It isn't so much that they think that life could only happen in certain very narrowly defined ways as that there are chemical realities that make some possible biochemistries much more unlikely to actually happen.

So the news isn't so much that some deviation is possible it is in the fact that it has actually be discovered in the wild. Theorists have worked out biochemistries much more divergent (such as silicon based as opposed to carbon based) systems. What this discovery does is more play with the assumed odds of various lifeforms (when there's only one biochemical system proven to work in the wild, it makes sense that you look for conditions appropriate to that one).

It's life Jim, but not as we know it.
—Spock

There're Klingons off the starboard bow, starboard bow, starboard bow...

Thanks... I really didn't need a new earworm.

But'cha ARE Blanche! Ya ARE hearin' that song in your head (and in that chair) :evil:


This is The Gay Thread, right?

No.

luv you too. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry you feel insulted, but if you think that, "Not yet proven to be part of accepted biological theory" equates to, "We're too egotistical and closed minded to think it's possible," then you simply do not understand how scientific theory works.

"According to a new paper published in the journal Science, reporters are unable to thrive in an arsenic-rich environment."

Damn, I can't give arsenic mojo.