So the little green men turn out to actually be red, and far littler than expected....
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
No, these are just scouts, sent here to implant themselves into our brains so when the real aliens (giant green things) get here, they can capture us with mind control.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
There's a lot of information missing in that article that I would need to see before I was convinced.
How did the bacteria end up in the rain?
quote:Not only did Dr Louis discover that there were tiny biological cells present, but because they did not appear to contain DNA, the essential component of all life on Earth, he reasoned they must be alien lifeforms.
How do they reproduce and store genetic information then? I mean, DNA isn't just an essential element of life on Earth, it's kinda an essential element of life period.
What else is there to convince him that these things came from space and are not native to Earth? The only reason they seemed to mention in the article was that they lack DNA. The rest of it was just a discussion of the background of the Panspermia theory.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
The funny thing is, if aliens ever do land, I expect that the first I'll see of it is a thread on Hatrack. So I honestly wasn't sure whether it was going to be for real or not.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: How do they reproduce and store genetic information then? I mean, DNA isn't just an essential element of life on Earth, it's kinda an essential element of life period.
Why do you think that? That's like people who only use AM radio meeting people who only use FM radio, and concluding that they're technologically backwards, because they don't use AM radio.
DNA is one way to store genetic information. It needn't be the only one. Heck, genes aren't even a given.
I suspect that alien life forms will have something that serves the same purpose as DNA, but whether we'd recognize it immediate as doing so... I kind of doubt it.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I was thinking the same thing, Lisa. But then I thought that if it was real, non-microbe aliens there would have been more than one thread started and some of them would have all caps and exclamation points.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
OMGWTFUFO!!11!!!
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
I personally was hoping for a topic edit of "ALIENS!!! IN INDIA!!!"
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
And the question remains, do the mostly vegetarian Indian people eat these aliens? Are they considered plants or animals?
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
The story leads into tonight's Horizon on BBC2, so more details may be available on the web after it airs.
I agree that a certain amount of skepticism is in order. Even if it turns out to be a 'new' form of life I would suspect that Occam would have us investigate whether it were not born in earth's volcanos rather than jumping to the conclusion that it is of cosmic orgins.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: I was thinking the same thing, Lisa. But then I thought that if it was real, non-microbe aliens there would have been more than one thread started and some of them would have all caps and exclamation points.
And, apparently, the number 11, tossed in there for no reason at all.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I read about the blood rains a couple months ago. Looks fishy, but also pretty interesting.
It could change the nature of what we consider to be life, if they are alive and don't have DNA. How many times in the past has our understanding of the limits of science been proven wrong?
We could be wrong again.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
I'm not so sure that we'd be proven wrong. As far as I know, the general consensus isn't that DNA(and RNA) is an absolute necessity for life, just that it is such a good means of carrying genetic information that we've never observed any life without it. I haven't really heard anyone make the claim that life is absolutely impossible without DNA/RNA.
Edit: Not that I'm trying to take away from the significance of this or anything. If this really is life without DNA/RNA, it would add hugely to our understanding, and would truly be a momentous event.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't know. One could argue that someday we'll be able to program to the level of creating an entirely artificial lifeform.
Was Data on Star Trek a life form? It was a major source of discussion on the show, but he didn't have any DNA? It's true that he was an artificial construct, but that only goes to show that it is POSSIBLE that other forms of life exist.
It may end up being that DNA is necessary for life, and we'll keep on believing that until we find out something to the contrary.
Didn't OSC in Speaker say something like "We believe that nothing is possible until it happens, then it's a fact." Something like that, I have the page saved but the book is on the other room.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Life, Earthly or alien, without DNA would be utterly fascinating. I wish the article had given more detail on where these findings will be published, though. How did they determine that there is no DNA? Did they check for RNA? What was the nature of the experiment that showed "reproduction at 300C", and will it be published anywhere? I dunno, one scientist, southern India, no publication information... my crackpot-senses are tingling.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:It's true that he was an artificial construct, but that only goes to show that it is POSSIBLE that other forms of life exist in fictional TV shows.
Fixed your post for you.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The original findings I believe were highly disputed, but I thought that since then the scientist had had them backed up by a lab in Britain.
KoM -
Some might argue that with the technology we have today, we've created life. So no, you didn't fix my post for me.
Unless you're disputing the possibility of artificial lifeforms. Go for it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I do not dispute that artificial lifeforms may come to exist, or already exist. I dispute that the existence of Data, a fictional character, demonstrates anything at all about the real world.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by ricree101: I'm not so sure that we'd be proven wrong. As far as I know, the general consensus isn't that DNA(and RNA) is an absolute necessity for life, just that it is such a good means of carrying genetic information that we've never observed any life without it. I haven't really heard anyone make the claim that life is absolutely impossible without DNA/RNA.
Well, there's a lot of active research looking into exactly how DNA evolved in the first place. As you noted, RNA is also used to carry information- indeed, retroviruses like HIV use RNA as their primary "code." Considering that RNA is capable of forming catalytic units without the involvement of amino acids, it seems likely that RNA appeared first, and DNA arose afterward. Once it did, though, the advantages of having an extremely stable information-carrying molecule combined with the incredible diversity of structure and function possible with proteins gave DNA-based "life" a huge advantage over its RNA-based predecessors.
As far as the evolution of RNA, that's under hot debate. Numerous simpler nucleotides have been described, and biochemists are now attempting to model abiogenesis based on what simple information-carrying organic compounds could have arisen from the primordial soup.
Anyway, that was a pretty long-winded way of agreeing that life doesn't require DNA any more than clothing requires cotton. I'm keeping my skeptic's hat on regarding this alien life stuff though... it seems like they jumped straight from "whoa, that's an odd thing" to "aliens did it!"- the same sort of fuzzy logic in which our friendly neighborhood Discovery Institute specializes.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I do not dispute that artificial lifeforms may come to exist, or already exist. I dispute that the existence of Data, a fictional character, demonstrates anything at all about the real world.
You fail to see how fiction says anything about the real world?
Ironic, considering the site you're on.
Posted by beautifulgirl57 (Member # 9877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Frisco: No, these are just scouts, sent here to implant themselves into our brains so when the real aliens (giant green things) get here, they can capture us with mind control.
Yeah, duh. Hasn't anyone read Dreamcatcher by Stephen King?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You fail to see how fiction says anything about the real world?
Ironic, considering the site you're on.
Right. Because the way Ender's Game is relevant to the real world is that it demonstrates the possibility of large, telepathic, insectoid aliens, instant communications, and the Little Doctor.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You fail to see how fiction says anything about the real world?
Ironic, considering the site you're on.
Right. Because the way Ender's Game is relevant to the real world is that it demonstrates the possibility of large, telepathic, insectoid aliens, instant communications, and the Little Doctor.
I'm pretty sure that what Lyrhawn means is that the show suggests that we can philosophically accept an artificial being as "alive".
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
KoM,
You know very well that I didn't mean it near as literally as you're sarcastically suggesting.
AI exists, currently, not in sci fi. Data is an extrapolation of current technology. What matters is what we're willing to accept as being alive and not alive. Which is where fiction comes in, as a medium for philosophy, if not for a thousand other possible uses in the real world.
If you really, REALLY don't understand what I was saying KoM, explaining it to you won't do much good at all. But hey, I took a stab at it anyway. I don't get why you're being so snarky, either you're in a particular mood, or you really don't get it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If that's what you meant, you should have said "This demonstrates that it's possible for us to consider entities without DNA as being alive." A very different concept from what you actually wrote.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Was Data on Star Trek a life form? It was a major source of discussion on the show, but he didn't have any DNA? It's true that he was an artificial construct, but that only goes to show that it is POSSIBLE that other forms of life exist.
I have to admit, I snorted at that comment, too. I couldn't understand how a fake character on a TV show proves the possibilty of anything. Still can't.
I mean, the FSM existing doesn't show us that it's possible for complex starches to attain flight...the only thing that supports that, or a being like Data existing, is the fact that you can't disprove either.
TV shows that we can conceive of these things, but that has little to no bearing on whether things are actually possible.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd counter that by saying anything is possible until you prove it isn't. Which leaves my original assertion true.
I didn't say that a fictional character on a show was PROOF of anything.
I'll cop to wording my original post wrong, but that doesn't in any way change my original argument. Further explanation got you to understand my point, it didn't change it. I wasn't contending that the fact that Worf is a Klingon means that Klingons might exist, though technically, according to my argument, it'd be that ALIENS, rather than specifically Klingons, might exist.
I guess you'd have to be a watcher of Star Trek to get the original argument without further explanation. I was referring to the argument on the nature of life, and what was necessary for humanity to consider something to be alive. Much the same as to what I referred to when I talked about the irony of you saying that, KoM, on the site of the author of Ender's Game, not because of the constructs of the fiction, but because of the discussion within.
You're basically saying that fiction has no value except as meaningless entertainment. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
That's not basically what either of us are saying, and I'm not sure how you're reading our posts to come to that conclusion.
Yes, Data is a life form with no DNA. Yes, it's possible that there are life forms which don't have DNA. But the first does not "[go] to show" the second any more than The Hobbit goes to show the possibility of dragons existing (not that they don't, mind you). Real science shows us possibilities.
Fiction brings up the question "What if _____ were possible?"
Theories grounded in reality then go on to show us what's actually possible (not merely not disprovable).
None of that means that I think fiction is meaningless entertainment. Asking a question is the first and most important step towards getting an answer.
Conclusions reached using an alternate set of natural laws--in this case those of the Star Trek universe--don't show something to be possible in our reality.
But it does ask the question "Could this also exist in our world?" while opening our mind to such possibilities and spawning further questions.
That's the value of fiction.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Thanks for the lesson.
KoM was reading the two cited fiction sources, Ender's Game and Star Trek at face value, which you weren't. If he can be sarcastic, so can I. *shrug*
I also never suggested that television characters were proof of anything, I'm really sure where you got that from. I admitted to wording my original post wrong, but keep harping on it if it makes you feel better, doesn't bother me any. I've already explained what I meant, and I did it AGAIN even, yet you post as if I haven't said anything except my first post, with the exception of my sarcastic replies to KoM, which you harp on. Curious lack of attention there.
quote: Conclusions reached using an alternate set of natural laws--in this case those of the Star Trek universe--don't show something to be possible in our reality.
Hm, well hey, if we're going to keep it going, let's keep it going. AI exists in OUR world. Data is an AI. He's more advanced, yes, but "real science" is working on AI. Now, spaceships were around in sci-fi in the 40's and 50's, but we never actually had them, if you want to use the shuttles as the best model, until 30 or 40 years later. But we had rocket technology by then, just not the more advanced forms. It's science fiction BASED on SCIENCE, at least in the case of AI anyway and space travel long ago. This whole argument is moot anyway, because my point wasn't that fiction PROVES anything, which I've said twice now, and that I worded my first post wrong, which I've also said twice, but this is just for fun.
So we can drop it, or keep arguing fruitlessly, over something that doesn't matter. Up to you guys.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
This is crazy!
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:So we can drop it, or keep arguing fruitlessly, over something that doesn't matter. Up to you guys.
Well, we're mostly agreeing. Except on the point that you think your first post was merely misworded and I think it should be thrown out as totally irrelevent. Your subsequent posts didn't clarify the original so much as nullify it.
But I think we're in agreement now, so long as you don't still think that I believe fiction to be worthless entertainment. Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
AI that exists currently is nowhere near what we would call sentience. Nor is it likely to reach that point any time soon. We're just good a programming computers to solve certain problems (chess AI) or to appear human (AI programmed to act like a human child and attempt to learn -- it doesn't do terribly well).
As for DNA. Yes of course it possible there's life with out DNA. In science, anything is possible. It's possible gravity will fail tomorrow we'll all go spinning off Earth. But thus far all life we've found, even some things we've found that isn't alive in the strictest sense (viruses) have some form of DNA or RNA. Therefore, the claim that this thing can reproduce and is alive with out DNA is a rather fantastic one. And before I'd believe it, I'd want them to find some new genetic material, that or off some more substantial proof other than just saying in two lines: "It reproduced. It doesn't have DNA."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:so long as you don't still think that I believe fiction to be worthless entertainment.
Furthest thought from my mind Frisco. We're good.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: As for DNA. Yes of course it possible there's life with out DNA. In science, anything is possible. It's possible gravity will fail tomorrow we'll all go spinning off Earth. But thus far all life we've found, even some things we've found that isn't alive in the strictest sense (viruses) have some form of DNA or RNA. Therefore, the claim that this thing can reproduce and is alive with out DNA is a rather fantastic one. And before I'd believe it, I'd want them to find some new genetic material, that or off some more substantial proof other than just saying in two lines: "It reproduced. It doesn't have DNA."
Not that I disagree with you that the claim presented is... not terribly well supported, to say the least, but your logic doesn't really work. All that biology has demonstrated is that DNA or RNA are necessary for life as we currently know it on earth, which is the result of billions of years of tweaking and fine-tuning by evolution. If actual alien life were discovered, then it will have undergone a completely different evolutionary process from ours. I'd be fairly surprised if such life actually used DNA as their sole information-carrying molecule, and shocked if they used anything resembling the genetic code conserved in life on Earth. In fact, that level of similarity, if discovered, would be pretty darn good evidence of shared ancestry.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Not that I disagree with you that the claim presented is... not terribly well supported, to say the least, but your logic doesn't really work. All that biology has demonstrated is that DNA or RNA are necessary for life as we currently know it on earth, which is the result of billions of years of tweaking and fine-tuning by evolution. If actual alien life were discovered, then it will have undergone a completely different evolutionary process from ours. I'd be fairly surprised if such life actually used DNA as their sole information-carrying molecule, and shocked if they used anything resembling the genetic code conserved in life on Earth. In fact, that level of similarity, if discovered, would be pretty darn good evidence of shared ancestry.
I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. If alien life were discovered, we have no reason to assume that it wouldn't use DNA. As far as we know Earth is pretty much what the conditions for life are. A terrestrial planet, in a certain zone from the sun and with certain raw materials available in abundance (carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, water, etc). Life has shown a remarkable tendency to parallel evolution of traits that do their job well. DNA does it's job extraordinarily well. There's absolutely no reason to assume that alien life originating elsewhere wouldn't find its own way to DNA/RNA as a means of passing genetic information.
By the same line of thought, there's no reason to assume that if another method of passing genetic information exists, it couldn't have simply evolved and hidden away in some isolated nook or cranny of Earth. So even if this particulate matter is indeed alive and lacking DNA, that's still not necessarily a reason to jump to the assumption: alien!
Basically when judging the development of life we have an incredibly small sample size: a sample size of one. Experiments we done to recreate the conditions of life's genesis, last I'd read, had produced the same basic building blocks of life that we use (some very basic proteins and amino acids). Which suggests that the path to our form of life is: 1) likely to take place on other worlds in the same condition and therefore 2) to generate life with a similar basic cellular structure to our own.
So I'm gonna fall back to this: till I get more information, I'm skeptical.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Some might argue that with the technology we have today, we've created life.
I'm only a couple of pages in but it looks legit so far.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: No, but I did create him using the technology we have today. My husband helped, too.
Oh, THAT way. Pfft, that's so 20th century.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Well, that's when we created him.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't know if I'd call that so much technology as methodology.
Unless you had more help than just your husband.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
It was a touching scene in the delivery room when my husband threw back his shaggy head and crowed: "It. Is. ALIIIIVE! I have done it! I have created LIIIIFE!" Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Somehow I don't doubt that anyone related to you might have done just that. Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Are you implying that my husband is related to me?
<-- not from the inbred hillbillies.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by beautifulgirl57:
quote:Originally posted by Frisco: No, these are just scouts, sent here to implant themselves into our brains so when the real aliens (giant green things) get here, they can capture us with mind control.
Yeah, duh. Hasn't anyone read Dreamcatcher by Stephen King?
I prefer the way the aliens took over in the prequel to the Tripods trilogy. They basically used a Barney-like kiddy show to brainwash us into loving Tripods.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Are you implying that my husband is related to me?
<-- not from the inbred hillbillies.
He's related by marriage isn't he?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Yeah, well, duh!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well there you go. Related to you. I win!
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
What was this thread about again?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Perfect! Top of the page non sequitur.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. If alien life were discovered, we have no reason to assume that it wouldn't use DNA. As far as we know Earth is pretty much what the conditions for life are. A terrestrial planet, in a certain zone from the sun and with certain raw materials available in abundance (carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, water, etc). Life has shown a remarkable tendency to parallel evolution of traits that do their job well. DNA does it's job extraordinarily well. There's absolutely no reason to assume that alien life originating elsewhere wouldn't find its own way to DNA/RNA as a means of passing genetic information.
Certainly DNA is marvelously well-suited to its task, and as I said in my post, it wouldn't be shocking if it turned out that alien life used DNA (or a variant thereof) as its genetic material. That doesn't mean it's the only way- proteins, for example, are also long chains of monomeric units in which the sequence could conceivably used as a means for storing information. The same goes for polysaccharides- not to mention other nucleotides than DNA and RNA. These molecules aren't used for this purpose on Earth, but that's the end result of billions of years of evolution in a relatively constant environment. On a planet with different environmental pressures, it's entirely possible that another type of molecule might be evolutionarily superior.
quote:By the same line of thought, there's no reason to assume that if another method of passing genetic information exists, it couldn't have simply evolved and hidden away in some isolated nook or cranny of Earth. So even if this particulate matter is indeed alive and lacking DNA, that's still not necessarily a reason to jump to the assumption: alien!
Absolutely.
quote:Basically when judging the development of life we have an incredibly small sample size: a sample size of one. Experiments we done to recreate the conditions of life's genesis, last I'd read, had produced the same basic building blocks of life that we use (some very basic proteins and amino acids). Which suggests that the path to our form of life is: 1) likely to take place on other worlds in the same condition and therefore 2) to generate life with a similar basic cellular structure to our own.
Note that synthesizing amino acids from basic compounds has nothing to do with nucleic acids. Again, it's entirely conceivable that, given similar environmental conditions, a paradigm might have evolved in which proteins themselves are the information-carrying molecules of an organism.
quote:So I'm gonna fall back to this: till I get more information, I'm skeptical.
And so should we all. I'm speaking pretty much entirely in hypotheticals here. Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Just in case anyone wants to get back to the topic, I shall repost the academic paper.
So assuming that the red cells are alien... where would they have come from? How did they get into a comet?
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Who knows. I can say one thing for sure. If this really has an extraterrestrial origin (which is a pretty big if), then it will be one heck of an interesting area for future inquiry.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Maybe the same place where the original cells that spawned life on Earth, and, if there was any, on Mars.
There's possible life, or evidence of former life, in a few places, just in our solar system. Could be that an asteroid hit a planet with life and ejected a piece of the planet with cells on it out into space, and over millions of years or thousands or whatever, they made their way to Earth.
I don't think it's that big of an if, for there to be life on asteroids. We've found microbes on meteors that have struck the earth before (well, at least once).
The big thing would be if we found life that is fundamentally different that what we currently perceive life to be. Or, if this stuff is more advanced than previous microbes found, how advanced?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Ah ha! I finished that article orlox posted...and at the end it talks about how life could get into space.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
A later and more detailed version of the paper including DNA analysis:
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: So assuming that the red cells are alien... where would they have come from? How did they get into a comet?
Perhaps they could have been deflected out of the atmosphere of a gas giant, frozen onto a comet or expelled by some kind of volcanic, or other natural explosion on any of the other planets in the solar system. Less likely, they could have arrived the same way from another solar system, although given the scale of things on that plane, this would mean that the entire galaxy is up to the gills with these things floating around. The chance of a random impact with the Earth's athmosphere of a single comet or asteroid from another solar system is akin to hitting the head of a pin with a rifle shot from a thousand miles away without aiming.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
"So assuming that the red cells are alien... where would they have come from? How did they get into a comet?"
The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin or the plover may seek warmer climes in winter, yet these are not strangers to our land?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'm keeping my skeptic's hat on regarding this alien life stuff though... it seems like they jumped straight from "whoa, that's an odd thing" to "aliens did it!"- the same sort of fuzzy logic in which our friendly neighborhood Discovery Institute specializes.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Your subsequent posts didn't clarify the original so much as nullify it.![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)