At their conference today, NASA scientist Felisa Wolfe Simon will announce that they have found a bacteria whose DNA is completely alien to what we know today. Instead of using phosphorus, the bacteria uses arsenic. All life on Earth is made of six components: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur. Every being, from the smallest amoeba to the largest whale, share the same life stream. Our DNA blocks are all the same.
But not this one. This one is completely different. Discovered in the poisonous Mono Lake, California, this bacteria is made of arsenic, something that was thought to be completely impossible. While she and other scientists theorized that this could be possible, this is the first discovery. The implications of this discovery are enormous to our understanding of life itself and the possibility of finding beings in other planets that don't have to be like planet Earth.
All the sci-fi books say alternate life forms are made out of silicon. But freakin' arsenic? Truth really is stranger than science fiction. This is nifty stuff, folks. Biology just got a shot in the arm here.
I wonder what the no-science arm of the GOP has to say about this. Probably that we need to cut NASA's funding before arsenic terrorists turn all our kids gay or something.
Still, for the scientists at NASA? You'd better believe this is an EPIC WIN of evolutionary proportions.
[UPDATE] Some clarification from the NASA press conference today:
According to Wolfe Simon, they knew that "some microbes can breathe arsenic, but what we've found is a microbe doing something new—building parts of itself out of arsenic." The implications of this discovery are enormous to our understanding of life itself and the possibility of finding organisms in other planets that don't have to be like planet Earth. Like NASA's Ed Weiler says: "The definition of life has just expanded."
Nifty.
Posts
13 comments:
I wonder what the no-science arm of the GOP has to say about this.
I believe the correct question should have been, what do those who worship Al Gore as a god in the religion of man-made global warming have to say about this. I'll prove it.
FTA:
All life on Earth is made of six components: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur. Every being, from the smallest amoeba to the largest whale, share the same life stream. Our DNA blocks are all the same.
So as far as a consensus of scientists was concerned, life could only exist on earth if they contained these six components. Period, end of story.
FTA:
But not this one. This one is completely different. Discovered in the poisonous Mono Lake, California, this bacteria is made of arsenic, something that was thought to be completely impossible.
Say goodbye to consensus.
Let's move to the religion of man-made global warming. According to these religious fanatics, there is a consensus of scientists who believe in man-made global warming and that the earth is doomed within the next few decades if trillions of U.S. taxpayer dollars aren't spent to curb it, regardless of whether or not it can be done. Even as it has been proven that these man-made global warming scientists have been manipulating data and not allowing for alternative views, the supposed consensus is that man-made global warming is true. Period, end of story.
The so-called "no-science arm of the GOP" has stated categorically that the science of man-made global warming isn't settled at all, and to spend all those trillions of taxpayer dollars on it is ridiculous. They say more scientific study is needed. But instead of working on science, the man-made global warming scientists and leftists make it a point to avoid any debate, and get away with it for the most part.
So now we have a scientific consensus on what was thought was needed to define what components are needed for life on earth thrown on its head. Actual science was used to show this new finding.
So why don't man-made global warming scientists use science to prove they are right? Because they aren't interested in science and more interested in spreading their new religion, complete with a god (Al Gore) and tithing that will fill their wallets.
So for the religious fanatics who want to spread their man-made global warming faith, what do you have to say about a scientific consensus that was completely turned on its head by actual science?
I say it's an exciting development in the field of molecular and evolutionary biology.
But you're saying that because we literally don't know absolutely everything about science (and can never know everything) that we can never, ever take action on global warming.
Since no amount of studies will ever be convince you that global climate change is a problem, because you will always say that "the science isn't settled" that means in your view we can never do anything about it.
Having said that, I sure hope you're planning to never use a computer, cross a bridge, dial a telephone, eat food grown with fertilizer and pesticides, or wear clothing made of artificial fibers again, or for that matter use any engineered product of applied science again.
The science isn't settled and it may be wrong, so we can't use anything concrete derived from it. That would be making a best guess based on a complex scientific theory with several variables, which leaves unacceptable levels of doubt.
The bridge might collapse. The computer may have a hardware or software failure. The telephone call may be disconnected. The food may be carrying bacteria. The clothing may rip or tear. There's a measurable chance of that happening. We could discover something tomorrow that could make all of the current theories that govern the creation of those items obsolete.
Best not to do anything then. The science isn't settled.
Which is the whole point of science. It grows and changes. If there's a discovery tomorrow that gives us a clean, easy cheap way to regulate climate, I'm all for it. I would love to see that.
Until that happens, we should function on a best guess of actual scientific theory...which for Republicans means "let the free market use technology to create wonderful products for us to profit off of and to create jobs but I don't want to hear about evolution or climate change because science doesn't have all the answers."
Nice try, however.
Why is this moron using what is an interesting discovery in the biological sciences to lauch yet another screed about how climate change isn't real because scientists are poopoo heads and god would never flood the earth and it's cold outside so global warming is a religion.
Seriously, what the fuck.
Why is this moron Zandar using what is an interesting discovery in the biological sciences to lauch yet another screed about how Republicans are poopoo heads.
Seriously, what the fuck.
FTFY.
Our "pro-science" president decided he no longer wants to provide global leadership in manned space flight, so he cut NASA's funding and will now let the Chinese and Russians assume the leadership role. Obama decided he'd rather pay Russia to taxi our astronauts to the International Space Station than upgrade the shuttles. After running up multi-trillion budget deficits, NASA is the one area he decided to cut spending on. But you probably knew that, and just decided to take a gratuitous shot at the GOP anyway.
Don't you assholes ever get sick of your own condescending attitude?
And nowhere did I say I agreed with the cuts to the Constellation program. I absolutely called Obama out when he proposed that.
It's just as wrong as the cuts Republicans have made to the NIH, NOAA, NASA, and other science outfits in the government.
Republicans continue to attack science as partisan hokum and scientists as dangerous elitists while happily profiting off of new technology these scientists create. Anyone who points that out is "condescending".
Zandar:
If there's a discovery tomorrow that gives us a clean, easy cheap way to regulate climate, I'm all for it.
Regulate climate? Do you think these politicians and scientists are gods? Why not say we can regulate the sun. Why not say we can regulate tectonic shifting. Why not say we can regulate the other objects in the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe. You are proving more and more that what you call man-made global warming is a religion, complete with god(s), scripture, and preachers. And it's a false religion to boot.
Republicans continue to attack science as partisan hokum and scientists as dangerous elitists while happily profiting off of new technology these scientists create.
Wrong again. You liberals just hate being questioned or having an actual debate. Worse, there are scientists who believe more in their ideology and the amount of money in their wallets than in their science.
Actually, Gizmodo screwed the pooch with their early report. These bacteria do not use arsenic in place of phosphorous. They do not have alien DNA. And they most certainly are a carbon-based life form. A scientist and her team weaned the bacteria off phosphorous and gave them arsenic instead. And they didn't die; they thrived.
Not sure how Gizmodo came to screw up the story so badly...
Sure, and ignore the points I did make, Steve.
Who doesn't want a debate, indeed.
The Guardian says that the bacteria can consume either phosphorus or arsenic, and were trained to do so. Kinda neat.
Still, I dunno where the alien DNA came from, it's just an evolutionary mechanism.
Granted, it's a completely new one.
Anonymous, Zandar:
Manned spaceflight is a travesty and a tragedy. It is not good science; in fact, its main effect has been to deprive unmanned spaceflight - which is great science - of both funds and attention, especially the former. Obama's NASA plans to curtail pointless orbital masturbation in favor of actual unmanned research are in line with Bob Park and with many other people who love actual science. It's the superannuated eight-year-olds saying "To Infinity And Beyond!" who most vociferously dislike those plans, not the scientists.
Mr. Terra, while it seems to you that proponents of manned spaceflight are merely orbital onanists, you are forgetting (or just poo-pooing) one crucial fact: For the first time in the history of our species, we have reached the limit of our natural resources. There is nowhere further to explore, expand, colonize, and develop, and then repeat the cycle. These endeavors define all of human cultural, social and technological history.
From this, you can draw the simplistic conclusion that it is only natural for us to continue to do so... "space, the final frontier," and all that.
But more significant, frighteningly so to some people, is the counterpoint to that immediately obvious conclusion: Without the ability to expand into another frontier, what do we humans become? We don't know, but history gives us clues. Do we stagnate? Do we consume all our resources and slowly devolve? Do we use them all up and die off? Or do we just kill each other because there's no longer any way to but distance between two parties armed with nukes and bombers and lasers and WMDs?
Proponents of manned space flight want off this fucking rock some day, and if we can't do it, then we'll do the next best thing and take steps necessary for our children or grandchildren to do so.
It's a natural, evolutionary, instinctive drive. And it's the most natural universal quality of Life as we know it.
bughunter,
I agree with your vision, but not with your intermediate steps. More pointless, extraordinarily expensive man-hours spent endlessly circling the planet while getting nothing done won't further extraplanetary colonization. If that was really the goal, we'd be reviving the Biosphere project, here on the Earth, because we're nowhere close to being able to perpetuate a closed ecosystem containing humans; we'd be increasing our unmanned spaceflight spending, focusing perhaps on techniques for prospecting and construction; we'd be working on improved energy generation and storage systems; and we'd be doing a lot more to slow climate change, because we're nowhere close to being able to colonize the moon yet and we're going to need to buy some time.
What we wouldn't do is dig up John Glenn and send him joyriding around the planet again. We wouldn't build a ridiculous moonbase dependent on the Earth for all of its daily needs. We wouldn't send jet pilots to Mars to stay for a short period and learn much less than robots could at a fraction of the expense.
Indeed, the only part of the current manned spaceflight program that's even minimally useful for eventual space colonization is heavy lifting capacity - but we neither know how to build nor are proposing to learn how to design anything worth lifting into orbit on those big rockets, so it's a bit moot.
Post a Comment