Welcome to PatsFans.com

NASA discovers new life

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Holy Diver, Dec 2, 2010.

  1. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    NASA - NASA-Funded Research Discovers Life Built With Toxic Chemical


    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.



    CRAZY. This pumps up the odds of life existing elsewhere in the universe a million fold.
  2. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,505
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -5

    If We Are Here
    Why Are They Not There


    :bricks:
  3. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,531
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +45 / 0 / -2

    They are there. They're just not here.
  4. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +26 / 0 / -1

    So wait, science was wrong then? It can't be!
  5. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ---- JAG ----- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,493
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +25 / 1 / -0

    #87 Jersey

    NASA discovered that Harry was still alive :confused3:
  6. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Last edited: Dec 2, 2010
  7. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -0

    Where did that text come from? I thought the bolder part sounded unscientific -- and, well, incorrect -- and it seemed to be contradicted by the very next sentence.

    Sure enough, it doesn't appear to be from the linked NASA release.


  8. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -0

    How exactly was "science" "wrong"?

    (Unlike many people -- and maybe more institutions -- scientists are usually well aware they could be wrong, and are always testing assumptions and "knowledge.")
  9. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,009
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -7

    "Science" and scientists have been wrong many, many times. And they'll continue to be wrong many more times. Why do you question someone stating "science was wrong"?

    The statement said, "something scientists thought was IMPOSSIBLE"...well, obviously, they were wrong.
  10. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -0

    But whose statement was that? It wasn't NASA's -- see my post to HD just ahead of the one you quoted.

    Getting back to your questions -- given the 2nd part of my post you cited, and what I pointed out / asked of HD, I'm not sure your questions really make sense. "Science" isn't wrong because a hypothesis or a theory is found to be false, incomplete or less likely. That's why they're labeled hypotheses or theories -- not facts.
  11. Rossmci90

    Rossmci90 Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Messages:
    933
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The basis of science is to interpret the evidence and observations we have available. As new evidence is found, the understanding of the universe, our world and nature becomes more complete, that is not to say what was understood before was wrong, just incomplete,
  12. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,009
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -7

    I think for some reason, you stand on the side of science. Just my gut feeling Chico. You seem to WANT to defend science likes it's something that should be defended.

    Science never was and never will be perfect. Science can be wrong and will continue to be wrong until the end of time as we know it.

    Keeping in mind that "Science" encompasses hundreds upon hundreds of fields.

    Hypothetical Example: Science says that a particular insect came from "such & such" family. Then they say they wrong and correct themselves. Even if they never actually looked at the DNA of the insect, they were still wrong. Science can't say their previous statement was "incomplete" because DNA technology wasn't available. In such a case, they were wrong, period.

    Otherwise science would be a perfect....well, SCIENCE.
  13. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,009
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -7

    Another one who believes science has never been wrong.

    Guess what...you're wrong!
  14. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -0

    First off, I think you need to re-read my 2 posts from yesterday. What, exactly, do you take the following to mean: "Unlike many people -- and maybe more institutions -- scientists are usually well aware they could be wrong, and are always testing assumptions and 'knowledge.' "

    Second, do I stand on the side of science? To the extent that I know what that means, of course I do. Who wouldn't? Science makes our lives better and it expands our knowledge of our world. Don't you "stand on the side of science"?

    Part of this is terminology, though: I don't know what it means for "science" to be wrong -- science is a field of study, not a particular theory or hypothesis -- a hypothesis being disproven doesn't make the field wrong.
  15. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,009
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -7

    OK...now I see where we're missing one another.

    I probably should have written that "scientists are wrong all the time" instead of writing "science is wrong"

    Does that help?

    I like much of what science has done, but certainly not close to ALL science has done. Am I in awe of science? Never have been and never will be. It's just another field to me.

    The only thing that "awes" me is nature. Oh, and Tom Brady!
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2010
  16. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -0


    Yes, that's what I wrote in the first place! :)

    I'm in awe of certain aspects of science. I think it's good not to take for granted what some of our fellow humans have accomplished. Photos from spacecraft sent to Jupiter? That's pretty amazing. Remotely re-coding software in spacecraft that are exploring other planets? I can't even get my BluRay to update from the DVD I burned. The simple fact of satellite TV and individual GPS systems functioning as they do? All pretty awe-inspiring, to me.
  17. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,009
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -7

    I think such things can be awe inspiring because we don't understand them. But you & I "could" understand it all had we pursued that career.

    I say I'm in awe of nature because it will never be fully understood. And then we have the incredible number of years our planet has existed. Add to that the remarkable consistency of our sun, our orbit...I could go on & on. But I'll stop there.
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2010
  18. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,029
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    Just out of curiosity, what is NASA doing researching lifeforms in the desert? With their limited budget, shouldn't they be concentrating on, I dunno, space?
  19. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,029
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    The article doesn't really answer the question that it asks:

    It would be very interesting to see if they discovered a new DNA sructure based on arsenic. That would be potentially the biggest biological find of the last 50 years (an alternate DNA structure).
  20. 363839

    363839 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,500
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    Science can be a wonderful thing for humanity. It has obviously helped us in many ways. Science gave us nuclear energy but it has also given us the atomic bomb. It has given us our means of communication but it has also given us various weaponry.
    Can science give us our moral values?
    I tend to think it would end up being "Do what thou will".
    That is why that as much as I respect and admire science as a means of discovery, I would hesitate to allow it to make up our moral code.
    Sorry if I went a bit off topic but it just seemed to be where this thread is heading anyways.

    Now this whole whole thing about life thriving in arsenic sure is intriguing.
    Wonder if such a species could evolve into an intelligent life form.
    Wonder how it would effect us. Would it try to kill us or reach out to be our friends. Somehow I doubt the latter.
    Better kill it before it grow.:D
  21. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ---- JAG ----- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    36,493
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +25 / 1 / -0

    #87 Jersey


    I love science and I am always in awe of science.

    What I like best about science ... especially vs politics is that they do their best with available information and are mostly unafraid to go forward and change with new findings.

    The gray area is where science / business or science/politics are in bed with each other. But pure science that is seeking answers for the sake of the hunt is the best IMO.
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2010
  22. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -0

    I didn't think the thread was heading in that direction, but science has nothing to do with morals.
  23. 363839

    363839 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,500
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    I agree. But there are some that think it can.
  24. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Ah, so when Aristoltle said the universe revolved around the Earth, he wasn't wrong, he was just "incomplete".
  25. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    This would be cool, but not entirely unexpected as arsenic and phosphorous are in the same group (same # of valence electrons) so the chemistry would be similar. Kind of like when the scientists asked Homer if the alien he saw was carbon based or silicon based (everything comes back to the Simpsons).

    Pretty cool to discover something theoretical actually appearing in nature though. Also HD I don't think any scientist would think the incorporation of arsenic instead of phosphorous would be impossible, we've just never seen it before.
  26. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,665
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    Absolutely. What Thomas Kuhn referred to in Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The paradigm explains what is known but it changes as scientific knowledge advances and modifies the hypothesis. It doesn't mean science was wrong, just that when evidence doesn't fit the model, change the model so everything fits.
  27. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,531
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +45 / 0 / -2

    God made it eat arsenic.

    Why am I the only one that understands this far more robust theory?
  28. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,665
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    Behave or the Mrs. may serve you a diet of this new bacteria............
  29. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,531
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +45 / 0 / -2

    Arsenic in Old Lakes
  30. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,029
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    I'll have to go dig out my old chem textbooks to further understand the similarities and differences, but at the very least they are not in the same series (Phosphorous=non-metal, Arsenic=metalloid).

    Metalloids share properties with non-metals and metals, but they also differ from non-metals in that they are good conductors. The main thing with metalloids is that their properties are highly dependent on the other elements with which they are reacting.

    It will be interesting to see what the structure of the alternate DNA is. Is it an arsenate deoxyribose backbone?

Share This Page