Jump to content

Life in water


Recommended Posts

Questionposer, do you have clue as to what the difference is between "life" and "complex life"? If not then I suggest you do a little bit of research before you make any more claims that are... somewhat less than well informed...

 

As far as I can tell, crabs and shrimps and octopus are complex. If that is incorrect then feel free to say that, unless I find that in the ocean book it says otherwise. The crabs I don't think are too close to the vent, but the shrimp-like organisms are nearly in it. Most of these are small organisms too, it's not like giant things would be able to live in such conditions.

Edited by questionposter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Questionposer, do you have clue as to what the difference is between "life" and "complex life"? If not then I suggest you do a little bit of research before you make any more claims that are... somewhat less than well informed...

To be fair the notion that he doesn't understand that concept doesn't really matter, no life can live above 122, simple or complex.

 

A link to a topic that was subdivided from this one clearly leaving this one unfinished as it came back to exactly the same point

 

I am not sure what the upper temperature boundary for multicellular eukaroytic life is though, from a quick search it seems to be about 80oC.

 

As far as I can tell, crabs and shrimps and octopus are complex. If that is incorrect then feel free to say that, unless I find that in the ocean book it says otherwise. The crabs I don't think are too close to the vent, but the shrimp-like organisms are nearly in it. Most of these are small organisms too, it's not like giant things would be able to live in such conditions.

 

I think you are completely missing the point that deep sea water is at a stable 4oC, how much temperature difference do you think a spout shooting out 400oC water is going to make in an ocean of 4oC water.

 

(Giving people Negative votes because you are making an idiot of yourself and they are trying to reduce your ignorance to not only science but also where your TV programs come from isn't cool or clever either.) ;) [/shamed]

Edited by Psycho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair the notion that he doesn't understand that concept doesn't really matter, no life can live above 122, simple or complex.

 

A link to a topic that was subdivided from this one clearly leaving this one unfinished as it came back to exactly the same point

 

I am not sure what the upper temperature boundary for multicellular eukaroytic life is though, from a quick search it seems to be about 80oC.

 

 

His lack of understanding comes from not realizing that the water around vents is not above 100C, in fact it is quite cold at almost freezing, the hot water rises, think about it questionposer, heat rises, do you understand that? I can't make it any clearer, the hot water rises until it cools, as it cools various substances condense out and fall to the bottom, only archea can live in the vents themselves, the octopus, crabs, shrimps and such are in nearly freezing water, not the vents.... btw the Pompeii worm is head and shoulders above any other known heat tolerant complex creature I can find any information about, it is amazingly tolerant of heat.... if for no other reason finding out about the Pompeii worm was worth the google search....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That book "Ocean", published by the museum of natural history says there are in fact animals that live around those vents. It says the process of the mantel heating up materials heats the water to temperatures of around 600-800 C. There isn't a lot of details on the vents themselves, so that's fine if heat rises that much and doesn't spread out that all, that's fine, it would make sense as most animals probably wouldn't do good in it, but the reasons I would continue to think there are animals that can survive the vents is because of extremeafiles which could potentially evolve into complex life, and footage from BBC showing complex shrimp-like life forms obtaining nutrients directly of the stream generated by the vents. If someone can find the name of shrimp-like creatures that occupy the vent-ecosystems, I might be able to look it up in the index for more detail, but I'm having trouble finding it.

 

"Vent crab" works, but just "vent"+ any animal doesn't, it needs to be a better name.

Edited by questionposter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

btw the Pompeii worm is head and shoulders above any other known heat tolerant complex creature I can find any information about, it is amazingly tolerant of heat.... if for no other reason finding out about the Pompeii worm was worth the google search....

Yes, but apparently of a Science Forum informing people about science gets you negative votes, then saying exactly the same thing, but dumbing it down to a ridiculous level (no offence intended, if that is what is required, so be it) gets you positive ones.

 

All I can see is I didn't realise there were people who didn't know that heat rises. ;)

 

but the reasons I would continue to think there are animals that can survive the vents is because of extremeafiles which could potentially evolve into complex life,

Awesome, completely ignore my link explaining why that premise is wrong, why do I even bother. :rolleyes:

 

If someone can find shrimp-like creatures that occupy the vent-ecosystems, I might be able to look it up in the index for more detail, but I'm having trouble finding it.

 

Seriously you are getting science information from a pop-science book and trying to refute people who are summarising the current research basis on the subject, no wonder what you are saying is all wrong.

Edited by Psycho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That book "Ocean", published by the museum of natural history says there are in fact animals that live around those vents. It says the process of the mantel heating up materials heats the water to temperatures of around 600-800 C. There isn't a lot of details on the vents themselves, so that's fine if heat rises that much and doesn't spread out that all, that's fine, it would make sense as most animals probably wouldn't do good in it, but the reasons

 

They are talking about the water in the vents, not the water around the vents questionposer....

 

I would continue to think there are animals that can survive the vents is because of extremeafiles which could potentially evolve into complex life, and footage from BBC showing complex shrimp-like life forms obtaining nutrients directly of the stream generated by the vents. If someone can find the name of shrimp-like creatures that occupy the vent-ecosystems, I might be able to look it up in the index for more detail, but I'm having trouble finding it.

 

"Vent crab" works, but just "vent"+ any animal doesn't, it needs to be a better name.

 

 

If you seriously suggesting the archea could have evolved into shrimp.... I see no reason to continue

 

Don't worry about the neg rep Psycho, people who give out neg rep because they are uninformed and refuse to allow them selves to be informed tend to get the neg rep back, sometimes as much as one a day for the foreseeable future....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found it

 

OCEAN, published by DK Publishing, the first of which was published in 2006 (the EARTH book was 2009-10), with information provided by the American Museum of Natural History says

 

"HEAT-TOLERANT WORM

This polychaete worm (. type of segmented worm) was discovered by the Alvin submersible in 1979- and named Alvinella pompejana in its honor. It is the most heat-tolerant animal on Earth, living in water emerging from hydrothermal vents at 570ºF (300ºC)."

So, moon was right. But I would agree that it is rare as I realize that most heat from vents travels directly upward.

 

But again, no one has apparently laid out a concrete definition for "complex" life, unless any multi-celled macroscopic life is complex.

Edited by questionposter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found it

 

"OCEAN", published by DK Publishing, the first of which in 2006 (the EARTH book was 2009-10), with information provided by the American Museum of Natural History says

 

"HEAT-TOLERANT WORM

This polychaete worm (. type of segmented worm) was discovered by the Alvin submersible in 1979- and named Alvinella pompejana in its honor. It is the most heat-tolerant animal on Earth, living in water emerging from hydrothermal vents at 570ºF (300ºC)."

So, moon was right. But I would agree that it is rare as I realize that most heat from vents travels directly upward.

 

 

I'm going to have to see a link to that info questionposer....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found it

 

"OCEAN", published by DK Publishing, the first of which in 2006 (the EARTH book was 2009-10), with information provided by the American Museum of Natural History says

 

"HEAT-TOLERANT WORM

This polychaete worm (. type of segmented worm) was discovered by the Alvin submersible in 1979- and named Alvinella pompejana in its honor. It is the most heat-tolerant animal on Earth, living in water emerging from hydrothermal vents at 570ºF (300ºC)."

So, moon was right. But I would agree that it is rare as I realize that most heat from vents travels directly upward.

Seriously, that is the crap you come up with after all this, that is the goddamn worm I linked to as the most heat tolerant eukaroytic higher organism. Your book is wrong throw it away, it is useless and read the damn link people provide you next time to reduce your epic level of ignorance. -_-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to have to see a link to that info questionposer....

 

If you want to buy the 50-60$ book (thought it might be cheaper by now), I'm sure it's at a book store, maybe even Half-Price books. The info was on page 171. Or you could try amazon, it's probably cheaper there. Maybe they change the covers for different editions, but mine has a cover of a giant jellyfish.

 

And Psycho, your name fits you. I've been pretty patient despite what you've said and now your saying information form the American Museum of Natural History is wrong, just stop already.

 

I'll tell you what...I'll try and see if I can scan it sometime and upload the image(s) to an image hosting site like photoucket.

Edited by questionposter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to buy the 50-60$ book (thought it might be cheaper by now), I'm sure it's at a book store, maybe even Half-Price books. The info was on page 171. Or you could try amazon, it's probably cheaper there. Maybe they change the covers for different editions, but mine has a cover of a small swimmer in front of a giant jellyfish.

 

And Psycho, your name fits you. I've been pretty patient despite what you've said and now your saying information form the Museum of Natural History is wrong, just stop already.

...

 

If you had read the other topic which shows you are just talking rubbish, I showed that an article from Nature was now wrong, the Museum of Natural History really hasn't got jack on the Journal of Nature.

 

I can't even believe that it is being claimed that a textbook from the Museum of Natural History that is 5 years old is a good scientific source, only on the internet could this happen.

Edited by Psycho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to buy the 50-60$ book (thought it might be cheaper by now), I'm sure it's at a book store, maybe even Half-Price books. The info was on page 171. Or you could try amazon, it's probably cheaper there. Maybe they change the covers for different editions, but mine has a cover of a small swimmer in front of a giant jellyfish.

 

And Psycho, your name fits you. I've been pretty patient despite what you've said and now your saying information form the American Museum of Natural History is wrong, just stop already.

 

 

Actually questionposer, psycho is quite correct, you have either misquoted, misunderstood, the book or it is very misleading....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually questionposer, psycho is quite correct, you have either misquoted, misunderstood, the book or it is very misleading....

 

I really don't see how it could have been wrong, I am directly quoting the book. Finally, I have an answer, and it seems just because it contradicts what you guys were saying before, now your saying it has to be wrong, no matter what source it was from. I bet I could get a signature form every oceanographer on Earth saying that what I quoted was correct and at least psycho would just say all those scientists are frauds.

 

Look, its a rare exception, some things can survive extreme conditions, there's even mold or moss that's in the ice of Antarctica, which is still rare.

 

I really don't see how you guys missed this whole vent ecosystem thing, it's been a pretty big deal to many scientists, even to astronomers.

 

Besides, even if psycho is correct which I don't think he is, it's no excuse for being rude.

Edited by questionposter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't see how it could have been wrong, I am directly quoting the book. Finally, I have an answer, and it seems just because it contradicts what you guys were saying before, now your saying it has to be wrong, no matter what source it was from. I bet I could get a signature form every oceanographer on Earth saying that what I quoted was correct and at least psycho would just say all those scientists are frauds.

 

No questionposer, we are saying either the book is misleading or you have incorrectly quoted the book or you simply do not understand what is being said....

 

Look, its a rare exception, some things can survive extreme conditions, there's even mold or moss that's in the ice of Antarctica, which is still rare.

 

No, in this particular case you are incorrect....

 

I really don't see how you guys missed this whole vent ecosystem thing, it's been a pretty big deal to many scientists, even to astronomers.

 

Actually I am well aware of the implications of this...

 

Besides, even if psycho is correct which I don't think he is, it's no excuse for being rude.

 

 

Pot.. kettle... black...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could do that or I could just post the Nature article it is based on Link

 

That journal entry simply states it is most common for those animals to be in those lower temperatures, which means even according to that article its possible for those worms to survive higher temperatures but for only brief periods of time. If that is the case, it would be fine according to that quote form my book as it does not specify how long those worms stay in vents.

Edited by questionposter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That journal entry simply states it is most common for those animals to be in those lower temperatures, which means even according to that article its possible for those worms to survive higher temperatures but for only brief periods of time. If that is the case, it would be fine according to that quote form my book as it does not specify how long those worms stay in vents.

 

 

Questionposer, till now I have been very tolerant of you trying to deny reality, did you bother to read any of the links that have been provided? I mean really read them? If you really think that anyone has been unreasonable or rude with you on this i suggest you report it to the moderators.. anything else is just bla bla bla bla bla....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That journal entry simply states it is most common for those animals to be in those lower temperatures, which means even according to that article its possible for those worms to survive higher temperatures but for only brief periods of time. If that is the case, it would be fine according to that quote form my book as it does not specify how long those worms stay in vents.

Lol, of course you don't understand the concept of an abstract and can't access nature, I really should have seen that one coming. ^_^

 

Temperature is one of the most important environmental factors that governs a species' distribution. Some highly specialized prokaryotes can grow at temperatures above 113 °C (ref. 1), but eukaryotes appear less versatile2 and do not normally occur above 55 °C. Here we show that a colony-dwelling polychaete worm, inhabiting deep-sea hydrothermal vent chimneys, regularly experiences temperatures above 80 °C and a thermal gradient of 60 °C or more over its body length.

 

Active deep-sea hydrothermal vents typically contain areas of high temperature flow (above 300 °C) which are essentially abiotic. Associated with and peripheral to these hot sites are cooler (below 100 °C) diffuse flow regions where mixing with ambient seawater (2 °C) occurs. The thin tube dwellings of the Pompeii worm (Alvinella pompejana; Fig. 1) form thick, heavily channelled structures along the outer walls of vent 'chimneys' created by an accumulation of metal sulphides. Although these worms spend most of their time in the tubes with their gills and buccal structure extended from the tube opening, individuals make regular excursions of up to 1 m to feed on free-living filamentous bacteria growing on the outer surface of the colony.

We deployed self-recording time-lapse temperature probes from the research submersible DSV Alvin at high-temperature chimneys located at the M-Vent site (9° 50.6' N, 104° 17' W) within the Axial Summit Caldera on the East Pacific Rise (EPR) during November 1995 and April 1996. M-Vent is one of three active chimneys, 5-7 m tall, from which intense diffuse vent fluids emerge through densely populated Pompeii worm colonies.

 

On each dive we positioned a specially designed time-lapse temperature logger (the 'Mosquito'), containing a 20-cm-long titanium probe (0.75 cm diameter), with its temperature sensor adjacent to a Pompeii worm's tail (Fig. 2a). We placed two further temperature recorders adjacent to the tube of interest. We chose completely intact worm tubes, to avoid temperature sampling where the hydrodynamic conditions of the colony might have been altered; we also monitored unoccupied tubes. In all cases resident worms displayed normal behaviour before, during and after deployment of the temperature recorders. The loggers were calibrated before and after each dive. We also made real-time temperature measurements with Alvin's low-temperature probe (0-60 °C range).

In six independent surveys, temperatures recorded 6-8 cm within the worm tubes averaged 68plusminus6.33 °C (meanplusminuss.d.), with frequent spikes exceeding 81 °C (Fig. 2b). The external temperatures were variable, depending on the placement of the in situ recorders and the submersible's low-temperature probe. Measurements made at the tube openings averaged 22plusminus2.5 °C; thus, a temperature gradient of up to 60 °C exists along the length of the worm's body. These measurements were consistent with long- and short-term measurements taken near Pompeii worm colonies at several different EPR sites3,4. No temperature differences were detected between occupied and unoccupied tubes.

 

A Pompeii worm has survived short exposure to 105 °C (ref. 5); however, this was outside the worms' natural habitat. Our data demonstrate unambiguously that Pompeii worms inhabit an environment with an unprecedented temperature gradient of up to 60 °C. This gradient, although somewhat dynamic, is remarkably uniform over a period of hours. Such a consistent and pronounced gradient over the length of a single worm establishes A. pompejana as the most eurythermal (tolerant of wide temperature range) organism on record. Moreover, the 81 °C temperature at the posterior of the worm suggests that this is also the most thermotolerant metazoan known.

 

The most thermotolerant and eurythermal eukaryote previously described is the Sahara Desert ant Cataglyphis, which forages under the midday sun at temperatures nearing 55 °C and remains underground for the rest of the day while the temperature rarely drops below 20 °C (ref. 6). These conditions are not as extreme as those experienced by the Pompeii worm.

Several studies have proposed that the Pompeii worm tube might be an efficient barrier against the thermal effect of the diffusing fluid3,7. Other researchers have proposed active ventilation or convective cooling as mechanisms to minimize the thermal exposure of the worm3,8. The present study suggests that the tubes actually channel the hot diffuse flow fluids over the worm's body, maintaining a continually flushed high-temperature environment.

 

How the Pompeii worm's physiology has adapted to function under such an extreme temperature gradient has yet to be determined. It is also unclear how a metazoan's cytoskeletal proteins, chromosomes, nucleic acid processing machinery and other macromolecules, previously thought to be the thermally limiting components of multicellular eukaryotes, can function at temperatures above 80 °C. Recent interest in the Pompeii worm has focused on a unique assemblage of symbiotic filamentous proteobacteria that cover the dorsal surface of the animal9,10. Like their hosts, these bacteria are positioned within this extreme thermal gradient and survive the same high-temperature environment laden with heavy metals and hydrogen sulphide. Studies of the worm and its associated microflora afford a unique opportunity to discover the biochemical adaptations that allow organisms to thrive in such an extreme thermal regime.

 

I can't believe you are still mentioning that book....... :doh:

 

Oh and you owe me $25 dollars for that.

Edited by Psycho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, of course you don't understand the concept of an abstract and can't access nature, I really should have seen that one coming. ^_^

 

 

 

I can't believe you are still mentioning that book....... :doh:

 

Oh and you owe me $25 dollars for that.

 

Well, it told me I had to pay for the article, and I have no reason to think that source is right over an archive of professional scientists and editors with information provided by the most famous museum in America, and it's not famous for being wrong.

 

Here's the deal: You have your non specific "journal entries" as well as stuff from the infamous wikipedia, and you expect me to believe that over a 65$ book that had a lot of work put into it, more than a few websites and detailed documentaries from BBC who got their information from organizations such as NASA.

 

Great post Psycho..... talk about being pwned....

 

Oh, I didn't realize it was all for show...

Edited by questionposter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, of course you don't understand the concept of an abstract and can't access nature, I really should have seen that one coming. ^_^

 

 

 

I can't believe you are still mentioning that book....... :doh:

 

Oh and you owe me $25 dollars for that.

 

 

Great post Psycho..... talk about being pwned....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it told me I had to pay for the article, and I have no reason to think that source is right over an archive of professional scientists and editors with information provided by the most famous museum in America, and it's not famous for being wrong.

 

Here's the deal: You have your non specific "journal entries" as well as stuff from the infamous wikipedia, and you expect me to believe that over a 65$ book that had a lot of work put into it, more than a few websites and BBC.

I think I am going to cry. :doh:

 

I give up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I tried to compromise with the sources, but you insist that only your precious journal entries have to be 100% correct. Of course, it would be more logical if multiple sources were explaining different parts, but w/e, I guess I can't stop you form believing.

Edited by questionposter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Questionposer, think of it like this, pop science is often written or edited by people who are either ignorant of the science involved or who are less than interested in it's veracity and more interested in it being POPULAR! When several sources disagree with a pop science book, magazine or flick, I'd go with the actual science...

 

Well, I tried to compromise with the sources, but you insist that only your precious journal entries have to be 100% correct. Of course, it would be more logical if multiple sources were explaining different parts, but w/e, I guess I can't stop you form believing.

 

 

Compromise.. with facts... surely you jest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Questionposer, think of it like this, pop science is often written or edited by people who are either ignorant of the science involved or who are less than interested in it's veracity and more interested in it being POPULAR! When several sources disagree with a pop science book, magazine or flick, I'd go with the actual science...

 

 

 

 

Compromise.. with facts... surely you jest?

 

It's not all pop science though, that's why I think it's correct, as well as the fact it's a very rare exception.

 

And with compromising I'm sure different sources can look at the same information and see different things at a time, I was thinking more of piecing together a view, such as "these live around hydrothermal vents normally in temperatures of around 50-80 C, but these worms get their nutrients from the vents and in fact go into the vents to get food where the temperatures surge to 500 C".

 

My book isn't a pop-science book, its not just some thing with random facts about the ocean, it's highly organized and edited and there's still a lot of it that's boring. It took so much reading just to find that little rare exception quoted from the book, that's how not pompous the book is.

Edited by questionposter
Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • 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.