogen reduction to H-bonds. The aromatic bases, place a restriction on how much reduced H, relative to non-aromatic. The O bonded to two C in the sugar lowers possible inclusion of H and limits it to H-bond reduction. The DNA and RNA are a blend of oxidation and reduction with the reduction partially designed around H-bonds.

 

Relative to the cell's choice of RNA or DNA production, RNA production occurs when the cell is building reduction (growing) or favoring the needs of H. DNA production occurs during the state of highest metabolism when O is favored. In other words, if the cell is favoring H it balances with the O side implicit of making the RNA. If it is favoring the O side it balances with the H side by making the DNA.

 

An interesting scenario is a cell that only uses only RNA for genes and for cell cycles. The only real difference is the length of the RNA with longer RNA favoring the O side of the potential. One way to look at this, genes have start and stop points, with the hydrogen bonding reduction or H-bonds at the stops bonded strongly enough to signal the transcription process to stop. To overcome that, we need to oxidize these hydrogen bonds so it is easier.

 

The packing of DNA also involves hydrogen bonding reduction. To overcome that we need to oxidize. This unpacking will only occur completely during the duplication of the DNA, when the cellular oxidation potential is highest. During times when the cell is not replicating the reduction in the cell places a limit on the oxidation at the DNA, with the oxidation on the DNA (unpacking) balancing the reduction with a specific set of active genes. The way the logic goes is although RNA production is slightly favoring the O , it is being used to produce proteins that are net favoring the further reduction of the H. The cell steps on its own foot, requiring continued production of RNA to solve the reduction problem the short term RNA oxidation is creating by then being used to make proteins that net reduce. The use of ATP then tries to oxidize this. But that leads to further net reduction.

 

One odd scenario is why don't we use mDNA, instead of mRNA, to make proteins on ribosomes? The mDNA would be more reduced than mRNA, such that the production of proteins using mDNA, would be accelerating the reduction potential in the cell, faster. It creates an energy paradox of needing oxidation to favor mDNA, with the mDNA accelerating reduction. Theoretically, to be stable, it would place a cell in state of high recycle to keep the oxidation high, and absorb an accelerating reduction. It may never be able to replicate or have longer durations between cell cycles. THis would favor the O side of the potential.

 

The Metabolism and Membrane

 

The metabolism represents the oxidation maximum in the cell, in terms of a bulk configuration, if we drew a black box around it. Metabolism lowers the reduction of hydrogen. If oxygen is present this goes all the way to water and CO2. Combining CO2 and H2O makes H+ and bicarbonate, which takes this one step further. The cell is interesting in that the step down energy makes ATP, which is energy value stored in oxidation potential.

 

The reduction maxima, in terms of a bulk black box configuration is the cell membrane. The lipid materials contain long chains of CH2, storing concentrated reduced H. The high flux of ATP going to the cell membrane reflects this potential, with the ATP trying to oxidize it. This is not done directly to the lipids, but goes to the proteins that part of the membrane, which are there to help lower overall reduction, compared to pure lipids. The charged ends on the aliphatic part of the lipid is a further oxidation to help also lower the configurational reduction.

 

Unsaturated compounds in the membrane represent a step down in reduction compare to saturated implying an oxidation type affect. This is more prevalent during cell cycles when oxidation is highest in the cell.

 

The one of the most energy intensive processes occurs at the Na+K+ pumps, with the inside becoming negative and the outside positive. Relative to water reduction the inside is more reduced the outside more oxidized. This creates a paradox for the metabolic oxidation pole, with part of its oxidation effort causing a reduction. It is one of nature's paradoxes to perpetuate this potential. This paradox increases the protein configurational requirement.

 

The outside positive charge reflects the maximized oxidation affect. It is a little odd putting it there, the oxidation pole of the cell can't see it. The membrane's oxidation-reduction gradient is used to produce useful work within transport. This gradient is also useful for the correct orientations of proteins. One might expect an attempt to lower this potential, internally. For example, a wiggle where potential goes both ways, helping part of the transport.

 

I always thought it interesting that the cell sort of shows its metabolic pole reflected in the exterior membrane. The puts up a huge sign in the water, oxidation here. The exterior water should see this. If the water tried to transfer reduction, it can't do it with water alone just due to all the cations. This membrane pole may play a role in inducing food toward the cell. Food may be an addendum to what water lacks, sort of passed along via migrating H-bonding structure.

Edited by pioneer
multiple post merged

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enzyme catalysis

 

In traditional thinking, oxidation is the path of exothermic output. If we start with a molecule with reduced hydrogen and oxidize it, it will give off energy. Because of the oxidation-reduction inversion (OR-inversion) the reduction associated with hydrogen bonding is exothermic.

 

Relative to enzymes, these molecule structures are designed to use both the traditional OR hydrogen and the OR inversion hydrogen. The primary structure associated with the C,N,O,H follows the rules of traditional OR, while the secondary, tertiary and quaternary structures follow the rules of the OR inversion. Conceptually, if we oxidize this structure part of the push to lower atomic energy in the primary structure becomes endothermic in the 2,3,4th order structure. The net result is the potential in the oxidation, instead of becoming a linear lowering of energy like expected, becomes a one-two punch with a time delay due to the OR-inversion. This is subtle, so I hope I am explaining well enough.

 

When we use ATP, this oxidizer, without hydrogen bonding inversion, would try to oxidize the protein. Because of the hydrogen bonding, part of this oxidation goes into molecular oxidation dynamics while part goes into the endothermic OR inversion of the hydrogen bonding. The latter provides the shape changing of the substrate on the enzyme needed for the catalysis. When the shape returns, it give off its share of the potential in the original ATP oxidation.

 

All chemical reactions require climbing an activation energy hill. This is true of both oxidation and reduction reactions. By partitioning the oxidation value of ATP, nature can lowering the amount of activation energy going into the substrate, since part goes into the OR-inversion. The value of this is, it allows life to cheat the stronger bulk potential to oxidized hydrogen in an irreversible way. It cuts the normal activation energy hill short.

 

On the enzyme, the substrate is essentially part of the secondary protein structure. It sort places in it the OR-inversion allowing life to further cheat oxidation and form reduced materials. I am not saying enzymes only cause reductions. However, the OR-inversion makes it possible to shift the balance toward net reduction, because the enzyme's 2,3,4th order structure all favor exothermic reduction via OR-inversion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't share sources in support of your assertions, you're not doing science. Also, speculations are fine, but belong in the Speculations forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me backtrack and go through the basic logic again. Let us start with an isolated water molecule that has formed due to the oxidation of methane, to use an example of reduced hydrogen. The hydrogen is fully oxidized.

 

Once this water forms the liquid state, it begins to form hydrogen bonding structures, which are exothermic. If you look at the H now, it is sharing extra electron density compared to what it was sharing in the isolated water. This hydrogen bonding has partial covalent character. Essentially we have an exothermic reduction of H.

 

I understand hydrogen bonding is not traditionally called a reduction of hydrogen. It is differentiated and treated as a separate phenomena. Although this makes investigation easier, it detaches hydrogen bonding from the bigger picture of oxidation-reduction. In other words, hydrogen bonding, to the biochemist, becomes nothing more than a glue that hold structures together, detached somewhat from any direct affect in the process, except maybe locally. For example, we can see the hydrogen bonding on an active gene, but the packed genes at a distance, are assume inert to the analysis, by this philosophical detachment.

 

What I have tried to do, is by defining hydrogen bonding as part of the oxidation-reduction phenomena, in this case, defined as an OR-inversion, the structural hydrogen bonds that are assumed inert to the activity, now have an impact where form equals function. I tried to show a few of the configurational gradients, like membrane and metabolism, that show the directional fluxes expected of oxidation-reduction potentials.

 

The original topic was water and evolution. The philosophical detachment has no way to integrate water, even though dehydration, makes this impact extremely obvious. This is because hydrogen bonding is detached, making water simply a solvent that just so happens to form hydrogen bonds. I had to invent or define OR-inversion, so I could make this connection easier to see.

 

Let me go back to water, and its impact on life, to show how this model can show how water had a direct impact at the very beginning of evolution. Liquid water is more reduced than isolated water molecules. This implies that the surface water of the earth is more reduced than atmospheric water. If this potential is high enough one would expect electrons to flow up and/or positive charge to flow downward, in response to oxidation-reduction. This is called lightning. The earth had no land in the beginning, rather the earth was one huge ocean, with the earth's water setting the stage for life.

 

An electric arc has been demonstrated to create animo acids from simple molecules. One valid question is why animo acids? These are hydrogen bonding molecules, which can participate in the OR-inversion, with the acid implicit of a slant toward the oxidation side of the inversion, i.e., water in the atmosphere. Again, this explanation does not use the philosophical detachment of earth physics from biology, so it may look odd. What the theory predicts are these animo acids will increase their inversion reduction to be in equilibrium with the liquid water. Whatever the mechanism, protein is the goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not a chemist so chemical notation might as well be a foriegn language to me but how is it that O2 + H2 <=> 2H2O instead of H2O2 or H2O + O? Am I confused that the sides should be equal?

 

Yeah, it isn't balanced. The balanced form is [ce]O2 + 2H2 <=> 2H2O[/ce]

 

Also, move this thread to speculations already...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that the people opposing pioneer not be so offensive. Actually reread the original post, the current posts and understand that he has both given supporting evidence and points to his view.

For instance "Inow" he has giving his supporting evidence to his original

"Water although just H2O is the most complicated substance in nature with at least 63 anomalies relative "

yet you still discredit it, frankly reading such is annoying. then you also discredit his evidence post, by asking for sources. from what i read this is not about sources... there is no plagiarism going on.

 

now, i read these posts for both its informative data and to speculate, when possible in a field i feel comfortable with. If this is the type of response i get to any posts that i may write, i wont feel as though this sight is worth my time.

basically, clean up your acts and start thinking lucidly.

 

:( it killed half my post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For instance "Inow" he has giving his supporting evidence to his original

"Water although just H2O is the most complicated substance in nature with at least 63 anomalies relative "

yet you still discredit it, frankly reading such is annoying. then you also discredit his evidence post, by asking for sources. from what i read this is not about sources... there is no plagiarism going on.

 

Well, that's some interesting feedback, but I suggest you spend more time on a site and learn who you are talking to and who you are talking about prior to making such comments again in the future.

 

 

now, i read these posts for both its informative data and to speculate, when possible in a field i feel comfortable with. If this is the type of response i get to any posts that i may write, i wont feel as though this sight is worth my time.

basically, clean up your acts and start thinking lucidly.

And I, too, have no problem with speculation, so there's really no need for your newbie-based admonishment, little man. However, that's why there is a speculations forum. What he is presenting may be interesting, but it is not accepted as part of the science, and since he posted it specifically in a science forum, I have every right to attack it for being speculation only.

 

Maybe when you've crested 30 posts you'll understand that anybody can suggest anything about any topic, but they need to do so using support and avoid speaking in terms of the absolute. There's a time and a place, and it would do you well to learn the context of a thread and the responses to it prior to speaking your mind and whining about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You, sir are quite rude. you totally misunderstood and you totally discredit and undermined all of my past and future posts by merely suggesting that i do not have the intelligence to post such because i have not posted in multitude.

please, this is a science forum, post objectively.

Edited by Zolar V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me give an example of where the OR-inversion analysis comes in handy to extend current understanding. It has to do with photosynthesis.

 

Reaction center chlorophyll-protein complexes are capable of directly absorbing light and performing charge separation events without other chlorophyll pigments, but the absorption cross section (the likelihood of absorbing a photon under a given light intensity) is small. Thus, the remaining chlorophylls in the photosystem and antenna pigment protein complexes associated with the photosystems all cooperatively absorb and funnel light energy to the reaction center. Wikipedia

 

chphyll.gif

 

In photosynthesis, there is a reaction center chlorophyll surrounded by a bunch of antenna chlorophyll that funnel the energy so the center can make O2, H+ and electrons. The explanation uses a probability explanation for light absorption such that the reaction doesn't work too well without the support antenna. There is actually a more logical explanation for the need of the support antenna entourage that is consistent with OR-inversion. I am trying to help science.

 

The sunlight excites the resonance in the ring about the Mg allowing a semi-stable conformation in the resonance, where the Mg ends up with a positive charge. In the reaction center, the Mg attaches water to form O2 and H+ plus electrons.

 

The attachment of water is relatively easy. However, the full oxidation is harder and only occurs in the reaction center. The antenna can only attach water. By attaching the water it oxidizes the hydrogen bonding reduction in the water, since it has to displace an H-bond H.

 

In other words, if we look at the water surrounding the group, the distant water is more reduced. As we move toward the antenna the hydrogen bonding is disrupted by the light energy and the antenna as water begins to attach. The antenna are cycling water busting up hydrogen bonding. The reaction center sees an oxidation potential advantage in the water relative to the antenna water. The central core sees something a lot closer to an isolated water molecule (more or less) without having to waste as much energy dealing with the h-bonds. The antenna purify that. If we take the core out, it now has to break the H-bond, making it it much less efficient.

 

The central reaction center, after the formation of O2, resets itself by getting an electron back from the perimeter or support grouping. The OR-inversion gradient potential is set up with reduction on the outside to assist in the electron transport inward. The water is cooperating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Photosynthesis on the tiny scale I think operates by basically some density of electrons that when light hits it you have a chance that it will excite one of those electrons, or this has to occur currently I think for the mechanism to be successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The excitation of electrons by light is an important part of the affect. Another part is the ability of the chlorophyll complex to form a semi-stable situation when this occurs so the central Mg becomes positive without destruction of the complex. The resonance helps this. The resonance has other ways to distribute the potential, although this is not at the lowest possible energy. This assures reversal to reset the complex.

 

Nature did not design chlorophyll where one molecule is suppose to work all by itself collecting random photons. In other words, if this was intent of the natural design, why not have just central reaction center chlorophyll, even where the antenna are and allow random light to hit them randomly. This would allow more reaction centers proteins to be activated at any given time. Why add all the antenna if more reaction centers can pick up more random photons and make more O2. The goal was a needed amplification. The antenna is sort of a step down toward the reduction in the water. Life is always evolving step down gradients even if one-to one design should be more efficient in terms of collecting purely random photons. One practical use for the step down seems to be connected to oxidizing the hydrogen bonding in water for the reaction center. This puts the water around the entire complex in a gradient so even the movement of electrons in the complex is coordinated with the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The excitation of electrons by light is an important part of the affect. Another part is the ability of the chlorophyll complex to form a semi-stable situation when this occurs so the central Mg becomes positive without destruction of the complex. The resonance helps this. The resonance has other ways to distribute the potential, although this is not at the lowest possible energy. This assures reversal to reset the complex.

 

Nature did not design chlorophyll where one molecule is suppose to work all by itself collecting random photons. In other words, if this was intent of the natural design, why not have just central reaction center chlorophyll, even where the antenna are and allow random light to hit them randomly. This would allow more reaction centers proteins to be activated at any given time. Why add all the antenna if more reaction centers can pick up more random photons and make more O2. The goal was a needed amplification. The antenna is sort of a step down toward the reduction in the water. Life is always evolving step down gradients even if one-to one design should be more efficient in terms of collecting purely random photons. One practical use for the step down seems to be connected to oxidizing the hydrogen bonding in water for the reaction center. This puts the water around the entire complex in a gradient so even the movement of electrons in the complex is coordinated with the water.

 

I thought it was part of the electron transport chain.

 

I am not very educated in chemistry but is this sort of like electron pushing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I understand the chlorophyll is generating H+ and electrons. This energy value is then diverted down another pathway, where it is stepped down to make ATP. The ATP then is used in another pathway where CO2 becomes reduced. If we only had chlorophyll we would be generating excited hydrogen atoms. If we could make an artificial pathway we could potentially make H2 and solve the energy crisis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the water is like air, indeed air needed more often. The essential ingredient is oxygen really. Oxygen from air H20 from water CO2 for plants. Microbes live in airless environments but still need H2O.

 

Perhaps evolution centers around oxygen. Though I see your point. Water is life

 

Here's some interesting stuff on water.

 

http://www.digibio.com/archive/RedHerring_com-Why_water_is_weird.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.