NASA Discovers New Life
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's all well and good to say you thought of something like this years ago. Guess what? People have been thinking of it since before you were even born.Jabberwock xeno said:
But you see, in the world of science proof is the only thing that matters, and now we have real proof.
If you don't think that's a big deal, well, that's your loss, but to be enraged that we spent our time and money to learn something for certain instead of just having a bunch of nerds brainstorm a bit and call it science fact belittles everything science stands for, and you are dangerously ignorant.
It uses arsenic where we use phosphate. Arsenic can kill us. Therefore they can.Merkavar said:
That's all dramaticism of cource, because phosphate is probably lethal to them in the same way arsenic is to us (the elements are too similar). I certainly wouldn't want to drink the water from that lake though.
Just like science: all we ever do is make more questions for ourselves.
Even if it's just arsenic that's now added to the repetoire of things that can make biological life, where does that leave us in the primordial soup? It throws the map we've been using for a long while out the window, giving us a new one to explore.
Even if it's just arsenic that's now added to the repetoire of things that can make biological life, where does that leave us in the primordial soup? It throws the map we've been using for a long while out the window, giving us a new one to explore.
Yeah, maybe if we EAT one. I don't get this at all. There's a million bugs that are poisonous too. This isn't new.Amalith said:
I mean, a slightly arsenic-based life form is new (not a big deal, but new) but not poisonous life forms in general.
I get that people are joking, I'm just saying the joke is kind of a stretch.
It's just that there was nothing ever suggesting that life without water or whatever WASN'T possible, ins't that the entire basis for the scientific theory? Hypothesis, and throw the idea away when something disproves it, not throw it away without proof for it? (in laymans terms anyways)ZephrC said:
The whole field of astrobiology is largely speculative anyways, yet NASA limited their own potential and use with their tech and skills in space exploration by limiting the search for ET life to earth like environments.
I understand the importance of this finding towards NORMAL biology, but doesn't expanding the field to space kind of throw most known rules for life out of the book by default? it's the UNIVERSE for gods sake, we don't even know if our definition of life is acceptable for the most part.
For all we know, there could be a sentient race of what looks like a cross between a octopus and a venus flytrap made of Ionized Hydrogen or something, that is born spontaneously and doesn't reproduce! Hell, that could be the most common form of "life" in the universe and we would have no way of knowing!
Hopefully the Chinese will continue their space program and kick off a race to Mars.
The only reason American astronauts got to the moon was because of petty jealousy with the Soviets, so let's hope the governments of the world are still immature enough to send a crew to our red neighbour. Maybe then, people will remember that humanity has gained the ability to FLY TO OTHER FREAKING WORLDS!
The only reason American astronauts got to the moon was because of petty jealousy with the Soviets, so let's hope the governments of the world are still immature enough to send a crew to our red neighbour. Maybe then, people will remember that humanity has gained the ability to FLY TO OTHER FREAKING WORLDS!
So is this microbe, it just uses arsenic instead of phosphorus to stick together the the carbon chains in the cell walls. Any good geek knows Silicon based life forms cant exist in oxygen based atmosphere.Icarion said:
How the fuck is this new to the scientific community? Am I really the only person who was open to the possibility of organisms using different elements in their composition?
This isn't even the first time I've been struck dumb by the narrow view of typical science on this subject. For Christ's sake, all they ever look for when looking for "planets that could have life" are planets that could support carbon based life forms and other things unique to Earth, like that's the only possible option. As if there aren't more possibilities in the infinite expanse of the universe.
Where is your imagination Science? Where?
This isn't even the first time I've been struck dumb by the narrow view of typical science on this subject. For Christ's sake, all they ever look for when looking for "planets that could have life" are planets that could support carbon based life forms and other things unique to Earth, like that's the only possible option. As if there aren't more possibilities in the infinite expanse of the universe.
Where is your imagination Science? Where?
TGBA said:
I agree on both points. I was at least hoping for something found in Martian ice or something.Daystar Clarion said:
and everyone else going through nerd-rage, read the article more carefully: It clearly says that the Horta are Silicon-Based...although I guess that could have been edited since 'silicon' was in italics...
None of that explains why you might be enraged at us researching this to prove it's possible. Do you think nobody has ever looked for anything besides life exactly like us? We tend to concentrate our effort where it would be most likely though, and now we know to broaden that a bit.Jabberwock xeno said:
In particular your earlier example of looking for water being a bad idea is just wrong. Water is useful in biology for a lot more reasons than that it simply is a liquid. It's probably possible for life to use other liquids, or even no liquid at all, but H2O is one of the most common compounds in the universe and it's also chemically neutral, which allows it to be used to carry other chemicals around our systems without any kind of special protections. That's a lot of stuff for life to find other ways of replicating, especially considering that it's going to take a lot of things that are all less common than water.
Sure, maybe life has found a way in places where there is no liquid water. Life is good at that, but we have no idea what it might look like, or how to go about finding it, so what good does that possibility do us? It makes a lot more sense to look where we know what we're looking for. Every bit of real knowledge we can gain about how other life might actually work expands our ability to search. Screaming that it's obvious that we don't know everything is unhelpful and, well, obvious.
Proof, that's what.A Curious Fellow said:
This is the first proof of this new type of life, therefore it's pretty big news. Science isn't about making assumptions or "What ifs?", at least not in furthering an area of research. It's about proof, and this is proof.
Searching for areas that could support carbon based life forms was a good idea because we know that they exist, and in great abundance on earth.
One thing that has always confused me in NASA's search for aliens: Why do they look for earth-like life? If we do happen to find aliens wouldn't they adapt/develop to their planet and use the common chemicals there? It seems like with all the possibilities you can't rule that out, even if it might be more unlikely. Then again my knowledge of biology and space is limited to high school.