Speculative Biochemistry: Because Earth is just one planet.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential for life beyond Earth, specifically focusing on the biochemical foundations that could support life forms. Participants explore the predominance of carbon in biological systems, the stability of alternative elements like silicon and phosphorus-nitrogen, and the implications of chirality and nutrient requirements for carbon-based life.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant argues that carbon is the only viable element for life due to its ability to bond stably with four other atoms, while suggesting that silicon and phosphorus-nitrogen are not stable enough for life to evolve.
  • There is a mention of the "anti-carbon-'chauvinism' movement" being dismissed as unfounded, indicating a belief in the uniqueness of carbon-based life.
  • Questions are raised about the universality of certain characteristics of carbon-based life and whether life could require alternative nutrients, such as arsenic compounds.
  • Another participant proposes a plausibility argument involving nitrogen fixation, phosphorus chemistry, and the potential for chemical interactions in environments like Mars, suggesting that life could emerge under specific conditions.
  • A later reply points out that the alternative molecules discussed still involve carbon as a central element, indicating a potential misunderstanding or miscommunication about the nature of the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the viability of elements other than carbon for supporting life. There is no consensus on the characteristics that could be considered universal for carbon-based life, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the potential for alternative biochemical systems.

Contextual Notes

Participants have not fully defined the assumptions underlying their claims, particularly regarding the stability of alternative elements and the conditions necessary for life. The discussion also reflects varying levels of understanding about the implications of chirality and nutrient requirements.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals interested in astrobiology, biochemistry, and the theoretical foundations of life beyond Earth may find this discussion relevant.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
12K
Replies
4
Views
10K