Question of the Day, December 3, 2010

[dmase]

I was expecting an announcement about the discovery of a lost underground moon city but no what i get is a bacteria who can use arsenic to mold DNA instead of phosphate. The worst part, they found it on earth.

 

[My name is Fiction]

So they discovered a new life form on this planet? I don't see how that is exactly world shattering news.

It's not just a new life form, it's a new kind of life form. It functions on a fundamentally different level that was thought impossible up until now. This means that the assumption that all life has the same requirements is wrong. In fact it changes the very definition of life.

What do you mean it has different requirements? It doesn't need to eat (in some form or other), breathe (in some form or other), and reproduce/propagate?

It's even more fundamental than that. I mean requirements as in elements present in order for life to be possible.

So far, all life ever discovered, from bacteria to plants to humans, was made up of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur, so those were the elements that had to "be there" in order for it to be possible for living organisms to evolve (e. g. on other planets).

This bacteria however uses arsenic instead of phosphorous to hold its DNA together and activate proteins, among other things. Its basic chemical structure is different from any life form ever discovered. This means that there may potentially be life on planets that were previously deemed uninhabitable for lack of one or more of the basic
elements.

Finaly some one who understands the magnitude of this!
[too bad I voted for "Important but could be cooler"]

 

[My name is Fiction]

Yay I'm not so insignifigant .. I guess?

 

[joshuaayt]

As a teenager I'm kinda disappointed...but as a scientist? Goddamn, this is cool. The implications of this discovery are immense.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

With this, the religious arguments about Earth's conditions being 'perfect for life' is destroyed.
Of course, they won't understand this and will keep using the argument.

Since the thing was discovered on Earth, it really doesn't.

Like I said...

Huh? I'm not religious, I'm just pointing out the flaw in your logic.

 

[Deguasser]

they found new stuff? where was I?

 

[the1ultimate]

Even though I voted It's important, but it should have been cooler, I'm kind of dissapointed.

It's all very well to say that this means that they can look for life in new places, but it doesn't necessarily mean we will see more discoveries.

Besides, it's basically a terrestrial lifeform which uses a generally toxic element.

In a couple of hundred year's I think we'll be able to find more interesting lifeforms on my still unwashed dishes.

 

[killereddy]

Whenever I saw a science themed show, like NOVA, and they said life has to have these certain things to form, I was always thinking "OR... you don't know every aspect of everything in this infinite universe". I always knew NASA had their heads up their asses and were enjoying the sights and sounds...and smells...ew.

 

[Stu1701]

I was hoping for Vulcans.

 

[Evilsanta]

It's not asari or quarian...But heck it is still quite awesome.

 

[Denamic]

Huh? I'm not religious, I'm just pointing out the flaw in your logic.

If you're not religious and still don't get it, to ever hope an actually indoctrinated person would understand its significance would be absolutely futile.
By the way, before pointing out 'flaws' in other people's logic, you should probably make sure you're right.
You're not.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Huh? I'm not religious, I'm just pointing out the flaw in your logic.

If you're not religious and still don't get it, to ever hope an actually indoctrinated person would understand its significance would be absolutely futile.
By the way, before pointing out 'flaws' in other people's logic, you should probably make sure you're right.
You're not.

And maybe if you're going to so boldly declare that I'm wrong, maybe you should try backing that up with a few supporting arguments.

 

[Denamic]

And maybe if you're going to so boldly declare that I'm wrong, maybe you should try backing that up with a few supporting arguments.

Maybe the fact that the argument that the Earth is too perfect to support life to be a coincidence kinda falls apart when you find a life form that's made up of what is commonly known as poison?

 

[Ampersand]

It seems like it's alot more important then people realise.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

And maybe if you're going to so boldly declare that I'm wrong, maybe you should try backing that up with a few supporting arguments.

Maybe the fact that the argument that the Earth is too perfect to support life to be a coincidence kinda falls apart when you find a life form that's made up of what is commonly known as poison?

Since said life form was discovered on Earth, it really doesn't. If anything, if actually strengthens that argument.
Of course it also suggests that life can thrive in environments that were previously thought to be incapable of supporting life. What this suggests, which I've thought for a while, is that live can exist pretty much anywhere.

 

[Denamic]

Since said life form was discovered on Earth, it really doesn't. If anything, if actually strengthens that argument.

No, it does not.
The whole argument is based on the fact that life requires very specific conditions.
Conditions that must be met or life is not possible.
And that a planet having these conditions is too unlikely to occur naturally, so god must've done it.
This bacteria proves that these conditions are not mandatory for life to occur.
That completely undermines the argument's very foundations and it collapses entirely.

Of course it also suggests that life can thrive in environments that were previously thought to be incapable of supporting life.

Exactly.

What this suggests, which I've thought for a while, is that live can exist pretty much anywhere.

EXACTLY.
Which is the entire goddamn point!

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Since said life form was discovered on Earth, it really doesn't. If anything, if actually strengthens that argument.

No, it does not.
The whole argument is based on the fact that life requires very specific conditions.
Conditions that must be met or life is not possible.
And that a planet having these conditions is too unlikely to occur naturally, so god must've done it.
This bacteria proves that these conditions are not mandatory for life to occur.
That completely undermines the argument's very foundations and it collapses entirely.

Of course it also suggests that life can thrive in environments that were previously thought to be incapable of supporting life.

Exactly.

What this suggests, which I've thought for a while, is that live can exist pretty much anywhere.

EXACTLY.
Which is the entire goddamn point!

No no no no no, the initial argument that was in dispute was that Earth was perfect for supporting life. The conditions required for life to occur and whether or not "God" did it were not in question. Earth obviously is perfect for supporting life because there a literally billions of different life forms living on this rock, the discovery of a new life form based on a different element or compound other than carbon on Earth doesn't change that.

 

[Denamic]

No no no no no, the initial argument that was in dispute was that Earth was perfect for supporting life. The conditions required for life to occur and whether or not "God" did it were not in question. Earth obviously is perfect for supporting life because there a literally billions of different life forms living on this rock, the discovery of a new life form based on a different element or compound other than carbon on Earth doesn't change that.

You either completely misunderstand the entire argument or you have no idea what the religious 'perfect for life' argument even is.
Religion says: Earth is too unlikely to occur naturally because the conditions are too specific, so god did it.
That is the 'perfect for life' argument.
The fact that life that's made out of entirely different materials completely contradicts that.
What is it about this that you do not understand?
And why do you keep arguing about completely unrelated things?

 

[Canadamus Prime]

No no no no no, the initial argument that was in dispute was that Earth was perfect for supporting life. The conditions required for life to occur and whether or not "God" did it were not in question. Earth obviously is perfect for supporting life because there a literally billions of different life forms living on this rock, the discovery of a new life form based on a different element or compound other than carbon on Earth doesn't change that.

You either completely misunderstand the entire argument or you have no idea what the religious 'perfect for life' argument even is.
Religion says: Earth is too unlikely to occur naturally because the conditions are too specific, so god did it.
That is the 'perfect for life' argument.
The fact that life that's made out of entirely different materials completely contradicts that.
What is it about this that you do not understand?
And why do you keep arguing about completely unrelated things?

Well that argument is preposterous to begin with, but until we actually discover a life form living in an environment that doesn't occur on Earth, I hardly think we can declare it invalid, let alone "destroyed."