Comments on: NASA Finds New Life

By: Don

Don — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 19:21:29 +0000

This link;

Didn’t make it past moderation when I posted it yesterday. Is there a policy on just posting links without accompanying comment? It couldn’t be the content.

Msg From Abeo: Yea Apologies, Spam filter picked it up.

By: sailor

sailor — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 12:45:24 +0000

“Sorry, but I still think that this is pretty big news. The discovery is that it might be possible for a life form to build DNA etc. with Arsenic as a substitute to Phosphorus. This was not believed possible before, and that has potentially huge implications.”

So we learn something new about the adaptability of life’s chemistry. That is quite a big deal but I don’t see the huge ramifications. More a case of special adaptability

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 11:31:12 +0000

Sorry, but I still think that this is pretty big news. The discovery is that it might be possible for a life form to build DNA etc. with Arsenic as a substitute to Phosphorus. This was not believed possible before, and that has potentially huge implications.

Yes, more tests need to be done to determine if indeed the Arsenic was functioning as a replacement for Phosphorus, but since the Arsenic was found to be at the expected levels with the removal of Phosphates, it’s a pretty good bet. Certainly worthy of a press conference.

To downplay this by saying it was found on Earth, and that the microbes were put under specific conditions to encourage this, doesn’t make sense to me. The fact is, it’s possible, and that’s what’s huge. If it’s possible here, it could be possible elsewhere.

By: mike

mike — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 02:06:10 +0000

cutbacks must be bad, NASA reduced to exploring California instead of space.

By: Rob

Rob — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 16:59:08 +0000

Chris, you are right. The hyperbole always outstrips the facts. I love biology so I found it very exciting, but not quite ET. Still, as I said, it is a new level of adaptation for extremophiles that I personally hadn’t heard of before. That is, if their calculations are correct and it is genuinely substituting As for P in its DNA.

By: Justin

Justin — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 15:51:36 +0000

It’s the terribly illogical conclusions that are drawn as a result of finding something new like this. Because they have never seen it before, then that must mean… ( insert conclusion here).

Thanks for the additional article link.

By: Malcolm Russell

Malcolm Russell — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 15:18:32 +0000

Well said, Rob. At closer look this is not as earth-shattering as the headlines imply.

Here’s a link to a longer debunking article.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/its_not_an_arsenic-based_life.php

By: roz

roz — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 14:13:41 +0000

yeah, chris, i see what ya mean. altho mono lake is a very strange place!

By: Chris McGuinness

Chris McGuinness — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 12:26:01 +0000

Maybe we should not get too carried away. An alternative take on this so called ‘discovery’ | http://bit.ly/egUT7l

By: rob

rob — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:19:57 +0000

The source is NASA. No, life did not arise twice, but responds to the predominant environmental chemistry of it’s environment. If you read the findings, you see that there is still some debate about it all. This organism usually uses phosphorus like all else- however it is capable of using arsenic instead. AND- scientists use their lack of complete understanding to spur new findings, not as blinkers.