Remember me
▼ Content

Terraforming: Is it possible?



Page 4 of 4<<<234
05-05-2024 05:28
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
"Is terraforming possible, even on a limited level? Why or why not/"

An excellent question for a thread to be dedicated to.

In the context of a climate "debate" (climate-debate.com), the kind of terraforming being discussed would presumably relate in some way to climate.

But the question is clear. "Is terraforming possible, even on a limited level?"

There is no need to justify WHY terraform in order to address this assertion.

In the spirit of genuine climate debate.

Falsifiable hypothesis that terraforming IS possible, with important climate related implications.

Exhibit 1 - Constructed wetlands neutralize acid mine discharge.

More than 50 years of environmental engineering experience at literally THOUSANDS of mining operations has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that constructed wetlands can take in water with pH less than 3, and then discharge groundwater with pH nearly 7.

Biogeochemical investigations have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that under low oxygen conditions in constructed wetland sediment, sulfate reduction by bacteria generates alkalinity.

The falsifiable hypothesis is that the same principles also operate in a constructed wetland receiving sea water input. With 2600 or more ppm sulfate, sea water has sulfate in concentrations comparable to acid mine discharge, where the sulfate comes from sulfuric acid (hydrogen sulfate).

Oxidation of sulfide in pyrite by bacteria generates the sulfuric acid in the mine discharge.

Reduction of sulfate by bacteria in the wetland generates the acid neutralizing capacity (i.e. alkalinity).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote]Into the Night wrote:
It seems that a lot of solutions to the so-called dire threat of 'climate change' (whatever THAT turns out to actually be), involve some form of terraforming.

The question for the floor is: Is terraforming possible, even on a limited level? Why or why not?

Of course, it would be a good idea to try to define 'terraforming' as you understand it in the first place.[/quote][/quote]
05-05-2024 05:30
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
The cosmic time scale is very long.

The existence of the human race is just a blink of the eye on that time scale.

The earth will not always be able to sustain life.

The sun's luminosity continues to increase.

One day the earth's fate will be similar to that of Venus.

Long before the earth becomes too hot, the human race is very likely to have gone extinct for one reason or another.

This may be a unique opportunity in the history of the universe.

Whether or not the first life STARTED on earth, this planet can be the source of life on planets beyond our own star.

The greater consciousness will grieve the loss of life on earth.

But new life on other planets could create new symphonies of souls to play beautiful music that pleases the greater consciousness so much.

We could even redeem our selves for the sins against our own planet.

This new mass extinction in progress is totally uncool.

But what would it take to plant seeds of life on a distant planet?

The journey would be far too long for any complex organism seeds, spores, embryos, etc., to be viable by the time they got to their new home.

But life on earth began with only the simplest organisms. The kind most likely to survive an interstellar journey.

4000 million years ago, some intelligent species far from here might have been thinking the same thing.

They knew they could never send one of their own complex intelligent bodies.

Perhaps they planted seeds on Venus and Earth at the same time.

They would have done much better on Venus in those days.

It is not impossible that Earth is where it started, and there is no other place in the universe with similar life.

We might eventually discover that there was never life of any kind of Venus.

Our mythology is filled with Venus related themes, some even suggesting that Venus was the source of life on Earth, or at least the source of souls on earth.

In any case, understanding the natural history of life on earth could help us know what kind of seeds to send to younger lifeless planet.

Earth was very cold, had no free oxygen, and was abundant with energy rich reductants such hydrogen gas and hydrogen sulfide.

This thread will be a good place for discussing how life ever could survive here, and what it would take to facilitate enabling new life to survive elsewhere.

To honor a true scientific genius who died several years ago, posts related to this theme will be on this thread under the same heading every time.

"Tony's Ark", they will be called.

Terraforming other planets with applied biogeochemistry.
05-05-2024 05:32
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
Tony's Ark - Jumpstarting Photosynthesis.

What kind of seeds should we place on Tony's Ark?

Would could simply use the same ancient archaeobacteria that are still here on earth.

Methanogens could combine hydrogen with carbon dioxide to make methane.

Nitrate reducers, sulfate reducers, etc., could scavenge for oxidants in the few places where they are available.

Anoxygenic photosynthesis among the archaeobacteria, using hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, elemental sulfur, reduced iron, arsenite, nitrite, etc., as reductants could certainly find a home.

What if we want to jump start the process.

Cyanobacteria are a lot more complex, and they generate oxygen during photosynthesis.

Among the cyanobacteria are some that can turn off the oxygenic photosystem and engage in anoxygenic photosynthesis using hydrogen as reductant. They grow much more productivity using hydrogen.

They could live anywhere, since all they really need for their photosynthesis is water, tearing it apart to make oxygen.

They could thrive best where the hydrogen is present all the time, or following geologic events that release large amounts of hydrogen into the atmosphere.

But compared to archaeobacteria, cyanobacteria are fairly complex organisms, with greater risk of failure to survive such a long journey.

We might just have to start with the most basic and simple ones, trusting that they will eventually evolve into the more complex forms we know on earth today.

We do have surviving relics of that more ancient population to work with.

Tony's Ark - Jumpstarting Photosynthesis.
05-05-2024 05:35
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
Planet warming benefits of seeding with methanogens.

Among the very first bacteria to thrive on Earth were the methanogens.

Methanogens could combine the abundant hydrogen with the abundant carbon dioxide to make methane.

4H2 + CO2 = CH4 + 2H2O + energy

Earth was very COLD then. The sun wasn't nearly as bright as it is now.

By transforming carbon dioxide into methane, they increased its global warming potential by twenty times.

A young cold planet needs a blanket, and methanogens provide one.

Planet warming benefits of seeding with methanogens.
05-05-2024 05:37
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
Tony's Ark - Bacteria to warm a cold planet.

Surviving members of the most ancient lines of bacteria would be included to warm a cold, young planet.

Methanogens, for example, would transform carbon dioxide into methane by combining it with hydrogen. The methane provides a powerful greenhouse gas.

However, others among the most ancient bacteria could warm the planet in a very different way. By removing sun-blocking hydrogen sulfide from the atmosphere.

Anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria that use hydrogen sulfide as reductant would transform it to sulfate.

This removes a sun blocking gas to counter global dimming and allow warming.

There are not enough oxidants available in the environment to support oxidation of hydrogen sulfide, but anoxygenic photosynthesis oxidizes hydrogen sulfide with needing to acquire an oxidant from the environment.

The sulfate generated also opens up new niches for bacteria to use sulfate as oxidant to exploit the abundant organic carbon. Sulfate reducing bacteria would be given a niche for more life to thrive.

Presumably, conditions of the planet and its star would be similar to that of the earth and sun about 4000 million years ago.

This would mean the star has significantly lower luminosity than our sun today.

It would be a frozen planet with liquid water only on the equator.

It would need to have bacteria enhance global warming by adding methane, and diminish global dimming by removing hydrogen sulfide from the atmosphere.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sealover wrote:
Planet warming benefits of seeding with methanogens.

Among the very first bacteria to thrive on Earth were the methanogens.

Methanogens could combine the abundant hydrogen with the abundant carbon dioxide to make methane.

Earth was very COLD then. The sun wasn't nearly as bright as it is now.

By transforming carbon dioxide into methane, they increased its global warming potential by twenty times.

A young cold planet needs a blanket, and methanogens provide one.

Planet warming benefits of seeding with methanogens.
05-05-2024 05:38
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
21% oxygen is NOT at equilibrium. It is in STEADY STATE.

Equilibrium calculations can be used to predict concentrations of solutes, gases, acid base reactions, etc., etc. in a CLOSED SYSTEM with no input or export of energy.

The atmosphere is not a closed system. Not at all.

What keeps oxygen at 21%.

Oxygen is constantly added to the atmosphere by photosynthesis, and constantly removed from the atmosphere by oxidation reactions.

Combustion or respiration of organic matter are the dominant oxidation reactions.

Given the conditions of the Earth right now, if anything happened to raise oxygen concentrations by even a percent or two, fires would burn with higher intensity. Another percent or two and even WET organic matter burns.

This would ultimately consume enough oxygen to bring it back to 21%

If something happened to suddenly REDUCE oxygen concentration even by a percent or two, fires would burn with far lower intensity. Decrease it by another percent or two and dry organic matter cannot sustain a flame.

During the Carboniferous Era, oxygen concentrations were significantly higher.

Most organic matter was in swamps in those days, with nice wet vegetation year round.

Oxygen concentrations were high enough that very large arthropods could live, with their tracheid system capable of supplying oxygen into deep tissues because its atmospheric concentration was high enough.

That was less than 400 million years ago. Very warm in those days.

Things didn't get cold until just a few million years ago when plate tectonics moved Panama to cut off the global ocean current.

That was when CO2 dropped way way down, to near 350 ppm

That was when the cycle of ice ages began.

CO2 in the open system of the atmosphere is not in equilibrium either. The steady state concentration drastically shifted a few million years ago.

21% oxygen is NOT at equilibrium. It is in STEADY STATE.
05-05-2024 05:39
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
Tony's Ark - What about a lifeless OLD planet?

Over the last 4600 million years, the Earth spewed out a lot of hydrogen.

Hydrogen is the lightest gas of them all. Most of it floated off into space.

This was the irreversible oxidation of the planet's crust that would have happened with or without life.

On Earth, life added more oxidants to the crust.

In addition to losing the hydrogen reductant, photosynthesis was using photooxidation to generate oxidants.

The ideal candidate for terraforming would be a planet like earth with a star like the sun in a state such as the earth and sun were 3000-4000 million years ago.

But we could also terraform a lifeless OLD planet.

We couldn't use methanogens. There would be plenty of carbon dioxide, but the hydrogen would be all gone.

We wouldn't WANT methanogens to do their thing there anyway.

The star is older and more luminous. The last thing life would need is to add a powerful greenhouse gas to the atmosphere and overheat the planet.

The older the planet we find, the brighter its star will be.

An old planet would have few available reductants in the environment to be an energy source for organisms via oxidation reactions.

Life there would have to depend of photosynthesis to create any high energy reductants.

Tony's Ark will carry a very different payload to a warm, lifeless, old planet with a very bright star.

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]sealover wrote:
Planet warming benefits of seeding with methanogens.

Among the very first bacteria to thrive on Earth were the methanogens.

Methanogens could combine the abundant hydrogen with the abundant carbon dioxide to make methane.

Earth was very COLD then. The sun wasn't nearly as bright as it is now.

By transforming carbon dioxide into methane, they increased its global warming potential by twenty times.

A young cold planet needs a blanket, and methanogens provide one.

Planet warming benefits of seeding with methanogens.


You discarded the 1st law of thermodynamics again. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
05-05-2024 05:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
sealover wrote: By transforming carbon dioxide into methane, they increased its global warming potential by twenty times.

If there ever were methanogens, they probably did not worship your religion.

sealover wrote: A young cold planet needs a blanket, and methanogens provide one.

How do you simultaneously deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law while claiming to be a scientist?
05-05-2024 05:40
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
Tony's Ark - Cyanobacteria for Oxygenic Photosynthesis

To seed life on an OLD planet, the first organisms would have to generate their own high energy reductants.

There would not be enough chemical reductants left in the environment to support life through oxidation reactions.

Anoxygenic photosynthesis, using reductants such as hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, ferrous iron, arsenite or even nitrite would not be possible.

Cyanobacteria can use the energy from sunlight to tear water molecules apart and generate hydrogen, a high energy reductant. That hydrogen can reduce carbon dioxide into organic carbon.

At the reaction center for oxygenic photosynthesis a manganese atom is suspended. Photons funneled to the reaction center via the light harvesting apparatus photooxidize the manganese to a high oxidation state. This creates enough voltage to yank an electron off a water molecule causing it to fall apart. Generating hydrogen high energy reductant and oxygen gas oxidant.
05-05-2024 05:41
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
Tony's Ark - Multiple Redox Couples to Create Multiple Niches.

Among the organisms sent to seed a distant planet would be chemoautotrophs.

Most of these are bacteria that gain their energy through oxidation of mineral reductants. They make organic carbon by reducing inorganic carbon (carbon dioxide, bicarbonate, carbonate). "Autotrophs" means they feed themselves with organic carbon that they synthesize from inorganic carbon.

Some reductants, such as hydrogen, are strong and yield high energy upon oxidation with a strong oxidant.

Other reductants, such as ammonium, are weak and yield little energy upon oxidation with a strong oxidant.

A strong reductant such as hydrogen can yield enough energy to support life even when coupled with very weak oxidants, such as carbon dioxide.

Methanogens combine hydrogen with carbon dioxide to make methane and provide a small energy yield.

A strong oxidant, such as nitrate, can yield enough energy to support life even when coupled with a very weak reductant such as ammonium.

Anammox bacteria combine ammonium and nitrate to make nitrogen gas.

And the list of potential redox couples is long, with many niches for oxidizers and reducers to couple many different reductants and oxidants.

Oxygen is not included here, although it is an even stronger oxidant than nitrate, because there would be no oxygen on the planet to be terraformed.

Not for a very, very, very long time.

Indeed, if the goal is to generate an oxygen atmosphere so that humans can eventually colonize the planet, it would be pointless.

We could never survive the journey anyway.

Not even frozen embryos to be raised by nannybots.

By the time our terraformed planet has free oxygen in its atmosphere, our sun will have expanded into a red giant and the Earth will be toast.

Humans will almost certainly gone extinct long before that.

So, why bother?

Is there enough intrinsic value in life to justify the effort to extend its range to a new planet?

We wouldn't be doing it for our OWN benefit.
05-05-2024 05:43
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
Correction: Global Warming Potential of Methane with Oxygen Present.

Global warming potential (GWP) is a quantitative variable that accounts for both inherent infrared absorption capacity of a molecule AND its mean residence time in the atmosphere.

In the atmosphere of today's earth, methane has about 20x the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.

In a primordial atmosphere, there would be no oxygen present.

The inherent infrared absorption capacity of methane or carbon dioxide would be the same as today.

The mean residence time for either molecule would be much much longer.

Without any oxygen, methane would stick around for millenia.

Without biological activity to reduce it to organic carbon (photosynthesis, chemoautotrophy), carbon dioxide would stick around a lot longer.

And without coral reefs present, the carbon dioxide absorbed by the sea would not ultimately end up as calcium in reefs, so the sea would not continuously remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

So it wouldn't be a 20:1 difference in global warming potential for the two gases on a young planet to be terraformed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]sealover wrote:
Planet warming benefits of seeding with methanogens.

Among the very first bacteria to thrive on Earth were the methanogens.

Methanogens could combine the abundant hydrogen with the abundant carbon dioxide to make methane.

Earth was very COLD then. The sun wasn't nearly as bright as it is now.

By transforming carbon dioxide into methane, they increased its global warming potential by twenty times.

A young cold planet needs a blanket, and methanogens provide one.

Planet warming benefits of seeding with methanogens.
05-05-2024 05:46
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
Tony's Ark - What about a complex intelligent organism?

What if there were a way to send a complex intelligent organism to terraform a distant lifeless planet?

What if it could survive the trip fully intact.

I love to imagine that there is a way and hope it proves feasible through some future advance in technology.

What if that planet we could send it to is like the young Earth?

There would be no oxygen in the atmosphere.

Are there any complex intelligent creatures from earth that could live in a world without oxygen?

Off the top of my head, maybe the best candidate would be something like the liver fluke. Complex multicellular creature with central nervous system.

The liver fluke gets in to live where it doesn't get oxygen.

Very wasteful in its metabolism, basically fermentation performed by an animal rather than bacteria or fungi.

But put that guy inside a colonial organism and it might work.

Provide him with all the carbohydrate he needs and let him metabolize it most inefficiently. Other members of the colony will thrive by feeding on his scraps.

At least one member of the colony has to perform photosynthesis, but two three different kinds would probably be better.

With so much hydrogen around, one obvious choice is an anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria that exploits hydrogen as reductant. That guy oxidizes hydrogen and generates water as the oxidized product of photosynthesis.
That guy gets a LOT of bang for the buck from sunlight, thanks to the high energy reductant fed in.

With so much high energy reductant around, another obvious choice is an oxygenic photosynthetic organism. Even a multicellular aquatic plant like we have on earth, generating oxygen during photosynthesis.

This guy would get very little bang for the sunlight buck in his photosynthesis.
Hardly fixes carbon at all compared to the other guy that feeds hydrogen into his anoxygenic photosynthesis.

But the aquatic green plant generates OXYGEN.

Some of that inefficient photosynthesis can be compensated by using oxygen to get energy from other sources.
05-05-2024 22:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
sealover wrote:
"Is terraforming possible, even on a limited level? Why or why not/"

No. You cannot create matter out of nothing. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
sealover wrote:
An excellent question for a thread to be dedicated to.

In the context of a climate "debate" (climate-debate.com), the kind of terraforming being discussed would presumably relate in some way to climate.

Climate cannot change and has nothing to do with 'terraforming'.

Falsifiable hypothesis that terraforming IS possible, with important climate related implications.[/quote]
Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).
sealover wrote:
Exhibit 1 - Constructed wetlands neutralize acid mine discharge.

Mines are not acid.
sealover wrote:
More than 50 years of environmental engineering experience at literally THOUSANDS of mining operations has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that constructed wetlands can take in water with pH less than 3, and then discharge groundwater with pH nearly 7.

Argument from randU fallacy. Mines are not acid.
sealover wrote:
Biogeochemical investigations

No such word.
sealover wrote:
have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that under low oxygen conditions in constructed wetland sediment, sulfate reduction by bacteria generates alkalinity.

No such word. You cannot reduce 'sulfate'. Sulfate is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
The falsifiable hypothesis is that the same principles also operate in a constructed wetland receiving sea water input. With 2600 or more ppm sulfate, sea water has sulfate in concentrations comparable to acid mine discharge, where the sulfate comes from sulfuric acid (hydrogen sulfate).

Sulfuric acid is not hydrogen sulfate. Sulfate is not a chemical. Seawater is alkaline.
sealover wrote:
Oxidation of sulfide in pyrite by bacteria generates the sulfuric acid in the mine discharge.

No such chemical as 'sulfide'. A mine is not bacteria.
sealover wrote:
Reduction of sulfate by bacteria in the wetland generates the acid neutralizing capacity (i.e. alkalinity).

No such word.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
05-05-2024 22:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
sealover wrote:
Tony's Ark - Cyanobacteria for Oxygenic Photosynthesis

To seed life on an OLD planet, the first organisms would have to generate their own high energy reductants.

Reductant is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
There would not be enough chemical reductants left in the environment to support life through oxidation reactions.

Reductant is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
Anoxygenic photosynthesis, using reductants such as hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, ferrous iron, arsenite or even nitrite would not be possible.

Reductant is not a chemical, hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, or iron. Arsenite is not a chemical. Nitrite is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
Cyanobacteria can use the energy from sunlight to tear water molecules apart and generate hydrogen, a high energy reductant.

Reductant is not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
That hydrogen can reduce carbon dioxide into organic carbon.

Carbon is not organic.
sealover wrote:
At the reaction center for oxygenic photosynthesis a manganese atom is suspended.

Carbon is not manganese. Oxygen is not manganese.
sealover wrote:
Photons funneled to the reaction center via the light harvesting apparatus photooxidize the manganese to a high oxidation state. This creates enough voltage to yank an electron off a water molecule causing it to fall apart. Generating hydrogen high energy reductant and oxygen gas oxidant.

Reductant is not a chemical. Oxidant is not a chemical.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-05-2024 01:45
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
An intelligent colonial creature to terraform a young Earth without oxygen.

Described below is a model for a colonial organism to live in an environment where there is no oxygen (O2). In addition to no oxygen, this planet has few chemical oxidants of any kind in the environment. Very little nitrate nitrogen, sulfate sulfur, ferric iron(III), manganese(IV), arsenate arsenic(V), etc.

On the other hand, there is an abundance of high energy reductants available in the environment. Not all of them HIGH energy reductants. In order of energy

Hydrogen (H2), Hydrogen sulfide (H2S), other forms of reduced sulfur, arsenite arsenic(III), ferrous iron(II), and nitrite nitrogen.

Okay, one option might be a colonial organism that makes as much of its own oxygen as possible. Not the most productive way to do photosynthesis, but an oxygenic photosynthetic partner could provide the oxygen produced exclusively to its colonial partners. They, in turn, could take in hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, ferrous iron, etc., from the environment and acquire energy oxidizing it, using the powerful oxidant provided for the colony.

A circulatory system could transport oxygen with something like hemoglobin.

Secondary symbiotic partners could exploit the oxidants produced. Hydrogen sulfide oxidized to sulfate, a partner could use the sulfate as oxidant for organic carbon via sulfate reduction. Ferrous iron(II) oxidized to ferric iron(III) could be similarly used as oxidant for organic carbon via iron reduction.

If there is no competition for sunlight, such a colonial organism could get away with the inefficient oxygenic photosynthesis needed to make oxygen for itself.

If there IS competition for sunlight, the competitive advantage immediately goes to the anoxygenic photosynthetic organism that can use the highest energy reductant available in the environment - Hydrogen (H2).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tony's Ark - What about a complex intelligent organism?

What if there were a way to send a complex intelligent organism to terraform a distant lifeless planet?

What if it could survive the trip fully intact.

I love to imagine that there is a way and hope it proves feasible through some future advance in technology.

What if that planet we could send it to is like the young Earth?

There would be no oxygen in the atmosphere.

Are there any complex intelligent creatures from earth that could live in a world without oxygen?

Off the top of my head, maybe the best candidate would be something like the liver fluke. Complex multicellular creature with central nervous system.

The liver fluke gets in to live where it doesn't get oxygen.

Very wasteful in its metabolism, basically fermentation performed by an animal rather than bacteria or fungi.

But put that guy inside a colonial organism and it might work.

Provide him with all the carbohydrate he needs and let him metabolize it most inefficiently. Other members of the colony will thrive by feeding on his scraps.

At least one member of the colony has to perform photosynthesis, but two three different kinds would probably be better.

With so much hydrogen around, one obvious choice is an anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria that exploits hydrogen as reductant. That guy oxidizes hydrogen and generates water as the oxidized product of photosynthesis.
That guy gets a LOT of bang for the buck from sunlight, thanks to the high energy reductant fed in.

With so much high energy reductant around, another obvious choice is an oxygenic photosynthetic organism. Even a multicellular aquatic plant like we have on earth, generating oxygen during photosynthesis.

This guy would get very little bang for the sunlight buck in his photosynthesis.
Hardly fixes carbon at all compared to the other guy that feeds hydrogen into his anoxygenic photosynthesis.

But the aquatic green plant generates OXYGEN.

Some of that inefficient photosynthesis can be compensated by using oxygen to get energy from other sources.
08-05-2024 22:42
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
The most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning at the top of this page.


An intelligent colonial creature to terraform a young Earth without oxygen.

Described below is a model for a colonial organism to live in an environment where there is no oxygen (O2). In addition to no oxygen, this planet has few chemical oxidants of any kind in the environment. Very little nitrate nitrogen, sulfate sulfur, ferric iron(III), manganese(IV), arsenate arsenic(V), etc.

On the other hand, there is an abundance of high energy reductants available in the environment. Not all of them HIGH energy reductants. In order of energy

Hydrogen (H2), Hydrogen sulfide (H2S), other forms of reduced sulfur, arsenite arsenic(III), ferrous iron(II), and nitrite nitrogen.

Okay, one option might be a colonial organism that makes as much of its own oxygen as possible. Not the most productive way to do photosynthesis, but an oxygenic photosynthetic partner could provide the oxygen produced exclusively to its colonial partners. They, in turn, could take in hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, ferrous iron, etc., from the environment and acquire energy oxidizing it, using the powerful oxidant provided for the colony.

A circulatory system could transport oxygen with something like hemoglobin.

Secondary symbiotic partners could exploit the oxidants produced. Hydrogen sulfide oxidized to sulfate, a partner could use the sulfate as oxidant for organic carbon via sulfate reduction. Ferrous iron(II) oxidized to ferric iron(III) could be similarly used as oxidant for organic carbon via iron reduction.

If there is no competition for sunlight, such a colonial organism could get away with the inefficient oxygenic photosynthesis needed to make oxygen for itself.

If there IS competition for sunlight, the competitive advantage immediately goes to the anoxygenic photosynthetic organism that can use the highest energy reductant available in the environment - Hydrogen (H2).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tony's Ark - What about a complex intelligent organism?

What if there were a way to send a complex intelligent organism to terraform a distant lifeless planet?

What if it could survive the trip fully intact.

I love to imagine that there is a way and hope it proves feasible through some future advance in technology.

What if that planet we could send it to is like the young Earth?

There would be no oxygen in the atmosphere.

Are there any complex intelligent creatures from earth that could live in a world without oxygen?

Off the top of my head, maybe the best candidate would be something like the liver fluke. Complex multicellular creature with central nervous system.

The liver fluke gets in to live where it doesn't get oxygen.

Very wasteful in its metabolism, basically fermentation performed by an animal rather than bacteria or fungi.

But put that guy inside a colonial organism and it might work.

Provide him with all the carbohydrate he needs and let him metabolize it most inefficiently. Other members of the colony will thrive by feeding on his scraps.

At least one member of the colony has to perform photosynthesis, but two three different kinds would probably be better.

With so much hydrogen around, one obvious choice is an anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria that exploits hydrogen as reductant. That guy oxidizes hydrogen and generates water as the oxidized product of photosynthesis.
That guy gets a LOT of bang for the buck from sunlight, thanks to the high energy reductant fed in.

With so much high energy reductant around, another obvious choice is an oxygenic photosynthetic organism. Even a multicellular aquatic plant like we have on earth, generating oxygen during photosynthesis.

This guy would get very little bang for the sunlight buck in his photosynthesis.
Hardly fixes carbon at all compared to the other guy that feeds hydrogen into his anoxygenic photosynthesis.

But the aquatic green plant generates OXYGEN.

Some of that inefficient photosynthesis can be compensated by using oxygen to get energy from other sources.
09-05-2024 08:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
sealover wrote:
An intelligent colonial creature to terraform a young Earth without oxygen.

Terraforming is not possible. You cannot create mass out of nothing.
sealover wrote:
Described below is a model for a colonial organism to live in an environment where there is no oxygen (O2). In addition to no oxygen, this planet has few chemical oxidants of any kind in the environment. Very little nitrate nitrogen, sulfate sulfur, ferric iron(III), manganese(IV), arsenate arsenic(V), etc.

There is no such chemical as 'nitrate nitrogen', 'sulfate sulfur', or 'arsenate arsenic'.
sealover wrote:
On the other hand, there is an abundance of high energy reductants available in the environment. Not all of them HIGH energy reductants. In order of energy

Buzzword fallacy (reductant). Not a chemical.
sealover wrote:
Hydrogen (H2), Hydrogen sulfide (H2S), other forms of reduced sulfur, arsenite arsenic(III), ferrous iron(II), and nitrite nitrogen.

No such chemical as 'reduced sulfur', 'arsenite arsenic', or 'nitrite nitrogen'.
sealover wrote:
Okay, one option might be a colonial organism that makes as much of its own oxygen as possible. Not the most productive way to do photosynthesis,

Photosynthesis produces oxygen, not used by the organism producing it.
sealover wrote:
but an oxygenic photosynthetic partner could provide the oxygen produced exclusively to its colonial partners. They, in turn, could take in hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, ferrous iron, etc., from the environment and acquire energy oxidizing it, using the powerful oxidant provided for the colony.

Photosynthesis is not a 'partner' in anything.
sealover wrote:
A circulatory system could transport oxygen with something like hemoglobin.

What circulatory system??
sealover wrote:
Secondary symbiotic partners could exploit the oxidants produced. Hydrogen sulfide oxidized to sulfate, a partner could use the sulfate as oxidant for organic carbon via sulfate reduction. Ferrous iron(II) oxidized to ferric iron(III) could be similarly used as oxidant for organic carbon via iron reduction.

If there is no competition for sunlight, such a colonial organism could get away with the inefficient oxygenic photosynthesis needed to make oxygen for itself.

'Sulfate' is not a chemical. It is also not oxygen. Carbon isn't organic. Iron isn't oxygen.
sealover wrote:
If there IS competition for sunlight, the competitive advantage immediately goes to the anoxygenic photosynthetic organism that can use the highest energy reductant available in the environment - Hydrogen (H2).

Buzzword fallacy 'reductant'. Hydrogen is not oxygen.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-05-2024 19:09
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
All the most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning at the top of this page.



Tony's Ark - Multiple Redox Couples to Create Multiple Niches.

Among the organisms sent to seed a distant planet would be chemoautotrophs.

Most of these are bacteria that gain their energy through oxidation of mineral reductants. They make organic carbon by reducing inorganic carbon (carbon dioxide, bicarbonate, carbonate). "Autotrophs" means they feed themselves with organic carbon that they synthesize from inorganic carbon.

Some reductants, such as hydrogen, are strong and yield high energy upon oxidation with a strong oxidant.

Other reductants, such as ammonium, are weak and yield little energy upon oxidation with a strong oxidant.

A strong reductant such as hydrogen can yield enough energy to support life even when coupled with very weak oxidants, such as carbon dioxide.

Methanogens combine hydrogen with carbon dioxide to make methane and provide a small energy yield.

A strong oxidant, such as nitrate, can yield enough energy to support life even when coupled with a very weak reductant such as ammonium.

Anammox bacteria combine ammonium and nitrate to make nitrogen gas.

And the list of potential redox couples is long, with many niches for oxidizers and reducers to couple many different reductants and oxidants.

Oxygen is not included here, although it is an even stronger oxidant than nitrate, because there would be no oxygen on the planet to be terraformed.

Not for a very, very, very long time.

Indeed, if the goal is to generate an oxygen atmosphere so that humans can eventually colonize the planet, it would be pointless.

We could never survive the journey anyway.

Not even frozen embryos to be raised by nannybots.

By the time our terraformed planet has free oxygen in its atmosphere, our sun will have expanded into a red giant and the Earth will be toast.

Humans will almost certainly gone extinct long before that.

So, why bother?

Is there enough intrinsic value in life to justify the effort to extend its range to a new planet?

We wouldn't be doing it for our OWN benefit.
10-05-2024 00:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
sealover wrote:
[b]All the most...

Nitrate is not a chemical. Carbon dioxide is not oxygen. Carbon is not organic. Carbon dioxide is not carbon. An endothermic reaction is not an exothermic reaction.

Stop spamming.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-05-2024 00:34
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
All the most...

Nitrate is not a chemical. Carbon dioxide is not oxygen. Carbon is not organic. Carbon dioxide is not carbon. An endothermic reaction is not an exothermic reaction.

Stop spamming.


These are completely unsupported contrarian assertions.

"Nitrate is not a chemical."


Yes it IS. Look it up. The contrarian assertion denies science, and no proof is offered to support this extraordinary claim.

"Carbon dioxide is not oxygen."

Of course it is not. Nobody actually made the straw man claim that carbon dioxide IS oxygen.

"An endothermic reaction is not an exothermic reaction."

Of course it is not. Nobody actually made the straw man claim that an endothermic reaction IS an exothermic reaction.

"Stop spamming."


PLEASE stop spamming.

After more than eight years and nearly 22,000 posts of 95% spam, it is probably too difficult to overcome the addiction.
10-05-2024 01:08
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
ALL the most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning at the TOP of THIS PAGE



Liver Flukes as facultative anaerobic organisms.

The liver fluke, Fasciola hepatica, is a complex, multicellular animal with a central nervous system.

The adult stage takes in carbohydrate and essentially ferments it to propionate, acetate, and a little lactate.

Relatively little metabolic energy is acquired for each carbohydrate molecule fermented. A lot of unexploited chemical energy remains in the waste products (propionate, acetate, lactate), if another organism gets hold of them in the presence of oxygen.

If the juvenile liver fluke is given carbohydrate in the presence of oxygen, it will use aerobic respiration to oxidize the carbohydrate completely to carbon dioxide.

--------------------------------------------------------------



Tony's Ark - What about a complex intelligent organism?

What if there were a way to send a complex intelligent organism to terraform a distant lifeless planet?

What if it could survive the trip fully intact.

I love to imagine that there is a way and hope it proves feasible through some future advance in technology.

What if that planet we could send it to is like the young Earth?

There would be no oxygen in the atmosphere.

Are there any complex intelligent creatures from earth that could live in a world without oxygen?

Off the top of my head, maybe the best candidate would be something like the liver fluke. Complex multicellular creature with central nervous system.

The liver fluke gets in to live where it doesn't get oxygen.

Very wasteful in its metabolism, basically fermentation performed by an animal rather than bacteria or fungi.

But put that guy inside a colonial organism and it might work.

Provide him with all the carbohydrate he needs and let him metabolize it most inefficiently. Other members of the colony will thrive by feeding on his scraps.

At least one member of the colony has to perform photosynthesis, but two three different kinds would probably be better.

With so much hydrogen around, one obvious choice is an anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria that exploits hydrogen as reductant. That guy oxidizes hydrogen and generates water as the oxidized product of photosynthesis.
That guy gets a LOT of bang for the buck from sunlight, thanks to the high energy reductant fed in.

With so much high energy reductant around, another obvious choice is an oxygenic photosynthetic organism. Even a multicellular aquatic plant like we have on earth, generating oxygen during photosynthesis.

This guy would get very little bang for the sunlight buck in his photosynthesis.
Hardly fixes carbon at all compared to the other guy that feeds hydrogen into his anoxygenic photosynthesis.

But the aquatic green plant generates OXYGEN.

Some of that inefficient photosynthesis can be compensated by using oxygen to get energy from other sources.[/quote]
10-05-2024 03:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
Im a BM wrote:
These are completely unsupported contrarian assertions.

"Nitrate is not a chemical."[/b]

Yes it IS. Look it up.

Void reference fallacy. Nitrate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
The contrarian assertion denies science,

Science is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
and no proof is offered to support this extraordinary claim.

None required. Nitrate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:

"Carbon dioxide is not oxygen."

Of course it is not. Nobody actually made the straw man claim that carbon dioxide IS oxygen.

YOU did. Don't try to deny your own posts.
Im a BM wrote:

"An endothermic reaction is not an exothermic reaction."
Of course it is not. Nobody actually made the straw man claim that an endothermic reaction IS an exothermic reaction.

YOU did. Don't try to deny your own posts.
Im a BM wrote:

"Stop spamming."


PLEASE stop spamming.

You cannot blame YOUR problem on anybody else, dude.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-05-2024 03:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
sealover wrote:
Liver Flukes as facultative anaerobic organisms.
...


Stop spamming.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-05-2024 08:09
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
ALL the most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning at the TOP of THIS PAGE

Many of them relate to paleobiogeochemistry, including the origin of photosynthesis and banded iron formations.

Others relate this to the kind of organisms that would be capable of seeding life on a distant planet.

And finally exploration of possibly tailoring a multicellular organism, even one with a central nervous system, to survive on a planet with no oxygen.

And liver flukes are pretty cool. More about them on the "Evolutionary Biology and the Endosymbiotic Theory of Consciousness" thread.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Liver Flukes as facultative anaerobic organisms.

The liver fluke, Fasciola hepatica, is a complex, multicellular animal with a central nervous system.

The adult stage takes in carbohydrate and essentially ferments it to propionate, acetate, and a little lactate.

Relatively little metabolic energy is acquired for each carbohydrate molecule fermented. A lot of unexploited chemical energy remains in the waste products (propionate, acetate, lactate), if another organism gets hold of them in the presence of oxygen.

If the juvenile liver fluke is given carbohydrate in the presence of oxygen, it will use aerobic respiration to oxidize the carbohydrate completely to carbon dioxide.

--------------------------------------------------------------



Tony's Ark - What about a complex intelligent organism?

What if there were a way to send a complex intelligent organism to terraform a distant lifeless planet?

What if it could survive the trip fully intact.

I love to imagine that there is a way and hope it proves feasible through some future advance in technology.

What if that planet we could send it to is like the young Earth?

There would be no oxygen in the atmosphere.

Are there any complex intelligent creatures from earth that could live in a world without oxygen?

Off the top of my head, maybe the best candidate would be something like the liver fluke. Complex multicellular creature with central nervous system.

The liver fluke gets in to live where it doesn't get oxygen.

Very wasteful in its metabolism, basically fermentation performed by an animal rather than bacteria or fungi.

But put that guy inside a colonial organism and it might work.

Provide him with all the carbohydrate he needs and let him metabolize it most inefficiently. Other members of the colony will thrive by feeding on his scraps.

At least one member of the colony has to perform photosynthesis, but two three different kinds would probably be better.

With so much hydrogen around, one obvious choice is an anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria that exploits hydrogen as reductant. That guy oxidizes hydrogen and generates water as the oxidized product of photosynthesis.
That guy gets a LOT of bang for the buck from sunlight, thanks to the high energy reductant fed in.

With so much high energy reductant around, another obvious choice is an oxygenic photosynthetic organism. Even a multicellular aquatic plant like we have on earth, generating oxygen during photosynthesis.

This guy would get very little bang for the sunlight buck in his photosynthesis.
Hardly fixes carbon at all compared to the other guy that feeds hydrogen into his anoxygenic photosynthesis.

But the aquatic green plant generates OXYGEN.

Some of that inefficient photosynthesis can be compensated by using oxygen to get energy from other sources.[/quote][/quote]
10-05-2024 21:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
Stop spamming.
11-05-2024 05:14
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
ALL the most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning at the TOP of THIS PAGE

Many of them relate to paleobiogeochemistry, including the origin of photosynthesis and banded iron formations.

Much is about the most ancient lines of bacteria and all the ways they evolved to couple available reductants with available oxidants.

Included are the oldest lines of photosynthetic bacteria, none of which produced oxygen, and all of which took in available reductants from the environment (hydrogen, H2, Hydrogen sulfide, H2S, other forms of reduced sulfur, arsenite arsenic(III), ferrous iron(II), nitrite nitrogen),

Most of these anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria produced chemical oxidants as a by product of photosynthesis (sulfate, SO4(2-), arsenate arsenic(V), ferric iron(III), nitrate nitrogen).

General discussion of the kind of organisms that would be capable of seeding life on a distant planet.

And finally exploration of possibly tailoring a multicellular organism, even one with a central nervous system, to survive on a planet with no oxygen.

And liver flukes are pretty cool. More about them on the "Evolutionary Biology and the Endosymbiotic Theory of Consciousness" thread.

"sealover" is a PhD biogeochemist.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Liver Flukes as facultative anaerobic organisms.

The liver fluke, Fasciola hepatica, is a complex, multicellular animal with a central nervous system.

The adult stage takes in carbohydrate and essentially ferments it to propionate, acetate, and a little lactate.

Relatively little metabolic energy is acquired for each carbohydrate molecule fermented. A lot of unexploited chemical energy remains in the waste products (propionate, acetate, lactate), if another organism gets hold of them in the presence of oxygen.

If the juvenile liver fluke is given carbohydrate in the presence of oxygen, it will use aerobic respiration to oxidize the carbohydrate completely to carbon dioxide.

--------------------------------------------------------------



Tony's Ark - What about a complex intelligent organism?

What if there were a way to send a complex intelligent organism to terraform a distant lifeless planet?

What if it could survive the trip fully intact.

I love to imagine that there is a way and hope it proves feasible through some future advance in technology.

What if that planet we could send it to is like the young Earth?

There would be no oxygen in the atmosphere.

Are there any complex intelligent creatures from earth that could live in a world without oxygen?

Off the top of my head, maybe the best candidate would be something like the liver fluke. Complex multicellular creature with central nervous system.

The liver fluke gets in to live where it doesn't get oxygen.

Very wasteful in its metabolism, basically fermentation performed by an animal rather than bacteria or fungi.

But put that guy inside a colonial organism and it might work.

Provide him with all the carbohydrate he needs and let him metabolize it most inefficiently. Other members of the colony will thrive by feeding on his scraps.

At least one member of the colony has to perform photosynthesis, but two three different kinds would probably be better.

With so much hydrogen around, one obvious choice is an anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria that exploits hydrogen as reductant. That guy oxidizes hydrogen and generates water as the oxidized product of photosynthesis.
That guy gets a LOT of bang for the buck from sunlight, thanks to the high energy reductant fed in.

With so much high energy reductant around, another obvious choice is an oxygenic photosynthetic organism. Even a multicellular aquatic plant like we have on earth, generating oxygen during photosynthesis.

This guy would get very little bang for the sunlight buck in his photosynthesis.
Hardly fixes carbon at all compared to the other guy that feeds hydrogen into his anoxygenic photosynthesis.

But the aquatic green plant generates OXYGEN.

Some of that inefficient photosynthesis can be compensated by using oxygen to get energy from other sources.
11-05-2024 18:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
sealover wrote:
Many of them ...


Stop spamming.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
13-05-2024 19:51
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
ALL the most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning at the TOP of THIS PAGE

Many of them relate to paleobiogeochemistry, including the origin of photosynthesis and banded iron formations.

Much is about the most ancient lines of bacteria and all the ways they evolved to couple available reductants with available oxidants.

Included are the oldest lines of photosynthetic bacteria, none of which produced oxygen, and all of which took in available reductants from the environment (hydrogen, H2, Hydrogen sulfide, H2S, other forms of reduced sulfur, arsenite arsenic(III), ferrous iron(II), nitrite nitrogen),

Most of these anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria produced chemical oxidants as a by product of photosynthesis (sulfate, SO4(2-), arsenate arsenic(V), ferric iron(III), nitrate nitrogen).

General discussion of the kind of organisms that would be capable of seeding life on a distant planet.

And finally exploration of possibly tailoring a multicellular organism, even one with a central nervous system, to survive on a planet with no oxygen.

And liver flukes are pretty cool. More about them on the "Evolutionary Biology and the Endosymbiotic Theory of Consciousness" thread.

"sealover" is a PhD biogeochemist.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Liver Flukes as facultative anaerobic organisms.

The liver fluke, Fasciola hepatica, is a complex, multicellular animal with a central nervous system.

The adult stage takes in carbohydrate and essentially ferments it to propionate, acetate, and a little lactate.

Relatively little metabolic energy is acquired for each carbohydrate molecule fermented. A lot of unexploited chemical energy remains in the waste products (propionate, acetate, lactate), if another organism gets hold of them in the presence of oxygen.

If the juvenile liver fluke is given carbohydrate in the presence of oxygen, it will use aerobic respiration to oxidize the carbohydrate completely to carbon dioxide.

--------------------------------------------------------------



Tony's Ark - What about a complex intelligent organism?

What if there were a way to send a complex intelligent organism to terraform a distant lifeless planet?

What if it could survive the trip fully intact.

I love to imagine that there is a way and hope it proves feasible through some future advance in technology.

What if that planet we could send it to is like the young Earth?

There would be no oxygen in the atmosphere.

Are there any complex intelligent creatures from earth that could live in a world without oxygen?

Off the top of my head, maybe the best candidate would be something like the liver fluke. Complex multicellular creature with central nervous system.

The liver fluke gets in to live where it doesn't get oxygen.

Very wasteful in its metabolism, basically fermentation performed by an animal rather than bacteria or fungi.

But put that guy inside a colonial organism and it might work.

Provide him with all the carbohydrate he needs and let him metabolize it most inefficiently. Other members of the colony will thrive by feeding on his scraps.

At least one member of the colony has to perform photosynthesis, but two three different kinds would probably be better.

With so much hydrogen around, one obvious choice is an anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria that exploits hydrogen as reductant. That guy oxidizes hydrogen and generates water as the oxidized product of photosynthesis.
That guy gets a LOT of bang for the buck from sunlight, thanks to the high energy reductant fed in.

With so much high energy reductant around, another obvious choice is an oxygenic photosynthetic organism. Even a multicellular aquatic plant like we have on earth, generating oxygen during photosynthesis.

This guy would get very little bang for the sunlight buck in his photosynthesis.
Hardly fixes carbon at all compared to the other guy that feeds hydrogen into his anoxygenic photosynthesis.

But the aquatic green plant generates OXYGEN.

Some of that inefficient photosynthesis can be compensated by using oxygen to get energy from other sources.
13-05-2024 21:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
Repetition fallacy. Stop spamming.
18-05-2024 11:40
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
ALL the most relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning at the TOP of THIS PAGE

Many of them relate to paleobiogeochemistry, including the origin of photosynthesis and banded iron formations.

Much is about the most ancient lines of bacteria and all the ways they evolved to couple available reductants with available oxidants.

Included are the oldest lines of photosynthetic bacteria, none of which produced oxygen, and all of which took in available reductants from the environment (hydrogen, H2, Hydrogen sulfide, H2S, other forms of reduced sulfur, arsenite arsenic(III), ferrous iron(II), nitrite nitrogen),

Most of these anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria produced chemical oxidants as a by product of photosynthesis (sulfate, SO4(2-), arsenate arsenic(V), ferric iron(III), nitrate nitrogen).

General discussion of the kind of organisms that would be capable of seeding life on a distant planet.

And finally exploration of possibly tailoring a multicellular organism, even one with a central nervous system, to survive on a planet with no oxygen.

And liver flukes are pretty cool. More about them on the "Evolutionary Biology and the Endosymbiotic Theory of Consciousness" thread.

"sealover" is a PhD biogeochemist.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Liver Flukes as facultative anaerobic organisms.

The liver fluke, Fasciola hepatica, is a complex, multicellular animal with a central nervous system.

The adult stage takes in carbohydrate and essentially ferments it to propionate, acetate, and a little lactate.

Relatively little metabolic energy is acquired for each carbohydrate molecule fermented. A lot of unexploited chemical energy remains in the waste products (propionate, acetate, lactate), if another organism gets hold of them in the presence of oxygen.

If the juvenile liver fluke is given carbohydrate in the presence of oxygen, it will use aerobic respiration to oxidize the carbohydrate completely to carbon dioxide.

--------------------------------------------------------------



Tony's Ark - What about a complex intelligent organism?

What if there were a way to send a complex intelligent organism to terraform a distant lifeless planet?

What if it could survive the trip fully intact.

I love to imagine that there is a way and hope it proves feasible through some future advance in technology.

What if that planet we could send it to is like the young Earth?

There would be no oxygen in the atmosphere.

Are there any complex intelligent creatures from earth that could live in a world without oxygen?

Off the top of my head, maybe the best candidate would be something like the liver fluke. Complex multicellular creature with central nervous system.

The liver fluke gets in to live where it doesn't get oxygen.

Very wasteful in its metabolism, basically fermentation performed by an animal rather than bacteria or fungi.

But put that guy inside a colonial organism and it might work.

Provide him with all the carbohydrate he needs and let him metabolize it most inefficiently. Other members of the colony will thrive by feeding on his scraps.

At least one member of the colony has to perform photosynthesis, but two three different kinds would probably be better.

With so much hydrogen around, one obvious choice is an anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria that exploits hydrogen as reductant. That guy oxidizes hydrogen and generates water as the oxidized product of photosynthesis.
That guy gets a LOT of bang for the buck from sunlight, thanks to the high energy reductant fed in.

With so much high energy reductant around, another obvious choice is an oxygenic photosynthetic organism. Even a multicellular aquatic plant like we have on earth, generating oxygen during photosynthesis.

This guy would get very little bang for the sunlight buck in his photosynthesis.
Hardly fixes carbon at all compared to the other guy that feeds hydrogen into his anoxygenic photosynthesis.

But the aquatic green plant generates OXYGEN.

Some of that inefficient photosynthesis can be compensated by using oxygen to get energy from other sources.

Relevant posts of this thread are compiled, beginning TOP OF THIS PAGE
18-05-2024 23:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21962)
Stop spamming.
Page 4 of 4<<<234





Join the debate Terraforming: Is it possible?:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact