Capsule Brings First Comet Dust to Earth

Ahhh No, I was pointing out that many "virus" exist outside "humans". That they can exist outside anything with "blood".

Virus can lay dormant from other worlds that have exploded or been impacted by passing asteroids, etc. Virus from outside earth is the issue. Do you think that virus only exist on earth? That is a bit narrow..........

I would think bacteria and virus are "universal". Those from outside earth might be rather nasty once they get here.

As far as how chlorine destroys bacterim, we are saying the same thing. Chlorine "solution" infers HCL. Check you chem shower at the airlock of your lab, the "soluition" it uses will most likely contain "listerine" base and chlorine..........

The term "bubbletight" refers to the specification for the bio-seal that protects the public from the interior of a BSL4 lab.

I don't remember ever saying viruses requried blood to live...they require host cells to replicate and thus live on, that's the only thing I have said regarding that.

Also, I LOVE this quote from you!

Virus can lay dormant from other worlds that have exploded or been impacted by passing asteroids, etc. Virus from outside earth is the issue. Do you think that virus only exist on earth? That is a bit narrow..........

I would think bacteria and virus are "universal". Those from outside earth might be rather nasty once they get here.

Okay, so now you're making generalizations about protein molecules on OTHER PLANETS when they haven't even been seen yet? And you are suggesting that viruses, which evolved AFTER bacteria since they would need s host prior to existing, have evolved exactly the same on some distant planet as they have here and are evolved specifically for human receptor proteins? That would be an amazing feat of magic, honestly. I'm not saying they might not possibly exist on another planet, but I AM saying with almost complete certainty that they would have different structures and would not be capable fo infecting humans as they have never come in contact with them.

As to your Cl comment: I was making the point that you said Cl will disrupt the cell wall, which is totalyl untrue. Cl disrupts ATP production.

I have also never heard the phrase "bubbletight" in relation to bsl4 airlocks. I've always just heard them called negative air pressure locks. It could be an American colloquialism, though.

Ciao,
~MFP

Originally posted by bsl4doc
Okay, so now you're making generalizations about protein molecules on OTHER PLANETS when they haven't even been seen yet? And you are suggesting that viruses, which evolved AFTER bacteria since they would need s host prior to existing, have evolved exactly the same on some distant planet as they have here and are evolved specifically for human receptor proteins? That would be an amazing feat of magic, honestly. I'm not saying they might not possibly exist on another planet, but I AM saying with almost complete certainty that they would have different structures and would not be capable fo infecting humans as they have never come in contact with them.



Ciao,
~MFP

What I am suggesting is that there is some proof of past life on Mars, that some sort of life may also exist outside this planet in the form of Virus or (bacteria) and containment of any specimen from beyond our planet is "prudent" at minimum.

What I am suggesting is that there is some proof of past life on Mars, that some sort of life may also exist outside this planet in the form of Virus or (bacteria) and containment of any specimen from beyond our planet is "prudent" at minimum.

No. Wrong, wrong, wrong. You have been taken in by the media. You need to read mroe scholarly articles and less Time magazine. There is not proof of "life" on Mars. Only one notable meteor has shown any possible link to fossils from Martian bacteria, and it is still under scrutiny from a good portion of the scientific community. It seems the bacterial remains are too similar and abundant to our own terrestrial nanobacteria, making most, including me, believe it is contamination
news.bbc.co.uk...

There is, however, evidence of biogenic features on some Mars meteors. This suggests that some basic organic macromolecules may have existed on Mars at some point, but there is no conclusive evidence as to these molecules' abilities to come together and function as an organism. This is interesting from an evolutionary stand point, but not from a virological or bacteriological stand point, as you would suggest.

Ciao,
~MFP

Originally posted by bsl4doc
There is, however, evidence of biogenic features on some Mars meteors. This suggests that some basic organic macromolecules may have existed on Mars at some point, but there is no conclusive evidence as to these molecules' abilities to come together and function as an organism. This is interesting from an evolutionary stand point, but not from a virological or bacteriological stand point, as you would suggest.

Ciao,
~MFP

www.newscientist.com...

www.newscientistspace.com...

Try these two links, I don't read rags like "Time" only scientific journals.

Perhaps it is your "human arrogance" that is blinding you to other possibilities of life outside this tiny spec of dust.

Ciao baby................

www.newscientist.com...

www.newscientistspace.com...

Try these two links, I don't read rags like "Time" only scientific journals.

Perhaps it is your "human arrogance" that is blinding you to other possibilities of life outside this tiny spec of dust.

Ciao baby................

I simply LOVE how you misconstrue my statements! Really, it's amazing. It's like Bill O'Reilly is right here on this message board. I NEVER said there wasn't a possibility for life on other planets. I think there would most certainly have to be considering the immense number of stars and planets out there. However, I DO feel certain that Mars is not one of these life-supporting planets. It may have had biogenic features at one point, but no longer does. Can you understand that now? If you try to misconstrue it again, I'm just going to have to explain it again, I guess.

Life in space = Yes
Life on Mars = No

As to your articles, if you actually read them, you will see the first one is related to the 1996 meteor which is pretty much denied by the scientific community now because of contamination and the fact that the "blobs" seem to be biogenic, not actualy bacteria. The second one is a study of extremophiles, which I have already brought up. Your article doesn't state that they have found life, or even a shred of evidence for life, on Mars. They suggest that the methan is possibly due to volcanic activity, which is very common on Mars.

As you can see, your articles really have no evidence in them at all and I assume you posted them because they contained the words "life" and "Mars" in them at some point, but not together.

Ciao bella!
~MFP

P.S. This whole discussion has me humming a line from one of my favorite songs..."There's a starman waiting in the sky, he'd like to come and meet us, but he thinks he'd blow our minds."


[edit on 1/25/2006 by bsl4doc]

Try these articles:

science.msfc.nasa.gov...

www.yale.edu...

You do realize your articles jsut proved my point? I said the meteors showed biogenic features, meaning they had remnants of organic molecules necessary for life to be created on them, but not actual life. Your first article is about the possibility of organic molecules, NOT LIFE, being found on metoers, and your second article is about meteors and asteroids role in Earth life in relation to the presence fo organic molecules, NOT LIFE, and extinctions due to impacts.

So, you've pretty much done my homework for me and proven me right and yourself wrong. Bravissimi!

Ciao,
~MFP