Nasa Finds New Life - On Planet earth

At their conference today, NASA scientist Felisa Wolfe Simon will announce that they have found a bacteria whose DNA is completely alien to what we know today. While she and other scientists theorized that this could be possible, this is the first time that this has been confirmed. Instead of using phosphorus, the bacteria uses arsenic. All life on Earth is made of six components: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur. Every being, from the smallest amoeba to the largest whale, share the same life stream. Our DNA blocks are all the same. But not this one. This one is completely different. Discovered in the poisonous Mono Lake, California, this bacteria is made of arsenic, something that was thought to be completely impossible. 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. No details have been disclosed about the origin or nature of this new life form. We will know more today at 2pm EST but, while this life hasn't been found in another planet, this discovery does indeed change everything we know about biology.

Pretty cool - but surely it was only a matter of time before the theory was proven right?

Article on Gizmondo

Related article from the Nasa Press conference; Did NASA find life on one of Saturns Moons?

Regards

This is so disappointing if its only about a green blob in a lake...
go nasa explorer of universes

reply to post by Vandalour


Yep exactly, public space programs are a joke.

reply to post by andy1033


NASA is just a smoke screen for the real US Space Program -- military programs. US Air Force conducts more launches than NASA in any given year.

I disagree, this is a big deal guys. The range of possibilities for life out there has just been expanded massively. We might have not found anything bacteria-like out there because we've been trying to find earthling-type stuff all the time. Now we can tick a whole different criteria in the search box and who knows what the result will be.

I find it quite fascinating.

Did thy really find it in California?
Could they have actually found it on Mars with the rover but won't tell?

I was under the impression NASA was supposed to be looking for life on other planets.Why are they looking around at a lake in California?Says nothing about that in their mission statement unless they changed it.

Originally posted by FermiFlux
I disagree, this is a big deal guys.

Agreed, this is really a big deal! It may not be a gray, but it really opens our horizons to new possibilities of the forms life might take.

It literally redefines the term:

"Life as we know it".

That's of major significance.

While this is truly a very exciting discovery, I don't think the cat's truly out of the bag:

news.bbc.co.uk...

That article mentions the same bacteria found in the same lake. The article is from 2008, so I can't see how this is the big discovery -- unless they're announcing that they've found something somebody else has already found.

Either way, arsenic based lifeforms is truly an exciting find.

Originally posted by memoir
That article mentions the same bacteria found in the same lake. The article is from 2008, so I can't see how this is the big discovery --

except the 2008 article fails to mention the life form is unlike any other life form on earth, in fact it implies it's like other life forms which may also have the dormant ability to use arsenic.

So it may be the same lifeform, but a different and more significant finding about it?

So the press conference will not only be about something in a lake in California but it's also something rehashed from 2008? Now i'm really giddy with excitement.

The reason this is big is because it means that Earth had, at a minimum, two separate genesis of life. It means that life can be created multiple times and can survive in places previously believed impossible. And that's just here on Earth. The implications of this point to the likelihood that life exists, in some form, on just about every celestial body. This will redefine how we search for ET life.

Someone posted this video in another thread, but it is worth the watch. It will help understand the implications a bit better. Skip to the 2:00 mark and go on from there.



On a side note, I do find it interesting that NASA is only now holding a press conference on this topic, as this story is almost 2-years old. Perhaps they have additional findings to share. Here is an older article on this topic:

dsc.discovery.com...

This is an AMAZING discovery! Although most ATSers would want to see intelligent life, you have to understand the implications of finding an alien on planet Earth, "intelligent" or not.

I can't wait to see this later today...

Originally posted by Aggie Man
The reason this is big is because it means that Earth had, at a minimum, two separate genesis of life.
dsc.discovery.com...

Well if that's the announcement, that it was a separate case of abiogenesis, then that would be significant. But I'm not sure that's what it means.

The 2008 article you cited refers to an evolutionary process:

More than a mere biological oddity, the discovery adds weight to Oremland's theory that the bacteria's ability evolved billions of years ago, when the first life was just getting started on Earth.

I should probably stop speculating now and just wait until 2PM EST, it's not that far off.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Aggie Man
The reason this is big is because it means that Earth had, at a minimum, two separate genesis of life.
dsc.discovery.com...

Well if that's the announcement, that it was a separate case of abiogenesis, then that would be significant.

Here is a quote from another article. If true, this confirms separate abiogenesis:

Present in the toxic, arsenic-riddled Mono Lake in California is a type of bacteria with a DNA makeup we never thought possible. That is, the building blocks of life -- carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur – are not all present. As opposed to phosphorus, this bacteria's DNA uses arsenic.

www.tomsguide.com...

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Here is a quote from another article. If true, this confirms separate abiogenesis:

Yes I read that other article. Please explain how that confirms another abiogenesis and not an evolutionary process?

How do we know that the substitution of arsenic for phosphorous, or vice versa, or the ability to do so, wasn't some sort of genetic mutation of a pre-existing life form as the 2008 article suggests?

I admit another abiogenisis is one possibility, so I'm not trying to argue against that as a possible explanation. However I can't see why it's the ONLY explanation.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Please explain how that confirms another abiogenesis and not an evolutionary process?

I admit another abiogenisis is one possibility, so I'm not trying to argue against that as a possible explanation. However I can't see why it's the ONLY explanation.

I'm not skilled enough in genetics to take a crack at this explanation. I imagine NASA will have someone on hand to break it down for us. My statement about confirmation of a separate abiogenesis is purely speculation; however, it makes the most sense (to me).

My best guess would be that arsenic is deadly to life (as we know it). So in order for life to mutate this way would have required the mutation to take place before being introduced into the arsenic environment, or else, the organism would have died upon introduction into the arsenic. If the mutation occurred before the species was introduced into an arsenic environment, then why? how?

Originally posted by Aggie Man
If the mutation occurred before the species was introduced into an arsenic environment, then why? how?

One possibility, it would seem to me, is that if it was an evolutionary process (and I'm not sure it was), the arsenic version could have been the first life form to evolve, and the phosphorus version (our version of life) could be an evolutionary branch from that?

But a separate abiogenesis also seems like a possibility.

I agree, let's see what the experts have to say shortly.

The part that is so INTERESTING, is this life form new? Is it old? Is it from space? Is it Alien? Is it from Earth?

We could be witnessing the very beginnings of the future of life on Earth. Maybe mother nature is starting a new project, if you will. Just in case all phosphorus-based life on Earth (including us) gets destroyed, maybe this new arsenic-based life is stronger.

Maybe evolution is making an upgrade.

This is a fantastic dicovery , I hope the scientists partner was called jim ,and he got to use the line...

www.bbc.co.uk...


"The researchers began to grow the bacteria in a laboratory on a diet of increasing levels of arsenic, finding to their surprise that the microbes eventually fully took up the element, even incorporating it into the phosphate groups that cling to the bacteria's DNA.

However, the research found that the bacteria thrived best in a phosphorus environment."