Jump to content

FOOD CHAINS


rigney
 Share

Recommended Posts

Could you rephrase the question please. At the moment it doesn't seem to make any sense.

An answer to it would be "Because God created food chains".

Another answer would be that, with or without any intervention from God, evolution created food chains.

 

Yes, somehow I didn't ask the question properly. But, is it Gods fault or natures; that we have to eat each other to exist? Someone please respond to this question!! Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, somehow I didn't ask the question properly. But, is it Gods fault or natures; that we have to eat each other to exist? Someone please respond to this question!!

 

 

The question seems moot to me. The, fact, is food chains exist as part of the reality of life and as such we need to simply allow that it’s a constant and will be true where ever life exists.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you asking which is superior: nature or god? Did god create nature, or did nature create god?

 

If god created nature, it is logical that god created foodchains.

If nature created god, then nature evolved the foodchains.

 

I think that life couldn't exist without food chains. Life means growth, reproduction, metabolism. You need to get some nutrients to do that. You also need to "remove" a body when it died, otherwise there would be corpses everywhere. In summary: you need to recycle. And that only works when you eat other living (now dead) things.

 

Eating each other is a logical result of life itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you asking which is superior: nature or god? Did god create nature, or did nature create god?

 

If god created nature, it is logical that god created foodchains.

If nature created god, then nature evolved the foodchains.

 

I think that life couldn't exist without food chains. Life means growth, reproduction, metabolism. You need to get some nutrients to do that. You also need to "remove" a body when it died, otherwise there would be corpses everywhere. In summary: you need to recycle. And that only works when you eat other living (now dead) things.

 

Eating each other is a logical result of life itself.

 

That question was rather morbid, wasn't it? But something to think about. My thought on it is: If God created this universe and the creatures in it, wouldn't you think it would pain him to see one critter devouring another for the sake of survival, even to cannibilism?

On the other hand, if life depends on natural selection and dominance by the fittest, food chains make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question seems moot to me. The, fact, is food chains exist as part of the reality of life and as such we need to simply allow that its a constant and will be true where ever life exists.

I've never before heard anyone claim they know a 'fact' about extraterrestrial life. I don't at all see how we must accept it.

Edited by zapatos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never before heard anyone claim they know a 'fact' about extraterrestrial life. I don't at all see how we must accept it.

Life needs energy, and life needs building blocks of some kind. Extraterrestrial life will not be completely stagnant. We defined life and lifeless, and that means we know that extraterrestrial life will at least fit that definition, or we wouldn't call it life.

 

There are only 2 cases where life could exist without a food chain:

1. If life does not require any matter. If only energy (directly from a star) would be sufficient.

2. In an unsustainable situation where some resources are being depleted.

 

As soon as a particular resource can be depleted, but will still be available in life itself, life will attempt to optimize it. A foodchain will ensure a constant recycling.

 

A foodchain is the logical result from a continuous lack of equilibrium in life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Life needs energy, and life needs building blocks of some kind. Extraterrestrial life will not be completely stagnant. We defined life and lifeless, and that means we know that extraterrestrial life will at least fit that definition, or we wouldn't call it life.

 

Can you explain what you mean by that?

 

There are only 2 cases where life could exist without a food chain:

1. If life does not require any matter. If only energy (directly from a star) would be sufficient.

2. In an unsustainable situation where some resources are being depleted.

 

As soon as a particular resource can be depleted, but will still be available in life itself, life will attempt to optimize it. A foodchain will ensure a constant recycling.

 

A foodchain is the logical result from a continuous lack of equilibrium in life.

This is specifically what I was thinking of. As far as we know, life blinks in and out of existence on various planets because they regularly run out of resources to sustain life. This may be the norm and we may be the exception. I don't think we can assume that life elsewhere behaves as it does here.

 

And now I'm getting well outside my comfort zone, but isn't it also possible that a simple life form could exist using very simple building blocks, and that those simple building blocks could be returned to the environment using, say, weathering or chemical processes? If so, that would result in a sustainable situation where resources are not depleted.

 

Technically you're correct my statement is missing a word that being complex life.

I agree that complexity makes life without food chains more difficult, but again, I believe that without sustainability it is certainly possible. And I don't know that other processes couldn't break down the resources locked up in the living body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you explain what you mean by that?

I'll use an example...

What I mean is that life will at least be moving some electrons or molecules around. If it would be in a perfect chemical equilibrium, it would be as lifeless as a piece of rock.

 

Something that is lifeless will not change over time. Life will always change in time. And change requires an input. In life, as seen on earth, that input is food. We need food to power our growth, our thoughts, our movements. In extraterrestrial life, they may do something else. But they will do something. And therefore, require "food" of some kind.

 

This is specifically what I was thinking of. As far as we know, life blinks in and out of existence on various planets because they regularly run out of resources to sustain life. This may be the norm and we may be the exception. I don't think we can assume that life elsewhere behaves as it does here.

 

And now I'm getting well outside my comfort zone, but isn't it also possible that a simple life form could exist using very simple building blocks, and that those simple building blocks could be returned to the environment using, say, weathering or chemical processes? If so, that would result in a sustainable situation where resources are not depleted.

Yes, actually it could be possible. Plants do that. They take CO2 and water, and by using light they will create complex molecules such as glucose. And then forest fires could burn the plants back into CO2 and water. Other nutrients only make the picture more complex, but do not change the principle.

 

And I don't think it can be disproven that this could not be the only life to exist somewhere.

 

Hmm... so yeah, if you have only plants, and recycle the building blocks by fire, then you could have a sustainable eco system without food chains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did GOD or nature decide that there would be "food chains" among all living creatures? And can science save us from this ignorance?

Hope this is a better explanation.

 

Yes

 

Yes, somehow I didn't ask the question properly. But, is it Gods fault or natures; that we have to eat each other to exist? Someone please respond to this question!!

Uh, yeah, but they don't have human souls. They're there for us to survive. We rule over them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never before heard anyone claim they know a 'fact' about extraterrestrial life. I don't at all see how we must accept it.

 

 

I didn't read that as extraterrestrial life being a fact, he said where ever we find life food chains will exist, he didn't make the claim that extraterrestrial life exists but it can be inferred that if it does it would be based on food chains of some type...

 

Yes

 

yes what?

 

Uh, yeah, but they don't have human souls. They're there for us to survive. We rule over them.

 

 

prove it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't read that as extraterrestrial life being a fact, he said where ever we find life food chains will exist, he didn't make the claim that extraterrestrial life exists but it can be inferred that if it does it would be based on food chains of some type...

Agreed. My point was that he could not make that inference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. My point was that he could not make that inference.

I tried, and you're right, I couldn't. :)

As stated in my previous post, a world with only plants and fire would be able to sustain life, which grows and has evolution, without any food chain.

I maintain that you need a way to recycle the essential building blocks to have 'life' in a sustainable way, but fire would be able to do that too.

 

Although, assuming that such a only-plants-world would still be governed by evolution, it stands to reason that some plants eventually become practically incombustible, either by chemical adaptation or sheer size (for example). When the circle of life is broken, either by a species which is an ultimate winner, or some other way, evolution would slow, and life would gradually slow down until it is pretty much stagnant. And irrelevant. So, I wonder how sustainable life would be without a food chain.

 

The success of life on earth is the evolution of food chains, where multiple species co-evolve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we only have one data point to plot this... curve... on, i see no way to speculate about a planet with only plants, if we do look at the earth as an example higher plants only evolved after complex life evolved. A planet with out food chains would more likely, IMHO, be a world of bacteria much like the life on earth was for much of it's 3.8 billion year history. Even now bacteria share DNA across species easily and such things as antibiotic resistance is shared across quite different bacteria species... Sexual reproduction may have been the spark that started the fire of natural selection, species, and complex life... not to mention food chains...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the most likely scenario of life without food chains seems to be to have a very narrow type of life. That seems reasonable. If you have only plant or only bacteria it would be less likely they would feed off each other. Plants for example would have evolved to get food from the ground and atmosphere so getting food from other plants would tend to be limited. It is only when you start having diffent types of life that food chains become standard. If a new form of life evolves on a planet full of plants, as far as the new form of life is concerned, the plants are a natural resource just as the ground and atmosphere are.

 

Hmm. So now I see the point where food chains are almost inevitable given enough time for change and complexity of life. If life evolves it should eventually look at other forms of life as just other resources. Possibly the only way food chains won't evolve is if life is extinguished prior to more varied life evolving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the most likely scenario of life without food chains seems to be to have a very narrow type of life. That seems reasonable. If you have only plant or only bacteria it would be less likely they would feed off each other. Plants for example would have evolved to get food from the ground and atmosphere so getting food from other plants would tend to be limited. It is only when you start having diffent types of life that food chains become standard. If a new form of life evolves on a planet full of plants, as far as the new form of life is concerned, the plants are a natural resource just as the ground and atmosphere are.

 

Hmm. So now I see the point where food chains are almost inevitable given enough time for change and complexity of life. If life evolves it should eventually look at other forms of life as just other resources. Possibly the only way food chains won't evolve is if life is extinguished prior to more varied life evolving.

What I propose is that, had God had made "food chains", I. would be totally pissed. Now!, if nature did it; it's perfectly alright with me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.yes what?

2.prove it...

1. God did, yes.

2. Well we eat life on earth, don't we?

 

The success of life on earth is the evolution of food chains, where multiple species co-evolve.

 

Fair enough.

 

What I propose is that, had God had made "food chains", I. would be totally pissed. Now!, if nature did it; it's perfectly alright with me.

 

Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, if life depends on natural selection and dominance by the fittest, food chains make sense.

 

Can we actually think of food chains as 'making sense'? Plant life gets what it needs from water, minerals, and the sun. Given the right circumstances all life could've evolved in this way. We may know how and why the food chain came into existence, but it doesn't have to make sense. It's not a matter of right or wrong, it simply is what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we actually think of food chains as 'making sense'? Plant life gets what it needs from water, minerals, and the sun. Given the right circumstances all life could've evolved in this way. We may know how and why the food chain came into existence, but it doesn't have to make sense. It's not a matter of right or wrong, it simply is what it is.

Um, what about parasitic plants, and the fact that Up to 80% of vascular plants worldwide form symbiotic relationships with fungi or bacteria?

 

Although autotrophs are considered the producers in a food chain they often need assistance from other organisms to be able to metabolise. For example chloroplasts in plants themselves are now considered to have originated as bacteria. See:- symbiogenesis and endosymbiosis

Does that not constitute a food chain/web in itself?

 

Sure, we can hypothesise about life consisting of strictly autonomous autotrophs. Indeed the very first replicators could have been like that, however, with the diversity that continued evolution produced leading to organisms specialising in different types of chemosynthesis producing competition for resources and diversification of available resources it would seem improbable that diverse life could exist without some form of food chain/web that includes parasitism and symbioses.

Therefore, I would consider that life 'as we know it' could not exist at all without some kind of food chain/web.

No, it's not a matter of right and wrong but if you want to understand why this simply is what it is, it has to make sense to be able to understand it, for me anyway. ;)

 

Oh, and to answer the OP – an understanding of science can save us from the ignorance and teleological thinking that leads us to suppose that something had to 'decide' that there would be food chains whether that conscious 'decider' is asserted to be a god or nature. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's not a matter of right and wrong but if you want to understand why this simply is what it is, it has to make sense to be able to understand it, for me anyway. ;)

 

 

I'm not saying that it doesn't make sense, per se. I'm just saying there are certain 'Why' questions that don't need to be made sense of. Finding the sense of it won't change anything. Like: Why is there so much water on the earth? We know HOW the water got here, but do we really need to expend a ton of energy to find out if there's some reason to why it's here? It is what it is. If we find out, will it change anything?

 

If we found out why there's a food chain, what would we do with this knowledge? Would we change it (and really scew things up!)?

 

Why did they name Sunday after the sun? Why aren't the other days named Cloudday, Rainday, Snowday? Who cares?! It is what it is. lol

 

 

 

Autotroph - new word for me. Thanks!

Edited by Jiggerj
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.