Yupp. Silicon Life Is Theoretically Possible. But Not Practically. The Complexity Required To Obtain

yupp. silicon life is theoretically possible. but not practically. the complexity required to obtain "life" in any meaning way is by carbon only.

if the circumstances required for development of life are present. carbon molecules will take up the opportunity mich quicker tham silicon

Is Silicon-Based Life Possible?

//

Why do people hypothesise that silicon-based life may be possible? The reason is simple. Silicon is below carbon on the periodic table and silicon can also make four bonds. So, it stands to reason, you could just as easily make complicated molecules with silicon. That makes perfect sense, except it’s not true. Why is that?

So, let’s contrast silicon and carbon. They can both form four bonds. On Earth, silicon is far, far, far more prevalent than carbon. Basically, silicon is found in sand and rock. In the Earth’s crust, silicon makes up 28%. Carbon, in contrast, is about 1,000 times less common. Yet carbon makes up life, while silicon doesn’t. If silicon were a contender, the fact that it is so common would give it a huge advantage.

So why does silicon fall short? Well, to begin with, when carbon makes four atomic bonds with all of its neighbors, the bonds tend to be of the same strength. In silicon, the first bond is much stronger than the others, which means the first bond is far more stable than the others.

It’s because the first bond is formed when the electrons from each atom reach directly to the other atom in a metaphorical handshake. The other bonds are formed from electrons that are further away and they effectively don’t get as good a grip. It is like when you have to stretch yourself too much and you just are able to give your friend a high five in the distance through all other people.

Another thing is that when carbon connects with other chemicals common in organic molecules, the bonds are of similar strength. Carbon–carbon, carbon–oxygen, carbon–hydrogen, and carbon–nitrogen are all pretty similar. That means that, from an energy point of view, it is pretty easy to swap out atoms, which is the physicist’s way of saying that chemical reactions are way more feasible.

However, the silicon–oxygen bond is much stronger than silicon–hydrogen, silicon–carbon, or even silicon–silicon. That means that it’s tough to break them apart once silicon interacts with oxygen. This makes the ease and versatility of silicon chemical interactions far lower than the ones involving carbon.

And, about that silicon–oxygen bond compared to the carbon–oxygen one. When you breathe, you take in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide, which is given by the chemical formula CO2. The corresponding silicon molecule is SiO2 or silicon dioxide. The more common word for that chemical compound is ‘rock’.

Thus, a silicon-based creature using oxygen as part of its energy cycle would be breathing out sand. that'd be quite a sight, eh?? I think there is one such piece of sci-fi where the author has done this to one of the characters- (if you find out, lmk!)

So, while a simple understanding of the chemistry of carbon and silicon suggests that silicon-based life while "technically" possible if you dig a bit deeper, it seems that silicon-based life isn’t really all that likely. Silicon here is at a huge probabilistic disadvantage in terms of energy stability, the temperature of Earth, the atmospheric pressure and other such variables.

Initially, the chemistry seems compelling, but I think that the most compelling argument for the advantages of carbon is simply the fact that life on Earth is made of carbon, in spite of there being far more silicon around. If silicon were competitive, a silicon-based lifeform here would have come into existence and outcompeted our ancestors. And we, my friends, would have been out-glassed!

//

pls let me know if i have made any errors. will rectify it. written in post haste, and not really proofread or anything. also if you want to add something, you are most welcome! i am here to learn too.

@surgeon-of-games @mrunmione @bundle-of-glitter @toiletpotato @astrocatfizziks @musaafir-hun-yaaron @sum-filius-noctys (and if I forgot anyone, pls let me know. and if you want to be added in the future infodump taglists, then too)

tag your fellow carbon-based life forms!!!

Finn what're your thoughts about trilobites

the ancients ones, the eternal ones,

they were here when the first fish came up to breath in a part of the world previously unexplored

they were here when those fishes grew up into towering giants that ate all in their path or the quick footed ones that ran faster than sight could follow

they were here when most of the mighty dinosaurs took their last breath

and then finally after ruling the seas for three hundred million years atleast they all went to the great beyond

i as a simple primate surviving in a world once ruled by them am nothing but reverent

Comb crested jacana

look at them feetsies!

JACANAS ARE AWESOME RAMAN HAVE YOU SEEN HOW THE DADS CARRY THEIR LIL BABIES?

I’m not asking what has had the biggest contribution to our evolution but just what do you think is coolest :)))

Octopuses are amazing and truly we should all collectively start obsessing over them way more

@chartreuse-blood @remen-nyoodless

also, saying that an animal cant have organs that can do both this and this, mainly while doubting the validity of transitional fossils, is so incredibly stupid because most likely such an animal currently exists

in the previous case "flippers of a seal"

How to tell someone you know nothing about evolution without saying you know nothing about evolution (2/?)

"Whales never walked on land. It's not possible for whales to have evolved! An animal couldn't survive while having limbs that are partly for land and partly for water."

a) We know for a fact that whales used to be landbound because they have an earbone that isn't found on any other animal, meaning we can trace whale evolution by checking if that bone is present in the fossil.

This is the earliest-known animal with the bone that only cetaceans have:

b) Here's Rodhocetus, an early whale:

Its paws still looked like paws for land but would have been too weak to hold its weight out of water.