# 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

• Replies 57
• Created

#### Popular Days

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
##### 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....

##### 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
##### 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.

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
##### 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....

##### 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
##### 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....

##### 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.

##### 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

Edited by Psycho
##### 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.......

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
##### 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.......

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.

I give up.

##### Share on other sites

I think I am going to cry.

I give up.

Agreed, the willfully ignorant can be frustrating...

##### 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
##### 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?

##### 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

## Create an account

Register a new account