digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Microbes Under Sea Floor Shows Possibility of Alien Life

sciencedaily.com — A new study shows that a single species of bacteria-like organisms, Archaea, uses such small amounts of energy similar lifeforms could live on other planets in our solar system, like Mars. Archaea accounts for 1/10th all the biomass here on earth.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Greenpointer, on 07/25/2008, -3/+9You are the Carl Sagan of the modern age, Mr. Embrey.
    • JimmySpaza, on 07/27/2008, -13/+1Sarc tag?

      No? Wow! That's a bit of a stretch. And you may not want to relate him to Sagan. Sagan was an atheist and used junk science as much as real, legitimate scientific processes. Not quite a model to live up to.
      • halfdirt, on 07/27/2008, -0/+5How about just in terms of popularizing science? I don't care if this "Embrey" person is Muslim or Fishtacoian.
      • WalrusKaput, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1Your mom uses junk science ... in her nose.
      • JimmySpaza, on 07/29/2008, -4/+1@ halfdirt

        In terms of popularizing science? Yes, good point. But, I think that it would be good for Embrey if we stopped the comparison there.
  • CatherineSouth, on 07/25/2008, -2/+8This article proves that House can indeed find something other than Lupus.
  • norman619, on 07/27/2008, -1/+9Yes because life out there will take the familiar forms we know here. If you believe that then I have a really nice bridge for sale in NYC. People keep expecting to find life as we know it and ignore the high probability that life out there will not use the same basic blueprint life on earth has used.
    • damian7, on 07/27/2008, -4/+2Yes, "life out there" WILL take the familiar forms we know here and then some. It's a guarantee that there's Earth-like planets some of which will feature organisms like our own and some of which will not.
      • norman619, on 07/27/2008, -3/+3LOL!!! You have some inside knowledge? Care to share with the class? You haven't any idea what life out there will be like. It sounds like you are expecting life to favor the plan followed here on earth on any planet with similar atmosphere mix and water. What you have there is an opinion. You can't even imagine life that is nothing like life as we know it. For example we expect all alien life to have DNA. There is nothing that says this is true. We know nothing about alien life. Take a look at this article:

        http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=are-aliens-amo ...

        For the first time real scientists are trying to find life that is nothing like life as we know it on our own planet. They are working on the hypotheses that life may have had multiple starts on our planet. For all you know life as we know it may be rare.
      • damian7, on 07/27/2008, -5/+1I never said life outside Earth would be EXACTLY ALL THE SAME LIKE EARTH, you *****.

        How about you learn to read instead going off on and making an ASSumption:

        " some of which will feature organisms like our own and some of which will not. "

        ***** idiots are idiots
      • MattBD, on 07/27/2008, -1/+6If there is alien life out there, some will have things in common with Earth life. That's just convergent evolution. There's many cases where the same feature has evolved independently in life forms that are completely unrelated to each other, so it's not unreasonable to assume that the same won't happen elsewhere.
        Take flight, for example. Birds, insects and bats all evolved the capacity for flight separately. They have some similarities in how they fly, and some differences as well, but they operate under the same physical laws and so that forces certain design constraints on them as well.
      • willwooten, on 07/27/2008, -6/+1Norman, what are you talking about? Damian is soooo obviously right. Life on other planets and in other galaxies totally will look and act just like life here. You know how I know? Cause God made all life, just like it says in the Bible. Duhhhhhh! Isn't it teh obviouz?!? And oh by the way don't use the excuse that the Bible doesn't apply to other planets. Cause God defffffff made Earth first.
      • damian7, on 07/27/2008, -4/+1Another idiot emerges
    • zadadka, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1Every year we discover "new" forms of life in conditions described as harsh at best, and that's just here on Earth.
      The fundamental needs of life existing initially won't change, but metabolic adaptations to circumstance mean that preconceptions as to whether life CAN exist (quite apart from thriving) in a given circumstance will be constantly challenged.
      Just because somewhere seems barren of life as we understand it, doesn't mean it is barren.
  • duckyinc, on 07/27/2008, -5/+3The title is ***** up, these are just microbes that evolved independently not aliens from outer space.
    • Murdats, on 07/27/2008, -2/+3your comprehension ability is ***** up. the title is saying that this type of life completley unlike anything we have seen so far shows us new possible forms life, and for that matter, alien life could take on.
      • duckyinc, on 07/27/2008, -1/+2O rly? Because I think they are bacteria evolved to survive in that environment. Not surprisingly they look like bacteria too. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1 ... The whole article has nothing to do with aliens, just talking about some bacteria that were discovered long ago (early 20th century lol!!)
      • duckyinc, on 07/27/2008, -1/+1lol @ digg comment system
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaea
      • wunksta, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1well thats the big argument in biology now, what came first? bacteria, archaea or eukaryota. all three show independent evolution, but i think its been shown there has been heavy horizontal evolution.

        but the main point is that life is hardwired to survive, given the right chemicals and an abundant source of energy.
      • daliminator, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2It's not a new kind of like unlike anything we've seen so far... We've known about Archaea for while now.
    • MattgUP, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2Most life on earth could not survive on Mars, however because of the Archaea's physiology, this "bacterial like" organism could survive on many of the planets and moons in our solar system. This shows that life as we know it is possible on other planets.
      • duckyinc, on 07/27/2008, -1/+1You don't need archaeas to show aliens exist, what if theirs another earth? This article is basically blabbering on on how awesome archaeas are when they actually suck.
  • SaadGhouri, on 07/27/2008, -0/+4Ok so who is planning a trip to MARS after reading this?
  • t4ll3y, on 07/27/2008, -1/+4I want to believe.
  • CorneliusStump, on 07/27/2008, -0/+5Yeah well Edgar Mitchell showed me the possibility for alien life. LITTLE MEN WERE VISITING US HE SAID. And I think I find his testimony a litttttle more credible
  • willwooten, on 07/27/2008, -0/+12Why did this end up on the homepage? There is nothing in that article you won't find in a modern high school level biology book. Also, Archaea is not a single species. Archaea is one of the three domains of life (if you're using the three domain system) and is made up of thousands of different species. To say a single species makes up one tenth of Earth's biomass is hogwash.
  • iraqileader, on 07/27/2008, -2/+0Its the Abyss, always new it would show its face
  • ixid, on 07/27/2008, -0/+0The gap between these types of articles and application to other planets or moons that I've not seen discussed much is to what extent the earth extremophiles can have evolved in that habitat or can they only become extremophiles by evolving in a more benign environment before adapting towards extremes. The difficulty of evolving in very cold or harsh environments, as the article suggests with the long generation time, makes life on places like Europa seem unlikely unless there is some element of panspermia spreading simple life.
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/27/2008, -1/+1This was interesting because there has never been an example of such slow-metabolizing organisms before to my knowledge.

    >> And I have no interest in whoring some Karma but I really have to call out the annoying comments here. A lot of you seem to want to just make a comment. If you don't like geek science -- but think it vitally important that everyone learns how misleading the title is because media companies want to grab attention; "news flash" -- you aren't telling anyone something they don't know.

    If you think an article sucks, move on.
  • tufftugg, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1 So does Digg.
  • 7FluidAH, on 07/27/2008, -2/+0I must have evolved from these Archaea. As a teenager, I used as little energy as possible, too.
  • fx666, on 07/27/2008, -5/+1This article could only be true if the principle of natural selection works. Without the principle of natural selection the evolutionary theory is dead, everyone knows that. But the natural selection itself is a mathematical impossibility, as Friedman has proved. This is an easy chapter from Friedman's book, all you need to have to understand his presentation is an introductory probability theory course under your belt.
    Evolutionists believe that predators pick out the most genetically imperfect prey—sort of “genetic garbage”—while healthier animals produce the offspring. However, there is plenty of evidence to suggest the opposite.
    Consider the case of a healthy, vibrant antelope that has a severe case of diarrhea for two days in a row. One more day would be enough for the strong immune system to overcome a malady, but the predator strikes on the second day and the weakened antelope becomes a prey. The diarrhea overrides the principle of natural selection!
    Evolutionists would say that this is a very unlikely event.
    But what about the cubs who are more likely to become the predator’s lunch? Given a chance to grow up, they could become the fastest animals in the herd.
    Often the older animals move slower than “genetically defective” ones. The predators might be munching on the older animal while the genetic defects copulate.
    During the hunt a herd breaks into smaller groups, the predator might be chasing a group with normal animals while the animals that are not “supposed” to pass on their genes to future generations join the other groups.
    A herd could be subdivided into two groups: Group A includes the animals that are temporarily ill, very young animals, older ani¬mals, and normal animals that happen to be in a hapless group chased by a predator; Group B includes animals with genetic defects only. Group A comprises about 90% of the herd; Group B consists of the animals that are not “supposed” to pass on their genes to future generations . Group B comprises about 10% of the herd.. There is an 81% chance that the predator will attack a healthy animal. The percentage is high enough to declare the principle of natural selection null and void.
    In reality, there is no such thing as the principle of natural selec¬tion. But without this principle the evolutionary theory is dead.
    W. Friedman, Critique of the Theory of Evolution.
    • Pulz4r, on 07/27/2008, -1/+3Predators aren't the only ones in the equation. Only a fool would use such a simple example to negate the theory of evolution. The group also controls who get to mate and who don't.

      Those who are weak never get to reproduce because the strong take all the females.
      Older individuals have grown old because they were the strongest and so survived. From the point of evolution once you have reproduced you might as well die.
      The old and weak are also usually left behind to the benefit of the group if necessary. This also happens with humans.

      Simple statistics do not represent the world as it is and all it's dynamics.
      W. Friedman can suck my balls.
      • TheCatsPants, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2"Those who are weak never get to reproduce because the strong take all the females."
        That's not always true. In some species the weaker males mate with the females in secret, out of sight of the rival male, or hiding from the rest of the group. "Sneaky *****".
    • TheCatsPants, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3"Evolutionists believe that predators pick out the most genetically imperfect prey—sort of “genetic garbage”—while healthier animals produce the offspring."
      No, they don't. Your education in biology must have come from the back of a cereal packet. You can't quote a mangled version of a theory in order to *prove* it wrong.
  • siwasher, on 07/27/2008, -0/+4Darwin never claimed that natural selection is the sole explanation of modification. He called it the "main but not exclusive means". Anyone who's read The Origin knows that.
    • fx666, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1Your remark regarding Darwin's book is correct, I have read The Origin of Species. However, not a single evolutionist, including Darwin, has presented a theory explaining how other purported causes of the evolution actually work. In The Origin Darwin discussed cross-breeding as a possible cause of evolution in some species. But his argument is flawed because a creationist could argue that God gave animals the ability to cross-breed (I am not a creationist, so this argument does not concern me; however, from a logical standpoint it is completely valid).
  • mrsack, on 07/27/2008, -0/+0This title made me think of Dan Brown's "Deception Point" where NASA supposedly fines extraterrestrial life under a glacier
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.