Nasa finds new life form

(06-12-2010 22:28 )lucent-x Wrote:  you bizarrely lament this discovery because it wasn't a different discovery.

What a bizarre thing to say, I lament this discovery because it's not a different discovery? The whole point of the article is because it is something new and exciting (has everybody keeps saying). I lament nothing bout this article, I was more making a passing comment on the scientist getting excited about it, seen it many times, especially with regards to the sweeping assumption that the earliest forms of DNA had an arsenic back bone. When we where students, it was welcomed to have theories, however, this had to be based on observable fact, not, look we have found a bacteria that has a arsenic in it's backbone, therefore ALL life started this way and the phosphorus is a later adaptation, let alone other planets. The crucial element to all carbon based life forms is, wait for it, carbon, whatever else is screwed into it, is screwed in to it.

I didn't realise my commenting on an article in a public forum was goign to get people so rattled. Other than that I was responding to you because yours was a direct response to mine.

However, in your response to my post, you was the one that brought up the death to supernatural, not I. This too I responded to.

Quote:it's science not accountancy

Mate, believe me, science can be mind numbingly dull, has Edison once said, science is ninety nine percent perspiration, one percent inspiration. Don't be fooled by the occasional documentary you may have seen, they make it look good. It's having a massive interest in how things work that drives most scientist.

Quote:You object to speculation, why?

I never once did, nor do I. But claims with nothing to back up those claims, something very different. There is a reason for this. A lot of scientist speculation eventually gets presented has fact, most famously the theory of evolution (and yes, it remains a theory, no arguments, it is) another is the multi-verse, no evidence for it, but it's all but being presented as fact in some places. Think of those dopey BBC walking with dinosaur programmes presented like a Attenbrough documentary

Quote:I spoke about religion, not god, there's a difference

In which case your comments on this are even more irrelevant, what on earth has the article to do with any religion? You now may see why I picked up on it as I did. The rest of that paragraph is just your own anti religious bias. Bias has habit of twisting opinions, you see religion as evil, others take great comfort from it. But you now see why it's an irrelevance to a scientist doing his or hers experiment. Leave those issues, believes and opinions at the lab door (like Scully does [x files not mod]).

Quote:As to your final advice, 'I would advise you to study much more science in detail...', firstly, don't be patronising; and secondly,'it's cool

Sorry if that came across as patronising, it wasn't meant to be. I just noticed your DNA and RNA comment and saw your understanding was basic, coupled with your irrelevant comment about religion. The smiley face was to indicate the comment was friendly.

Sorry this has been a quickly shot off response, it's before I want to bed.

(06-12-2010 20:49 )MeTarzan Wrote:  Thanks for the clarification, Loulo12:

But this still strikes me as a reductionist viewpoint.

After all, experiments are frequently undertaken to prove/disprove a theory - so conducting one to prove/disprove the existance of God (supposing such an experiment could be designed) is perfectly legitimate science is it not?

Mind you, the advocates of a religious explanation for the world around us are used to working in a vacuum, so little would be achieved.

To be honest with you mate, I'm not interested in philosophy (always thought that pointless), if what I think on the subject following my own personal studies reminds you of a particular train of thought, so be it. It's not even a reductionist argument I have, I can clearly see how DNA/ RNA could easily form, but that is a very different thing to encoded DNA. Nor is it the complexity of things, it's the specificity that is often razor precise and crucial for a given pathway for example enzyme/ substrate complex. The DNA has to be encoded to produce both the enzyme and the substrate separately, and all this is designed to catalyse a reaction taking place far removed from the DNA, now has you know, atoms only have the ability of opposite attraction. So what we have here, is one molecule 'choosing' to 'unzip', that is, brake it's own bonds (which it later joins), to manufacture two other separate molecules, to actively break the bonds of a third molecule because the temperature is to low for it to brake on it's own. Now mate, be easy for me just to brush it off as 'it just happen'. but if this was a court of law?

Trying to find an experiment to falsify or confirm a God would be in the domain of paranormal studies. I'd like to see the test tube big enough

Hmmm, I really loved the quote: "It's like if you or I morphed into fully functioning cyborgs after being thrown into a room of electronic scrap with nothing to eat".

I'm sure it's not quite like that, as we're much 'higher' - or at least complex - lifeforms which depend on a complicated series of biological and chemical processes to keep our very delicately-honed bodies in equilibrium. The human body (and many other animals' bodies; I don't want to be human-centric about this, always an error) is certainly fantastically tough and adaptable, given a half-suitable set of environmental parameters and enough appropriate resources for a fighting chance of survival, but not THAT adaptable!
We only ever survive and 'adapt' in the modern human era by (in essence) cheating the natural selective processes that apply to all other species. And we do it so well, that we convince ourselves that we really are invincible; of course we merely hide behind the fortress walls of our scientific understanding and our social structures in order to ride out the worst of what nature throws at us. Even then, that's only really in the select environments where we deem our chances and opportunities to be best.

My admittedly very limited understanding and experience of microbiology suggests to me that the vast assortment of incredibly simple organisms that we collectively refer to as bacteria are somewhere between animal life and chemical chain reactions. Please correct me if I am far off the mark, loulo12!
Therefore, it more than stands to reason that such relatively simple organisms have a more limited set of criteria to meet in order to be able to successfully adapt to a whole new mode of life. Extremophiles of all kinds are very well known to science, and I admire anything that is capable of living near the deep-ocean hydrothermal vents or 'black smokers', to take just one example. Busily extracting nutrient from an unbelievably (to the layman) hostile environment, these animals endure conditions that simply would not have been believable a century ago.
So, to find that a bacterial strain has been able to rapidly adapt to life in arsenic isn't really that big a leap, is it? Exciting, yes; challenging as a concept? No.

Europa is also believed to have active hydrothermal vents and it's been believed by many in the scientific community that microbial life probably exists there in some form or another.
When we accept that idea, then these arsenic-loving wonders do seem to suggest that the likelihood of even more and more different (but ultimately not that different?) lifeforms existing out in space on other planets, asteroids, possibly even comets, is something that no enlightened person can dismiss too easily.

I for one am heartened by this news. Anything that serves to make Humankind stop and take a long, hard look at itself and its place in the world and the universe is a good reality check, and that's what our oft-blinkered and frequently myopic species needs a temp du temp.

ps - I am actually sad enough to be a 'fan' of nitrifying bacteria. They're really cool, and useful too. Yes, I am odd. But then I love crustaceans too.

Missing key events. Talking bollocks. Making stuff up.
~~~SAVE THE KRILL!~~~

(07-12-2010 02:36 )Krill Liberator Wrote:  bacteria are somewhere between animal life and chemical chain reactions. Please correct me if I am far off the mark, loulo12!

Thats' virusus mate. It's debatable whether or not viruses are living organisms or just highly complex molecules, bacteria are true organisms.

Excellent post though.

Thanks for the correction - I wasn't sure about that one! Always worth sticking one's hand up in class, isn't it?

Missing key events. Talking bollocks. Making stuff up.
~~~SAVE THE KRILL!~~~

(07-12-2010 03:07 )loulo12 Wrote:  Thats' virusus mate. It's debatable whether or not viruses are living organisms or just highly complex molecules, bacteria are true organisms.

Mmmm, I think your assertion itself is debatable:

http://www.bacteriamuseum.org/cms/Evolut...-life.html

(07-12-2010 10:41 )MeTarzan Wrote:  http://www.bacteriamuseum.org/cms/Evolut...-life.html

Huh? From your link

Quote:Important is that bacteria (Eu and Archae) have been on earth much longer than eukaryotes; they are probably the oldest forms of life

Your link confirms what I said, bacteria are true forms of life.

Nice site though. This take me back.

Edit - ps, those archeabacteria are still around, along with the stromatolites mentioned in that link, apparently untroubled by evolution.

(07-12-2010 09:42 )Krill Liberator Wrote:  Thanks for the correction - I wasn't sure about that one! Always worth sticking one's hand up in class, isn't it?

Yup it is, as the Buddhist say, or some ancient oriental people, probably Tsurgi, It is better to ask a question and appear ignorant for a moment, than to keep quiet and remain ignorant.

Quote:

Quote:lucent-x Wrote: you bizarrely lament this discovery because it wasn't a different discovery.

What a bizarre thing to say, I lament this discovery because it's not a different discovery? The whole point of the article is because it is something new and exciting (has everybody keeps saying).

Bizarre? I suggest you read your first comment again, where you dismiss the story as not worthy of any excitement because it's not an explanation for DNA encoding. It's like dismissing a new treatment for cancer because it's not the cure for cancer.

Quote:I was more making a passing comment on the scientist getting excited about it, seen it many times, especially with regards to the sweeping assumption that the earliest forms of DNA had an arsenic back bone. When we where students, it was welcomed to have theories, however, this had to be based on observable fact, not, look we have found a bacteria that has a arsenic in it's backbone, therefore ALL life started this way and the phosphorus is a later adaptation, let alone other planets.

And as I said in my last comment, this is not being set up as any kind of 'proof' for how life started, and nor is it the sweeping assumption you've accused it of being. It's just another area that we didn't previously know about and one that adds to our understanding of life, the title of the article clearly gives its intent - so you'll note that the title is not 'New discovery shows how life started'.

Quote:I didn't realise my commenting on an article in a public forum was goign to get people so rattled. Other than that I was responding to you because yours was a direct response to mine.

Who's rattled? That's a rather unnecessarily dramatic statement to make, I see a couple of people posting and making replies. Why would you think anyone's rattled?

Quote:

Quote:it's science not accountancy

Mate, believe me, science can be mind numbingly dull, has Edison once said, science is ninety nine percent perspiration, one percent inspiration.
...
It's having a massive interest in how things work that drives most scientist.

I'm sure it can be very dull. Doesn't really address my point about there being nothing wrong with a bit of passion and excitement in your work.

Quote:

Quote:You object to speculation, why?

I never once did, nor do I. But claims with nothing to back up those claims, something very different. There is a reason for this. A lot of scientist speculation eventually gets presented has fact, most famously the theory of evolution (and yes, it remains a theory, no arguments, it is) another is the multi-verse, no evidence for it, but it's all but being presented as fact in some places. Think of those dopey BBC walking with dinosaur programmes presented like a Attenbrough documentary

I'm not aware of the multi-verse being presented as fact anywhere, it can be discussed and presented without being intended or positioned as the absolute truth you know. Whilst the walking with dinosaur programmes almost certainly took liberties with the known evidences, I don't see the harm with something like that, it's not as if it's entirely fabricated and presented with no merit. And again, like the article, it's not intended or labelled as the absolute truth and answer.

Evolution, 'it remains a theory'... wow. Now that IS a bizarre thing to say from someone who studies science. As opposed to what exactly? What's the next one up from a Theory? so surely you know the definition of a Theory in science, and you want to use that as something against the Theory of Evolution? Evolution is both a fact and a theory, evolution has been directly observed and those facts, along with a lot of other supporting evidence, form part of the Theory framework - which is why it's arguably the best supported theory in science. Given that science is about evidence not proofs, are you advocating teaching nothing at all as fact?. Seriously, the 'just a theory' card is a standard weapon in the religious arsenal, are you happy with children being told it's 'just a theory' and that fully formed magical creation is the only possible explanation? as someone who studies science you're ok with that are you?

Quote:

Quote:I spoke about religion, not god, there's a difference

In which case your comments on this are even more irrelevant, what on earth has the article to do with any religion? You now may see why I picked up on it as I did. The rest of that paragraph is just your own anti religious bias. Bias has habit of twisting opinions, you see religion as evil, others take great comfort from it. But you now see why it's an irrelevance to a scientist doing his or hers experiment. Leave those issues, believes and opinions at the lab door (like Scully does [x files not mod]).

Please try to actually read my comments properly, it may help somewhat. As I explained in my last reply, I was talking about the world of scientific discovery in general - not the specific finding in the article - and I was talking about science in general in response to your objection of any excitement from the discovery made.

My comments about claims made by religion and the fact that they are, whether you like it or not, shown to be demonstrably false against the findings across multiple branches of science were entirely relevant to the comment I was making. I never made any suggestion that the mission of science or scientists is, or should be, to actively target and disprove religion - hence the line 'Of course it's not the 'aim' of science to disprove religion, that's the bonus that comes from it as far as I'm concerned'.

So again, as I said that's a bonus I see from the continuing discoveries and improved knowledge gained in science, which all go to show that the spurious nonsense of things like a young earth, geocentrism, irreducible complexity etc. - all of which assist in indoctrinating people to religion by the way - is harmful and an abuse of science.

Quote:

Quote:As to your final advice, 'I would advise you to study much more science in detail...', firstly, don't be patronising; and secondly,'it's cool

Sorry if that came across as patronising, it wasn't meant to be. I just noticed your DNA and RNA comment and saw your understanding was basic,

Sorry, and maybe I'm wrong, but I rather suspect it was, as you saw an opportunity to climb on your science grad soapbox and make assumptions based on a very short post. Of course now advising me 'Don't be fooled by the occasional documentary you may have seen, they make it look good', doesn't help either; please climb down.

I should add that despite an absence of smileys from my post, I'm not intending any of this as hostile.

(07-12-2010 23:40 )lucent-x Wrote:  Bizarre? I suggest you read your first comment again, where you dismiss the story as not worthy of any excitement because it's not an explanation for DNA encoding. It's like dismissing a new treatment for cancer because it's not the cure for cancer.

Erm, I stopped reading after this.

But taking your medical analogy and trying to apply it to the article it would be like them finding a new illness in an isolated organism and then claiming it was the original cause of all illness known to mankind.

You should take one step back, deep breath and try and understand what I wrote.

Chill out dude.