Aliens. For real this time.
 

At 2:00pm EST today NASA will announce they have found alien life.

In a lake in California. You guys get all the cool stuff.

interesting. thanks for the tip

where does it say in a lake in ca? Or was that a joke?

No Joke. It's alien life (not extraterrestrial life) that was discovered in Mono Lake, California. It's life based on arsenic. I expect details will be all over the place after the formal announcement.

The basic gist of the announcement have made it out elsewhere.

Here, for instance.

It seems to have something to do with some bacteria found in Mono Lake that might prove that life can exist even without the same set of chemicals we usually consider "essential" to support life.

I like the comment at the end of the article:

Mono Lake already looks like an alien planet. The Tufa Towers are so fascinating.

The Conference is starting, and more news is out.

Ok, so this "bug" uses Arsenic rather than phosphorous but now I'm not clear, is this a branch from our current tree of life doing something freaky or an entirely new and separate tree. The so called shadow ecosystem.

Branch. It's not completely devoid of phosphorous, and actually grow better in its presence, but they just happen to also be able to use arsenic if phosphorous isn't around. They are not part of the "shadow biosphere" and have been shown to belong to the same order as the strains of bacteria that digest petroleum.

So says discover

Well pooh. It's still cool and all but not quite what I was hoping for.

While it shows life can adapt to a wider range of environment it does nothing to address the critical issue of can life develop on it's own in these environments.

On the other hand, I'm glad to see we are already looking for a way to exploit this critter.

I thought something seemed strange when I was in Mono Lake last year.

I wouldn't say it does nothing. The prevailing assumption was that life, whether adapted or developed-anew, could never possibly exist outside of the specific chemical components we know. No way, no how, not even worth looking at. While there's still nothing that shows it could come together from a primordial soup that doesn't contain phosphorous, at least we now, to some degree, can see that, yes, something which we would define, and recognize, as "life" can exist without the exact same set of chemicals. That's a pretty important leap.

Here's one of my Mono Lake photos. If you look closely I think you can see some of these guys landing their alien ship just to the left of that little tufa outcropping.

I vaguely remember an article with Carl Sagan as the interviewee, and he discussed what type of life we might expect to find elsewhere in the Universe. He was (obviously) very doubtful that exactly the same set of circumstances that set up life for carbon based forms on Earth might exist (although, in an almost infinite Universe, I don't know why he would dismiss such possibilities, but I digress...) but he did say that he thought it was possible that organisms could develop along different chemical lines. So, I scanned the above articles, but didn't see if they thought these organisms had adapted to this environment, or if they were of this environment. (Again, a quick scan, but still- if they were the product of their environment, then that seems like it would be pretty interesting stuff).

So, I wonder how this will affect the "Save Mono Lake" campaign?

Reminds me of that Star Trek: TNG episode with the glowing silicate-based life forms that called the crew "ugly bags of mostly water"

Seems odd to me that no one thought this could happen. The universe is such a big place. To think that "life" can only happen when it's like us seems really egotistical and closed minded.

That's a very poor understanding of how science works.

Clearly the biological community thought it could happen - or else they wouldn't have been spending time trying to prove it could. Until now, though, there was no evidence to prove it possible. Now there is.

Yay science.

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.

Is that positive mojo or negative mojo?

It depends on the party you are attending, I suppose. ;)

That is a very funny comic strip! :D

When I first read the article, I was hoping for a silicon based life form as well! So many other things from Star Trek have come to pass in one way or another. Still, it is pretty cool.

One thing I'm unclear of, it would seem that the implications are that this bacteria are new. I understand that the discovery is new, but do we know if these bacteria have been there as long as the lake has? And can it be found anywhere else on the planet?

If it is to be used as a pawn in the game of creationism vs evolution, wouldn't we need to know when it came to be? Couldn't God have created it as well? I don't think He would have to work within a set of rules He created.

Or, does the plain fact that this form of life was able to substitute arsnic for phosphorus enough to prove evolution?

If you believe in God as an entity that would not "have to work within the set of rules He created" then there is no such thing as proof of evolution.

I don't think they yet have a real sense of timeline, but absent a "creator" is unlikely that the bacteria have been there as long as the lake has. It is less than a million years old and it may not always have been so alkaline and heavy in arsenic (it was significantly bigger during the last ice age and was possibly part of a much larger body of water even earlier.

The bacteria are gentically similar to other known bacteria so they are not an entirely independent evolutionary track. Yes, if the report is correct (there has been some criticism of the research, though I'm not remotely expert enough to have a clue how valid it is) it is evidence of evolution but then even most creationists don't deny bacterial adaptation since lesser changes can be observed in something resembling real time (it is at the more macro that the get fidgeting starts).

Granted the "For real this time" title of this thread did not live up to expectations. However it looks like there is still hope for the future.

Julian Assange of Wikileaks had this to say recently:

The truth is out there.

The truth is that the wikileaks guy is an asshole :p

I want to believe.

Yeah, I really think he went just a wee bit too far with Wikileaks.

Not to count the rape allegation.

I do kinda appreciate the touch of anarchy and chaos he has brought - sort of like Facebook privacy settings for governments

On the plus side he's brought into sharp focus how abusive of its ability to keep things secret our government has been. However, now that it's apparent, we should focus on restoring a more reasonable balance (100% transparency is neither attainable nor desirable), and much more continued shenanigans by wikileaks starts to become self-aggrandizing and possibly dangerous rather than socially responsible.

I had read it was not rape but "consensual sex without a condom".

That's a crime?

If you are interested here are all the details publicly available. At least until someone leaks more information.

When I posted, all I had heard was rape. Rape bad. Consensual sex is usually good, but not always (but can bad sex really be that bad?)Which reminds me; I need to go take a leak. Be right back.

I find it amusing (but not at all suprising) that a thread started to discuss the discovery of a new life form has evolved into a discussion of someone's sex life.

Maybe finding a new life form is equivalent to discovering a boner for the first time?

At the risk of breaking a LoT social convention by going back on track.

Oh Oh.

Yes, I love when I successfully CYA my A.

From post #33:

Cover [Your] Ass [your] Ass?