NASA Confirms Discovery of Arsenic-based Life Form

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

neilnh

Distinguished
Nov 16, 2009
9
0
18,520
1
[citation][nom]DScott79[/nom]What created God? What created the thing that created God? What created the thing that created the thing that created God? Rinse, repeat ad finitum...[/citation]

Actually, theists generally believe in an eternal, uncreated God. Atheism is the realm of infinite regression.
 

nebun

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2008
1,160
0
19,240
2
[citation][nom]Xatos[/nom]I laugh at the people who put so much faith in science and man. Everyday we find out we're wrong. Too funny.i would put my faith in science rather then in a story that someone made up...do you really believe that all the crap in the bible is true?[/citation]
i would put my faith in science rather then in a story that someone made up...do you really believe that all the crap in the bible is true?
 

K2N hater

Distinguished
Sep 15, 2009
203
0
18,830
0
Believers will always believe, no matter what happens. The ones who do not are never to accept anything as a definite truth. Science is the broad line between these 2 opposites.
 

jedi940

Distinguished
Mar 11, 2007
19
0
18,570
1
[citation][nom]DScott79[/nom]What created God? What created the thing that created God? What created the thing that created the thing that created God? Rinse, repeat ad finitum...[/citation]

You could also say, what thing created the earth? What thing created the thing that created the earth. Something had to exist in the beginning. Something had to always be there. That thing is God. You can follow your logic back as long as you want but you will still get to the same place. Something/someone must have always existed to create the universe and everything in it.
 

makrish

Distinguished
Jun 24, 2010
5
0
18,510
0
To all those who don't understand the enormity of this find - other planets do not have the elemental make-up of Earth. Other planets may be deficient in phosphorous and have excessive arsenic. This proves that life is sustainable with arsenic substituting phosphorous, and increases the number of planets on which life is sustainable. Maybe not Earth life, but other, as yet unknown, species (microbes or maybe even larger).

Basically, this is big. What other elements are also substitutable in DNA? How many different forms of DNA are there? How many planets is it now possible for life to form on? Very, very, big.
 

wiyosaya

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2006
396
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]sseyler[/nom]Science isn't about right and wrong. It's about a continual process of revising knowledge through a combination of logical deduction and empirical confirmation.[/citation]
While I am not a proponent of sitting back and attributing all the answers to some higher power as I think that fosters ignorance, I am also acutely aware that many scientists lack humility and assume that science has all the answers.

Yes, indeed, as you so aptly put it, science is a continual process of revising knowledge through a combination of logical deduction and empirical confirmation, however, history has shown that there are many out there, "scientists" included, who assume "we know it all." The truth of the matter is that we do not know it all, and those who assume that we do would likely provide more benefits to humanity if they were to assume exactly the opposite.
 

uruquiora

Distinguished
Mar 19, 2010
30
0
18,580
0
sounds a bit disapointing for a finding supposed to make a significant move towards the existence of extra life forms in the universe tbh ...
 

angelraiter

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2007
40
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]mleejr[/nom]You have horrible punctuation, grammar and spelling. I generally forgive most internet grammar and spelling, but I'm not the one here throwing stones. As for you being the definition of genius, you didn't even lay out the scale definitions or alternates or groups. Is it age? IQ? The basis of meaningful data is defining the type of measurement (ordinal, etc), unit, scale, etc. You included none of these. This happens all the time. I hear some politician or news person say "some sort of data is 20!" but the data is completely out of context. Is it out of 20? Is it logarithmic? etc.I assume your scale is age and your chosen group is people within that age that believe in god. The alternate to your group is those that do not believe in god...is that a correct assumption?If that is correct, then you are an idiot. An idiot, however, does not know that he is an idiot. I am agnostic but do not think that anyone who believes in God is automatically an idiot. BTW, one of the greatest theologians was my idol Sir Isaac Newton.How is anyone age 10-30 that is a Christian hurting everyone around them? I am surrounded by Christians and love them. They tend to be the nicest people. They may not agree that this is a sign of evolution, but I don't have the venomous hatred that you do.You sound like a retarded Hitler. One could easily add the line "Throw them all in ovens." to the end of your diatribe and it would not seem even the slightest bit out of context.[/citation]

I think I love you.
 

leroy-rogers

Distinguished
Dec 3, 2010
1
0
18,510
0
It seems to me that the definition may have been reduced, not expanded. The bacteria may have replaced phosphorous with arsenic, or rather was forced to by the nature of the lake and researchers, but it is still a carbon based life form, a bigger deal may be finding a silicon based life form. In either case it may be a truer test if this new creature could develop other forms, but it just may be hazardous to the current scheme, or at least not react well. The challenge to astrobiologists or other fields may be asking do they play well together, the arsenic and phosphorous entities, and is arsenic found in sufficient quantity absent of phosphorous? It will be interesting to see what develops. No pun intended.
 

thebigt42

Distinguished
Sep 10, 2009
164
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]chriskrum[/nom]I laugh at people of faith. If it were up them we'd be slitting the throat of a goat every year to make it rain.[/citation]
And the people of faith pray for you. Just because you have faith does not mean you can't believe in science.

 

ben BOys

Distinguished
Dec 14, 2008
22
0
18,560
0
s=first evidence that life can live in other enviroment that would otherwise kill humans i.e arsenic instead of oxygen atmosphere, sulphuric acid instead of water and well you know the rest ect
 

ben BOys

Distinguished
Dec 14, 2008
22
0
18,560
0
[citation][nom]makrish[/nom]To all those who don't understand the enormity of this find - other planets do not have the elemental make-up of Earth. Other planets may be deficient in phosphorous and have excessive arsenic. This proves that life is sustainable with arsenic substituting phosphorous, and increases the number of planets on which life is sustainable. Maybe not Earth life, but other, as yet unknown, species (microbes or maybe even larger).Basically, this is big. What other elements are also substitutable in DNA? How many different forms of DNA are there? How many planets is it now possible for life to form on? Very, very, big.[/citation]

I'm basically with you on this one. i believe that there was a cause to the creation of the universe however i think you are same as me you don't believe in god just a cause. and well certainly you shouldn't be prasing the basterd because well what ever god is has done shit since
 

pabeader

Distinguished
May 3, 2010
23
0
18,560
0
[citation][nom]jebediah morningside[/nom]tell us what we really wanna know. how do they taste??[/citation]
Chicken!
 

wiyosaya

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2006
396
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]uruquiora[/nom]sounds a bit disapointing for a finding supposed to make a significant move towards the existence of extra life forms in the universe tbh ...[/citation]
IMHO, it does just that. We now know that DNA can be made from at least two different chemicals. This implies that it is possible for life to have evolved on planets that are significantly different in terms of chemical makeup than the Earth. Life may even develop on planets where life from Earth could not survive without some form of protection (i.e., space suit, gas mask, etc.) If you look at Drake's Equation, this is likely to at least double the parameter "n"sub"e" meaning that this immediately doubles the number of possible extraterrestrial civilizations - IMHO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS