Antarctica's Blood Falls: Extraterrestrial Life Is Possible

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by arcnaver
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

That is because everyone is under the assumption that we evolved from ooz, or evolved at all. I think there is definite adaptation of species, but I do not believe we evolved out of red ooz. I am sorry, but that is just too random.

Well, I think all life (including humans) DID start off as tiny single-celled organisms, but that is not my point, so you can choose not to believe it...

...my point is if life DID evolve from the "primordial ooze" 3.5 Billion years ago, then would why this lake -- which was supposedly exposed to the environment ONLY 2 million years ago -- contain something similar to that ooze?

The connection does not make sense considering the time scales. Life was already flourishing for about 3.48 billion years when this lake was sealed up 2 million years ago. I'm sure it has been contaminated with life much more advanced that the "ooze". I bet modern-looking fish once lived there.

[edit on 9/15/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

This would be correct, the area in question has probably been many different enviroments over the course of its history, including having all manner of flora and fauna. To me what this shows is the tenacity of life, that even in such harsh conditions, life once established can adapt to some extreme (to Human perspective) requirements. Right now we don't any other life bearing worlds to study for comparison. Once we finally find some worlds with life then is when the fun really begins, if we find sentient life then oh boy is our worldview in for a change.

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by arcnaver

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by Extralien

 

The evidence towards a commonality and ease of life throughout the Universe is now approaching staggering and undeniable. The evidence continues to mount, the odds of us being alone are BEYOND slim in my humble opinion. Thanks for sharing, S/F..

I think it is stubborn and arrogant of Man to think that this little blue marble we live on, is the only planet with life upon it, out of the Billions of Galaxies each with their own Billions of Blue Marbles. Just by playing the odds, you get Billions of Planets with Life.

Or, it could very well be an act of Humility to accept God at his word and believe that the earth is uniquely created for life. Humility is the opposite of arrogance BTW. Regardless, everytime I look up at the night sky I am in awe of the infinite beauty God has created, and grateful that I can walk on, and interact with, His great handiwork. I am also grateful that I am a product of His intelligent design and creative power, vs. a happenstance product of randomness that crawled out of a slime pit and evolved to what I am today.

To a being to which time does not exist what is 3.8 billion years? Nothing.

Where did god say he only created the heavens and the earth? Where did god say we are the only life ever?
Where did god say that he didn't create other planets with life?

Also, ask yourself, if humanity is right and there are thousands if not millions of other planets with life how long would genesis be? I mean if he named millions of planets that he also created, how many pages would that take up? Would we really need to know that stuff?

You think you have god 100% figured out? You dare underestimate?

God gave me logic and reasoning skills and I am using them. Open your mind, he gave you the ability for a reason!

Think about this.



And then Think about this.



It is not going against god to think we are not alone in the universe. In fact it make's me more humble just to think about it.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by DaMod]

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Aren't we actually homo sapiens sapiens? I have read that homo sapiens are a sub species of us. I also read that homo sapien is to know as homo sapien sapien is to know he knows...

PEACE!!!

[edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus]

reply to post by Lichter daraus


We named ourselves doubly wise. Ironic really.

2nd line.

reply to post by DaMod


lol...why the hell did we do that?

reply to post by Lichter daraus


Beats the hell out of me. My first guess would be arrogance.

2nd line

This is amazing And I like the way you said that the answers to the universe are here on our Earth pretty much, I agree

Originally posted by debris765nju
Invalid premise in the commentary in video picture.........How can it be frozen in ice (H2O) 1.5 million years and not have access to oxygen? It is an iron rich environment...very attractive to lightning and other electromagnetic features near the planets poles. Salt leeches out of ice, oh yeah, did you notice the images in the ice?

there are tons of anaerobic bateria which thrive in places without any oxygen. presense of O2 is not necessary for anaerobic microbes to live.

reply to post by Lichter daraus


lol.. starred for the giggle factor you gave

And for using "we" when it was a certain particular group of individuals who used that name to label us.

The fact that these microbes have been stuck in this buried lake for all this time is astonishing.
You could argue that the environment they have been isolated in is extremely similar to other world scenarios.

No oxygen, no light and no outside food sources...yet they are stil lalive after all this time.

Now, what interests me is, have tey been re-animated since being exposed to our atmosphere or are these samples of living microbes being taken directly from the source?

If from the source, are the samples being contained in such a way so as to not be contaminated by air or sun light?

Is it possible that this will affect our oceans and sea life? Are we going to suddnely discover a mass of other life forms emerging from this lake?

reply to post by Extralien

In all likelihood these little guys are so specialized that exposure to the outside world kills them pretty fast. Oxygen is probably deadly. Fresh water would cause them to burst. Ultraviolet light, very bad.

Theology aside, does anyone think it's possible that something similar is happening on Europa? It's supposed to have a [relatively] warm saline ocean locked beneath its icy crust, like the lake in the OP, and also has red seepages along the fractures.

reply to post by Phage


That's a good point Phage..
There is that possibility.

Thanks for adding that..


The reason I asked was because it seems fairly obvious that someone has dicovered these microbes alive.. so somehow they got a sample..

This is where the question of where they got their samples from arises.
Either from the source or in the river out of the ice?

reply to post by Helmkat


Yeah -- I agree about the tenacity of life...

...but my problem is with the implication that this is similar to "primordial ooze", ostensibly because it has been sealed up for 2 million years.

However, as I said, 2 million years is a very very short time ago when talking about life on Earth. Two million years ago when this lake was not sealed (i.e., open to the air), it probably had a bunch of relatively modern forms of life in it. Heck, 100 million years ago, the land under that lake was closer to the equator and perhaps was the home of small mammal and dinosaurs.

Again I ask, am I missing something?...or is there some reason to believe that the bacteria in this lake have anything whatsoever to do with "the primordial ooze from which all life evolved" as quoted in the OP's article?

A lot could have happened in the 3.5 billion years between the beginning of life on earth and the sealing up of this lake. I don't see any reason why this lake would contain life similar to that "ooze" when it was sealed-up.


[edit on 9/15/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Extralien

The samples came from the water flowing out of the glacier.

Because water flows unpredictably from below the glacier at Blood Falls, it took Mikucki a number of years to obtain the samples needed to conduct an analysis. Finally, in the right place at the right time, she was able to capture some of the subglacial brine as it flowed out of a crack in the glacial wall, obtaining a sample of an extremely salty, cold, and clear liquid for analysis.

dickey.dartmouth.edu...
Much more information in this article.


BTW, as far as "refusing to accept" the possibility of extraterrestrial life goes; this talk was given at the Second Conference on Early Mars in 2004, which was put on by LPI. Yup, denial, denial, denial.
www.lpi.usra.edu...

reply to post by Phage

Thank you Phage.

Your article from The Dickey Center made more sense than the one in the OP -- and that's because it didn't mention anything about the microbes in this lake being similar to the "primordial ooze".

It's true that this species of bacteria may not have changed in 2 million years, and that is certainly very interesting and worthy of study because other extremophiles could have seeded the Earth 3.5 bilion years ago.

However, 2 million years is a far cry from 3.5 billion years when the "primordial ooze" was around, and the implication that these microbes were of a similar species as the primordial ooze is misleading.

[edit on 9/15/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

Ever so interesting as to why it looks red.

Originally posted by G8tor
Ever so interesting as to why it looks red.

It's rust (iron oxide).

This is an excerpt from the article that Phage linked in his post above:

Mikucki, Pearson, and colleagues based their analysis on samples taken at Antarctica's Blood Falls, a frozen waterfall-like feature at the edge of the Taylor Glacier whose striking red appearance first drew early explorers' attention in 1911. Those "Heroic Age" adventurers speculated that red algae might have been responsible for the bright color, but scientists later confirmed that the coloration was due to rust, which the new research shows was likely liberated from subglacial bedrock by microorganisms.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Extralien

 

I'm sure you'll find people who deny it because of their religious convictions. You'll find people that deny it out of ignorance. Are these the "we's" you were talking about? Because you will not find scientists asserting anything like it.

Come on, man. Are you really pretending not to understand what the OP meant? Where did he say, or even intimate, that the "we" in this context refers to the scientific community. Seems to me that, yes, this is a subject that 'bugs the hell out of you' but that's no reason to distort the intended meaning of the OP, put words in his mouth, and take such an adversarial position.

reply to post by longfade

Even if "we" refers to most average people, studies show that most average people believe that life exists elsewhere in the universe.

The assertion that the majority of people -- and scientists, too -- stubbornly believe that humans are alone in the universe is an inaccurate characterization of the average person.

[edit on 9/15/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by longfade

 

Even if "we" refers to most average people, studies show that most average people believe that life exists elsewhere in the universe.

The assertion that the majority of people -- and scientists, too -- stubbornly believe that humans are alone in the universe is an inaccurate characterization of the average person.

[edit on 9/15/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

Agreed, so then the question becomes "why is that perception still present at all?"

Perhaps it is the zeal present in some arguments against life outside of Earth?