NationStates Jolt Archive

Nope! A very, very old one:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/04/16/microbes.antarctic.discovery/index.html


"Under the Taylor Glacier on the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, near a place called Blood Falls, scientists have discovered a time capsule of bacterial activity.

At chilling temperatures, with no oxygen or sunlight, these newly found microbes have survived for the past 1.5 million years using an "iron-breathing" technique, which may show how life could exist on other planets."


So what are the limits as to what life can endure? A million and a half years w/ no air or sunlight and burried under ice. Seems like there is a LOT more life in the universe than anyone expected.

We have always thought that oxygen driven life was the only thing around. Lately, thanks to scientific interest in extremophiles, we have found that there is life right here on our own planet driven by sulfur, methane, hydrogen sulfide etc. Now iron!

And then you have to wonder....Are those microbs us in the beginning? Does all life start off breathing iron? There are ba-jillions of ice comets in the universe and these microbes were found burried in ice. Also an awful lot of iron in space too.

It seems that life in the universe is the rule, not the exception.

It seems that life in the universe is the rule, not the exception.
That's a tad strong... there's a hell of a lot of space in space.

Also, Blood Falls well deserves its name:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/tierneylab/16tlab_bloodfalls.480.jpg

We don't know, yet. We can find lots of examples of how life might come into being in places other than home, but we've yet to find anything anywhere other than Earth.

The chances are looking better and better though. However, with that said, there's a long step between microbes and intelligent life (Or semi-intelligent like us).

there's a long step between microbes and intelligent life (Or semi-intelligent like us).

Which begs the question, does that long step begin with thawing ice?

Which begs the question, does that long step begin with thawing ice?
Who knows? We've (Meaning the life on this planet) have been cooked and frozen at various points in time. Right now it does seem as if liquid water is what is needed to start, but we honestly don't know.

Ice and iron = life. Lots of ice & iron out there.

Ice and iron = life. Lots of ice & iron out there.
But the problem is that it isn't just ice and iron. It's ice + iron + Earth + enviromental and evolutional history = life. There's lots of ice and iron, we just don't know how big of a role the other two play and how reproduceable they are in the universe.

Yawn.
Here: go with this (http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2006-06/it-raining-aliens) story.

Particles that are reproducing despite the lack of DNA? Now that's unusual!

We don't know, yet. We can find lots of examples of how life might come into being in places other than home, but we've yet to find anything anywhere other than Earth.


Given we've hardly even properly explored our own solar system let alone anywhere else I'd hardly say that's surprising.

Given we've hardly even properly explored our own solar system let alone anywhere else I'd hardly say that's surprising.

And as this article shows, we have not even completely examined our own planet yet...

You're back! Again! We've got 2 Global Warming threads for you to crusade into you, it must be your lucky day. Anyway, this isn't the 1st being that can survive without oxygen. What about water bears?

You're back! Again! We've got 2 Global Warming threads for you to crusade into you, it must be your lucky day. Anyway, this isn't the 1st being that can survive without oxygen. What about water bears?

I posted a pretty definitive link about Polar ice on a recent GW thread. (the most in depth and extreme ice study ever) No response yet.

The "iron breathing" part is what blows my mind. I'd bet the asteroid belt is loaded with these microbes.

The "iron breathing" part is what blows my mind. I'd bet the asteroid belt is loaded with these microbes.

Well, if you'd just give me your credit card and bank account details, that bet can be arragned. I'll have to take everything in your account as a deposit though, of course. :tongue:

Well, if you'd just give me your credit card and bank account details, that bet can be arragned. I'll have to take everything in your account as a deposit though, of course. :tongue:

CC# is BR-549! :tongue:

My working theory now is that Mars crashed into a planet which formed the asteroid belt and eventually brought some of these microbs to Earth. (or something like that)

CC# is BR-549! :tongue:

My working theory now is that Mars crashed into a planet which formed the asteroid belt and eventually brought some of these microbs to Earth. (or something like that)

As realistic as that sounds, almost all life that has been discovered thus far exists within a scope of 0 degrees to 50 degrees Celsius. Extremophiles are the tiny shavings off the end of a bell-curve. In addition, the conditions in which life has been found to exist (even in extreme forms) are very rare because they are so specific. As much as I would love to see intelligent life living off of iron, it seems very impractical due to iron's reactivity. In addition, cells, no matter how basic, require a vast number of substances to survive. Cells living on asteroids is a pretty absurd idea. While it is nice to dream about exceptions to the general rules that have been established, we really don't have enough data to make any other predictions/assumptions.

I think this is more interesting
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090421-most-earthlike-planet.html
They "found" a planet only two times the earth's mass and said another could have liquid oceans and its only ~20 light years away...

As realistic as that sounds, almost all life that has been discovered thus far exists within a scope of 0 degrees to 50 degrees Celsius. Extremophiles are the tiny shavings off the end of a bell-curve. In addition, the conditions in which life has been found to exist (even in extreme forms) are very rare because they are so specific. As much as I would love to see intelligent life living off of iron, it seems very impractical due to iron's reactivity. In addition, cells, no matter how basic, require a vast number of substances to survive. Cells living on asteroids is a pretty absurd idea. While it is nice to dream about exceptions to the general rules that have been established, we really don't have enough data to make any other predictions/assumptions.

Well anything is possible. But I also don't think there is intelligent, iron breathing life. My theory is that the microbs that were found were the same as a couple/few billion years ago and that iron breathing life evolves into water creatures and then land dwellers. (us)

Why not on asteroids? Lots of iron and ice on them.

I think this is more interesting
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090421-most-earthlike-planet.html
They "found" a planet only two times the earth's mass and said another could have liquid oceans and its only ~20 light years away...

Very interesting. With all the ice comets still in space (a LOT of them) there has to be millions upon millions of planets with water. SOME of them would have to produce intelligence at some point in time.

My working theory now is that Mars crashed into a planet which formed the asteroid belt and eventually brought some of these microbs to Earth. (or something like that)

*points to self*
This is an astronomer.
*reads quoted section*
*does not know where to start on this*

The article in the OP doesn't even claim that the microbes found in Antarctica are extraterrestrial. It suggests that they started out in the open seas and just survived/adapted to life under a glacier eating iron. To suggest that just because things can survive under ice and eat rocks means that the solar system must be full of these is silly because survival isn't everything. Before life can survive, it must arise and this might require more specific conditions.

Further, the asteroid belt is likely an asteroid belt instead of a planet due to the influence of Jupiter which prevents planets from forming in that region. Things have hit Mars in the past and brought rocks (possibly with fossilized microbes inside, though there's some debate on this) to Earth, however, it is possible that even if there was life on Mars in the past, it has not adapted to survive the current conditions on Mars.

Oh and also, if Mars crashed into a planet, there would be no Mars (at least not as we know it). A Mars sized-body likely collided with the Earth when the solar system was forming, throwing off material for our Moon so an impact like that is pretty catastrophic. If there was life on Mars before such an impact, there would not have been afterward.

Oh and also, if Mars crashed into a planet, there would be no Mars (at least not as we know it). A Mars sized-body likely collided with the Earth when the solar system was forming, throwing off material for our Moon so an impact like that is pretty catastrophic. If there was life on Mars before such an impact, there would not have been afterward.

Oh but little spaceships manage to fly away and one of them turns to leave some DNA on Earth, we'll decode it all when we find the 'face on Mars'.

Lord that was one awful movie.

Haven't we watched enough movies and shows, played enough games to know that thawing ancient lifeforms of all shapes and size from mountains of ice is always bad news?

The article in the OP doesn't even claim that the microbes found in Antarctica are extraterrestrial. It suggests that they started out in the open seas and just survived/adapted to life under a glacier eating iron. To suggest that just because things can survive under ice and eat rocks means that the solar system must be full of these is silly because survival isn't everything. Before life can survive, it must arise and this might require more specific conditions.

I think this is what I was trying to get at but... not really. I think it is safe to say that life in the asteroid belt is improbable, at best. However, it is likely that other microbes may have adapted to environments on other habitable planets. Until the cause of the origin of life on earth has been discovered, it is difficult to determine exactly where most life will occur, or how it survives. While this discovery does further prove that microbes could theoretically thrive on planets lacking oxygen, it doesn't go much further than that. Not until we actually find extraterrestrial life can we begin to fully understand the inner workings of life in the universe.

Haven't we watched enough movies and shows, played enough games to know that thawing ancient lifeforms of all shapes and size from mountains of ice is always bad news?

You would think, wouldn't you? :p

*points to self*
This is an astronomer.
*reads quoted section*
*does not know where to start on this*

The article in the OP doesn't even claim that the microbes found in Antarctica are extraterrestrial. It suggests that they started out in the open seas and just survived/adapted to life under a glacier eating iron. To suggest that just because things can survive under ice and eat rocks means that the solar system must be full of these is silly because survival isn't everything. Before life can survive, it must arise and this might require more specific conditions.

Further, the asteroid belt is likely an asteroid belt instead of a planet due to the influence of Jupiter which prevents planets from forming in that region. Things have hit Mars in the past and brought rocks (possibly with fossilized microbes inside, though there's some debate on this) to Earth, however, it is possible that even if there was life on Mars in the past, it has not adapted to survive the current conditions on Mars.

Oh and also, if Mars crashed into a planet, there would be no Mars (at least not as we know it). A Mars sized-body likely collided with the Earth when the solar system was forming, throwing off material for our Moon so an impact like that is pretty catastrophic. If there was life on Mars before such an impact, there would not have been afterward.


Well, as I said: There is a LOT of iron in space:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/ironfisted-space-bullets-give-scientists-a-glow/2007/03/22/1174153258343.html

THEY are cosmic "bullets", bigger than our solar system, far faster than the speed of sound and filled with enough iron to satisfy China's needs for eternity.


The Mars collision theory is possible:
http://library.thinkquest.org:80/C004580/anomalies/asteroid.html
There are two possibilities of the asteroids' origin. When the solar system was forming from the dust and pieces that floated around, the asteroids were the left over bits and pieces of the puzzle that never got to be put together to form a planet like the others. It is also possible that these asteroids broke off from a mother planet, or exist as the remnants of a mother planet that once stood as the fifth planet in our solar system. Perhaps, Mars attacked. The placement of the theoretical mother planet would explain the existence of the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Of course, these are only creative theories. We still do not know the origin of the asteroids that roam around our solar system.

A collision with a moon would also be possible.

BTW: It was you astronomers that messed up the economy you know. You never should have fired Pluto. Whet it was determined that Pluto was no longer a planet, he filed an unemployment claim, then everybody else said "Hey! I'm not a planet either!" And then the number of claims skyrocketed! :tongue: