Speculative Biochemistry: Because Earth is just one planet.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the viability of carbon-based life forms and the limitations of alternative molecular structures. The primary argument is that carbon is uniquely suited for forming stable bonds with four other atoms, making it the most feasible element for life as we know it. While silicon and phosphorus-nitrogen have been considered as alternatives, they lack the stability required for the evolution of life. The conversation also touches on the concept of chirality and the potential for carbon-based life to utilize different nutrients, including arsenic compounds. Participants speculate on the universal characteristics of carbon-based life and the implications of various chemical processes, such as nitrogen fixation and the role of thermal gradients in the development of life. The discussion emphasizes the improbability of life forms that deviate significantly from carbon-based structures, while acknowledging the vast possibilities that nature may explore over time.
kldickson
Messages
106
Reaction score
0
Let's speculate!

For background, I am a neurobiology student. Ergo, I've got the requisite chem n' o-chem under my belt. (Would like to fit in some biochem, but I don't know if that's possible right now.)

From my own perousing of the material on the internet, it seems that carbon is really the only molecule we can do much of anything with, considering it's the easiest molecule to bond to 4 atoms stably and it's so freaking common. Silicon and phosphorus-nitrogen have been suggested, but neither system is stable enough to evolve life (because life always takes the easy way out; what that is is frequently beyond the comprehension of us idiot humans).

So - the anti-carbon-'chauvinism' movement is bunk. However, there's the question of chirality, and can carbon-based life require different sets of nutrients? Arsenic compounds, etc?

What characteristics can be regarded to be 'universal' as regards carbon-based life - i.e. there is no way we can presently think of that they can be contravened at all, barring something totally out of the blue?
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
kldickson said:
Let's speculate!

Let's read forum rules.
 
Whoops. I'll clarify what I said, then - I wanted to discuss what's been ruled out and what theories being tossed around definitively don't quite work.
 
kldickson said:
Let's speculate!

For background, I am a neurobiology student. Ergo, I've got the requisite chem n' o-chem under my belt. (Would like to fit in some biochem, but I don't know if that's possible right now.)

From my own perousing of the material on the internet, it seems that carbon is really the only molecule we can do much of anything with, considering it's the easiest molecule to bond to 4 atoms stably and it's so freaking common. Silicon and phosphorus-nitrogen have been suggested, but neither system is stable enough to evolve life (because life always takes the easy way out; what that is is frequently beyond the comprehension of us idiot humans).

So - the anti-carbon-'chauvinism' movement is bunk. However, there's the question of chirality, and can carbon-based life require different sets of nutrients? Arsenic compounds, etc?

What characteristics can be regarded to be 'universal' as regards carbon-based life - i.e. there is no way we can presently think of that they can be contravened at all, barring something totally out of the blue?

Plausibility argument instead?

Perhaps consider nitrogen fixation from interaction with magma; phosphorus chemistry leading to phosphates such as for polynucleotide bonds, and phospholipid membranes; mix with thermal gradients, purines, pyrimidines and amino acids, and enormous chemical time for nature to explore the space of endless possibilities. Might it not seem so implausible here and on Mars (has hematite oxidized iron; requires past oxygen atmosphere), as long as a magnetophere persists?
 
Zankaon, those molecules have carbon as a central element.
 
It seems like a simple enough question: what is the solubility of epsom salt in water at 20°C? A graph or table showing how it varies with temperature would be a bonus. But upon searching the internet I have been unable to determine this with confidence. Wikipedia gives the value of 113g/100ml. But other sources disagree and I can't find a definitive source for the information. I even asked chatgpt but it couldn't be sure either. I thought, naively, that this would be easy to look up without...
I was introduced to the Octet Rule recently and make me wonder, why does 8 valence electrons or a full p orbital always make an element inert? What is so special with a full p orbital? Like take Calcium for an example, its outer orbital is filled but its only the s orbital thats filled so its still reactive not so much as the Alkaline metals but still pretty reactive. Can someone explain it to me? Thanks!!
Back
Top