Slashdot Mirror
Can Bacteria Survive Space Vacuum, UV?
Porfiry of ExoScience writes: "The theory that microbial life once came to Earth on a meteorite from another planet will be tested on July 26 when a NASA rocket carries into space special microorganisms from research at the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute (UMBI). The tiny space pioneers will be riding an apogee, or suborbital, flight path similar to the historic 1961 flight of astronaut Alan Shepard. The passengers this time will be four dime-size cultures, each holding about 100 million cells of the microbes that will be exposed to space vacuum and solar radiation for 10 minutes."
With this time frame (10 minutes?), there's no other point than to spend (a lot of) money on some spectacular project to ensure future funding. The test itself is very weak. If they don't "survive", they haven't proven much -- just that this particular species didn't do well. If they survive, one could argue that it was a minuscle time compared to interplanetary travel.
Sorry for my ranting, but at the end of the day evolution is nothing more than a myth with only circumstantial "facts" to back it up
... but then again, so is Christianity.
If these microorganisms survive, we still won't know whether life "once came to Earth on a meteorite."
if it is a thing's first visit to Planet Earth, then it is not a re-entry to the atmosphere. It's an entry.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
MacGyver would desperately need to upgrade to a Leatherman. I bet he could hack into the Pentagon on his Palm VII!
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
yeah, and Ian Fleming also wrote about women named Pussy Galore, and Truly Scrupmtuous, (Halotta Fagina? yeah baby!) so we all know how that goes.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Don't go blaming God for things idiot people do. (or say, or write). God gave us "free will", that is, we can do whatever we want to. Except in a few historically significant places, (Pharoh not giving in because God "hardened his heart"), God doesn't interfere with the will of individual men. It has something to do with being free to CHOOSE which "side" we're on. Personally, I don't believe that God is up in heaven rooting for suicide bombers or anti-abortion activists, or Republicans. The God I believe in is "all powerful". If He wants something done, He'll damn well do it Himself, and He won't work up a sweat. He doesn't need anyone doing anything in His name. If you do something in His name, out of faith, you need to examine your motives, and the motives need to be; for His glory, as a personal act of worship. Or be prepared to explain to Him yourself why you broke His commandments trying to compel other people to obey them.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Just because religion is the root cause of many bad things that happen in the world, doesn't mean it's God's fault. Who is doing the bad things? God? No. People, just like you and me, people with selfish motives, and bent-up reasoning. Maybe it looks like religion made these people this way, but religion is a thing passed on to men from other men, so it's silly to blame God.
I can't *prove* your wrong. But neither can you *prove* me wrong. Absense of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. In fact, I find it higly illogical and unscientific for a person to claim that there definately without a doubt is no God, because there is no rigorous scientific evidence for His existence. That's just plain stupid. You can't draw conclusions based on no evidence. All you can do is say; I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe that there definately IS a God. Until the day after you die, you should withold judgement, just like He is.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
This, (in my opinion) is exactly why the Bible says Pi=3.0.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Religion pisses you off?
How do you think us poor believers feel?
Religion is perhaps the WORST THING EVER to happen to the relationship between God and man.
I'm convinced that religion, in general, is the work of Satan. (including the "church" of the MCSE). Clearly, God intended man to have fellowship, but I'm not at all certain that rituals and dogma, and rules, made anyone's life here (or spiritual health) better.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
"Fundamental belief is one thing. Pretending it's anything but belief is another. "
That's funny, that's my standard criticism of athiests. You believe on faith (certainly not rational thought - what you convince yourselves is rationalism) that there definately is no God. Yet you do not have sufficient evidence to claim that there is no God. It is a belief, which you have perverted into rationalism in your mind, to soothe - I don't know, your insecurity that humans can overcome all their troubles if they'd just all be rational, and believe only what their scientists tell them?
Tell me this, Mr. rationalism. Does Oat Bran, or does Oat Bran not, reduce cholesterol? Do silicone breast implants, or do silicone breast implants not have nasty side effects like cancer, and lupus, and other autoimmune disorders? Did OJ, or did OJ not, murder his wife? Is IE an application, or an OS?
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
bastard! ha! I get it! His parents weren't married!
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
hm. I don't think that the bible claims that the cross originated in any other way than the preferred method Romans used to execute criminals. What's so hard to believe about that?
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The resurrection of Jesus is a as fully established as any other historical fact of the era.
If every historical fact of an era is "shaky," then no historical fact of that era is "shaky?"
This is madness...haven't you people seen The Blob? (I'm talking the 80's special-effects laden version.) Exposing microorganisms to cosmic rays almost resulted in the Earth being consumed by a ravenous gelatinous creature!
Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
The Bible? The Bible is just a book, filled with many contradictions. The Cross, the beloved symbol of Christianity, actually had nothing to do with Christianity at all. It originated from some other belief/event (I can't remember what it was, off the top off my head). If you choose to live your life by the rules within a book, then I'm sorry, but you're a lot dumber than I am.
Religion is stupid (not to mention the root cause of many bad things that happen in the world). The very fact that there are hundreds of them only proves this point. They can't all be correct. A whole lotta people are going to be very dissapointed when they die. But seeing as nothing will happen when they do anyway, there's not going to be anyone there to prove my point. But if you can *prove* me wrong, I'd like to see your evidence.
P.S. Okay, this is a semi-troll. But it's something I feel strongly about.
Not really. Religion pisses me off in a big way. I could make valid points but I'm just not in the mood to do so. I'm already pissed off today, this only make it worse. If that make me a troll, so be it.
Yes, you've put the pig inside the space shuttle. That certainly doesn't prove much.
logan
His theories predicted heaps of stuff that other people laughed at. Only trouble was, he was later shown to be right in every area that has so far been tested on the Moon, Venus, Mars and Jupiter. John Baumgardner did a similar thing with magnetic fields on Uranus and Neptune.
If there are any bacteria there, they're probably from Venus, although some could have been borrowed from Earth in an earlier flyby.
The Moon's subsurface _is_ hot enough to support life. In fact, during the Lunar day it becomes too hot to support either the U/Pb or Rb/Sr dating methods.
See books like Velikovsky's "Worlds in Collision" and followups like "Velikovsky Reconsidered" (Pensee editors) for details. Or type "velikovsky" into Google.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I can imagine bacteria traveling through space, buried inside some porous rock... This way they don't have to be exposed to the harsh conditions of space.
Bzzzt! Because the rock is porous, the air leaks out. Because the rock is small (tens of meters across max) the radiation leaks in. Unless the rock only spends ten minutes in flight, in which case either it came from Earth or you want to be on a different planet when it lands.
On a real bacterium-carrying rock, the gremlins need to survive intense shock and heat as the rock is dislodged from the parent planet (Mars, in theory, but why life more likely formed there is still an open question), intense cold, vacuum and gamma as the rock travels through space for many-many years, electrical discharge as the rock hits atmosphere, extreme heat as it descends, intense shock as it stops descending.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
If it is, send cholera, AIDS, bubonic plague, malaria... and keep your telephones meticulously clean, lest you be eaten by a giant star goat.
"Rubber ducky, you're the one..." (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Doesn't anyone remember The Andromeda Strain, we're all gonna die, auuggggghhhhhhhhhh
"This so-called theory is just another attempt by Dawkins and his cult of "blind watchmakers" to derail the Truths that have been revealed to all of us through the words of our Lord."
Revealed how? On SlashDot? ZDNet? Weekly World News? Full page ad in Time? Through any *verifiable*, *repeatable* channel at all?
Hume blows you away every time. You're asking me to believe that it's the most likely explanation for the existence of everything that the entire universe was created, as it is today, in 6 days by an omnipotent omnipresent being whose completely unprovable existence has never left a single trace of physical evidence anywhere?
Wow. I can see why they call it "faith". As in "belief without cause".
--
Peter
is no evidence at all. Sorry.
It's a book of middle-eastern faery tales. Some of which are nice, and some of which are nasty.
--
Peter
"And the "evidence" of a few pieces of bone consist of the entire basis for the rediculous claims of the evolutionists. Pieces of bone which exist in no order and are often found in places which contradict evolutionary "theory"."
Well, that's 100% more evidence than YOU have...
"As for the Truth of the Bible, something which should be self-evident to anyone that searches for the meaning of creation, you dismiss it out of hand."
Well, of course I do. Like any reasonable person. It's a big book of metaphors and allegory. If you take the bible as literal truth then you might as well leave any scientific discussion now - because you're basically saying "no matter what you say, and no matter what actual evidence you have, what I *believe* is absolute truth". IOW, you're saying that MY beliefs (founded in empirical, repeatable, verifiable scientific fact) have to be subject to criteria that yours do not ("it's in the bible so it must be true").
It doesn't matter whether there was a nutter called Jesus running round approx 2K years ago claiming to be the son of god and pretending to heal people.
Religion is bad. It causes people to abandon reason and rationality.
I don't need religion to help me make sense of the universe. I need science and reason.
--
Peter
"* Provable existance - This is by choice. Why? I leave that as an exercise for the reader. (Hint: Think about celebrities and their problems with friends)"
f aith
I would love to know what this sentence means.
"* Never left a signle trace - This is wonderful example of duality in interpretation. Depending on your basic views, the whole world: genetics, the atomic/superstring structure, the digestion biology the galaxies, the Sun, the earth's rotation, the life cycles and life itself are examples of structure, information and thought. How often do you see that in the remnants of a fire cracker?"
Eh? Precisely what do the remnants of a firecracker and the rotation of the earth have to do with each other?
"Faith - You have a lot of reading to do on this subject, I see. Start with a concept description."
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=
Particularly sense 2.
Get a grip on your own use of English before knocking mine. "thoughted"?
--
Peter
I'm bored and it's better than work at the moment.
--
Peter
Sure, it's a troll.
But it's a good one.
--
Peter
Just for the sake of toying with a few thoughts - so don't take this too seriously - let's hypothesize that indeed god created the world recently, from scratch. One thing we observe is that our existence is explicable by evolution, in other words, god created the world in such a way that it seems to show all the traces of having been formed by another. Does this mean he doesn't want us to think he made the world? Will divine retribution strike down believing infidels (much like a secret service agency doesn't want to be uncovered)?
I think, if we start off and don't take evidence at face value, we can pretty much argue anything. The sky is green - it's those aliens manipulating our senses (including those reading scientific equipment) telling us otherwise (go disprove me). Actually, you are 500 years older than you think, but a secret government projects stole your memory. Windows is stable. I mean, come on :-).
Discussions about religion very quickly degrade into universal truths. It's a fundamental problem of todays (not that it's been otherwise) screwed up religious institutes that they fail to accept the fact that other religions are possibly as accurate as they - or more so. This statement probably brands me as un-/ir- (choose yourself) -religious, which is true. Our beliefs, wishes, state of mind, you name it affects our recollection of events. Information passed on by several interconnected sources of dubious nature that are severely partial does not strike me as "historical fact"
I don't know that it didn't. I don't believe - and admittedly, more importantly, don't want to believe - that it did.
Anybody kidding themselves that there is significant evidence beyond their personal belief, isn't doing themselves justice. Religion should be banned - it's caused so much grief, wars, chaos, misinformation, and "what-religion-calls-evil" in this world that by it's own standards it has no right to exist.
But if you believe in Jesus, God and "all that" (no I don't) then do so. Everyone has their own beliefs - their basis on which they (sub)conciously form other deductions. There is no way, absolutely no way (whatever those atheists like me say), that you can objectively claim one basis as superior to another. But by all means don't turn it into such a mass-delusion as the churches have. It's just too hypocritical.
Fundamental belief is one thing. Pretending it's anything but belief is another.
--EMN
While I'm at it, you may be interested in this web-page about exactly your argument: The Human Eye: A design review, which takes exactly the opposite stance. To boot, it's well written
You say that "prejudices" are preventing the ability to make reason arguments. I could say the same thing. I don't think it's fair though - we believe in different things, and howevermuch I believe in evolution, and also disbelieve the existence of divinity, I recognize there is a damn good chance that I'm wrong. I'm just human - but so are you.
--EMN
Do not forget that the earth atmosphere has changed more than a little since the days before there was life on earth..
I think that's an obvious point which shouldn't be forgotten..
"Surviving in a hard vacuum and radiation is one thing, but surviving a re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere is quite another.":
I'm not entirely sure about that. The mass to surface area ratio of a bacterium is pretty small, so the re-entry velocity might actually end up being pretty reasonable. I don't have any figures available, but I have heard that small enough dust particles survive re-entry by simply drifting down slowly.
IIRC, during the Apollo missions, a ground tech sneezed into a camera enclosure. The camera was then taken to the Moon, and left there for a number of months. After the camera was retireved, the microbes in the enclosure came back to life in the lab, and THEN it was discuvered that someone had sneezed into the thing pre-launch. For a while there, they must have thought they brought something BACK. :O
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
If those bugs land in your backyard, the only people to survive will be alcoholics and colic babies. So stock up on everclear and get your pH down!!!
Then prove the existence of Michael Crichton. I know *I've* never seen the man...
They don't necessarily have to be harsh. Suppose bacteria grow inside the pores of a rock, and then the pores get closed by clay or something else that dries and forms a hard coverage.
-- Cheers!
If the microbes survive, we'll know that life originated not more than 10 minutes from Earth! (If your life had originated here, you'd be home by now)
--
Give us our karma back! Punish Karma Whores through meta-mod!
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Who said anything about fighting?
If you don't survive to reproduce, you don't pass on your genetic traits. This IS well understood
And ignore the other guy,...
WHO???
Btw this is so far off topic its not even funny.
I'm not even sure that you're reading the same post that I am!
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
I thought you were talking about the original post. Mea culpa. [giving self joe-forehead]
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
Jesus.
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
That having been said, I can honestly say that I don't see how his post adds to the discussion (putting microbes through some stress) even a little.
Slashdot is as much a podium for creationism rants as it is for atheism rants. ...which is to say not at all.
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
Whe the heck would you have a payload of bacteria on the outside of a ICBM?
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
a) Define "fail"
.02
b) How would failing disprove evolution?
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
Seems to me that they can just recreate these conditions in a lab. The UV such microbes would receive is a known quantity, as is the heat and accelerations (if that's even a factor). So just spin a microwave oven on a tether for 10 minutes. =)
But seriously, can anyone explain what this is supposed to be aside from a visual stunt?
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
Never mind your nonsensical christianity, I'm thrilled to see that Black Entertainment Television got its own TLD! (Hint: see poster's email address)
Remember the film "The Blob"? Wasn't this how it all got started? The scientists/military decided it would be cool to throw a lot of microbes etc in a small satellite/probe/rocket and see what exposure to space did to them?
Mind you, seeing how no Astronaut has yet come back large, strong and scaly or with the ability to stretch like elastic, flame on, or go invisible I reckon we're pretty safe.
Of course, IANAS (I Am Not A Scientist).
Perhaps it's because of the low quality of Christian that seems to argue on Slashdot. I've seen some very well thought out, convincing or interesting arguments for the existence of god(dess), but, baby, these ain't them. We seem to attract the fundementalist types that are reduced to whining "but I have faith, so I must be right!". The tragic loss of Christianity is that is promoting faith, and shunning evolution, it has also generally denied its followers the benefit of good rhetorical training. At least Judaism has it's tradition of debate. Christianity has very little.
Geek-grrl in training
"Religion is the opiate of the masses, but I prefer acid."
To truly understand recursion, you must first truly understand recursion.
Ok.. Let's say I put a pig into a space shuttle set to land on auto pilot and watch it come down in Florida. Have I now proved that pigs came to this planet from space? Have I proved ANYTHING? I don't think so. Am I missing something?
They lived on the spilt gore from Castle Wolfenstein.
Java: the COBOL of the new millenium.
Not really. If the germs are on the inside of a porous rock, then they could ride out the reentry quite nicely. While the outer surface of a meteroid is heated to incandescence, the burn time is so short and thermal conductivity of most rocks so poor that meteorites found soon after their fall have been covered by a layer of frost.
Why? The flaming exterior is soon cooled by the air on one side and the icy chill of the interior rock on the other. (The temperature in the shade around Earth's orbit is about 80 K, nearly the temp of liquid nitrogen. This assumes you've got something to do the shading, if only the other side of the rock.) See John S. Lewis' Rain of Iron and Ice for details.
Not to mention the state the artifact must have been in when it was ejected from Mars in the first place. As I understand it, the theory is that significant meteor strikes on Mars can propel martian fragments outside of its gravity well. From all I've read about meteor strikes on Earth, any 'shrapnel' from a blast that large is molten rock when it ejects.
Yes, but Mars is a much smaller planet than Earth, with a smaller escape velocity. It would take a coorespondingly smaller asteroid strike to blast rocks off the planet at >= escape velocity. The almost total lack of air (less than 1% of ours) would mean little velocity would be lost to air friction.
Yet, I agree with you. I'd like to see some better simulations of these Mars rock ejections.
So the real question is: Can microbial life survive a molten host environment, then frozen, irradiated, and exposed to a hard vacuum (the microbes on the exterior, that is), then heated to near-molten levels again when it reenters the atmosphere? If so, we'd better not go to Io!
Skip the molten host launch and the molten reentry and you've got a situation that bacteria just might survive. Maybe.
And, what's Io got to do with it? Conditions suitable for life are postulated for Europa, but not Io. There's no evidence of water and loads of evidence for constant volcanic eruptions, searing radiation, etc. Io is not a friendly place.
--
"You've crossed my Line of Death!" "What? No! Where is it?" "Here in the fine print...."
Example: Bacteria from Venus? Nothing remotely Earth-like could survive there. The surface temperature is hot enough to melt lead, the clouds are made of sulfuric acid droplets, and there is no water.
There isn't any steam, either. Venus is quite depleted of hydrogen compounds compared to what you'd expect for an Earth-sized planet. Though controversial, there's some evidence (high D:H ratios measured by one of the Mariner probes) that Venus may once have had more water, but lost it due to photo-disassociation by solar UV and escape to space.
This means that the big V's claims in Worlds in Collision that rains of Venusian hydrocarbons (could he have meant carbohydrates?) formed the Israeli's mana in the Old Testament are bogus. There are no measurable hydrocarbons in Venus' atmosphere. If you dumped some hydrocarbons (say crude oil) there, the temperature, acid, and UV would soon break the oil down into non-hydrocarbons.
Didn't happen. Can't happen. Velikovsky was wrong. End of story.
And, that's just one point. V may have been a good scholar, but he was a lousy astrophysicist. (To be fair, he wasn't an astrophysicist at all, just some guy who wanted to relate Old Testament writings and certain other myths to a game of cosmic billiards. Far from "being right in every area tested so far," he was wrong on nearly every point that hadn't already been nailed down by the "conventional science" that he derided so much. Example: When V was writing WiC, Venus was thought to be much cooler with a heavy layer of water or hydrocarbon clouds covering the surface. Guess what V wrote into WiC? Hmmmm....)
Velikovksy's claims have been hashed out and mostly refuted on numerous Usenet news groups over the years. There's no point in trying to drag him over to /. unless as an excuse to start a new flame war or a new variety of trolling.
--
"You've crossed my Line of Death!" "What? No! Where is it?" "Here in the fine print...."
Rumor has it the company I worked at sent a cockroach up to 80,000 feet on one of their high-altitude solar-powered missions (incidentally setting the altitude record for propellor-powered flight).
It didn't make it.
IIRC
It was on the surveyor (?) craft that landed in the pre-apollo buildup, this was visited by astronauts from a late apollo mission (14 or 15). They brought back some selected parts to test how materials have faired after long space exposure, but viable microbes where also found (it also caused wobbles at NASA since it was supposed to have been sterilised before launch as usual).
EZ
-'Press Ctrl + Alt + Delete to log on..'
"Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
Why would reentry present any particular danger to a unicellular organism?
Also, there was this business with bacteria surviving three years on the Moon... here's the link:
http://www.microbewo rld.org/mlc/pages/contents/22.htm#marooned
Please read my original post - I said "when", not "after"
The existence of many religions proves does not prove that religion in itself is stupid. What it does show is a common human belief in something more significant than life being a few years spent living on a small rock in an insignificant spot in the Universe.
/. readers, because it has very little to do with their lives.
Agreed that many religions are at odds with one anothers' beliefs. This may prove that they can't all be right, but it certainly doesn't prove that they are all wrong.
Many posters are approaching this topic with what I choose to call a "Western science" mindset. That is, something must be verifiable and repeatable by different people before it can be accepted as truth.
My own belief is that this is not what true religion is about. The God in whom I believe does not want us all to be persuaded by some overwhelming truth from a distance, but wants to be up close and personal with individuals. I know that my mother was healed from a disease of her nervous system when my wife and I prayed for her, but I don't expect that be held highly by
The truth held in the Bible (if you believe that) is not something that can be proven to you, but it is based on faith. Faith - not so-called "blind faith", but trust, based on personal experience of a God who is consistent with what the Bible says about him.
Your reply seems to have nothing to do with the points I made - do you have anything to add?
"After all did not Jesus really exist - he is mentioned in the records of Rome in several places."
This is patently false. Both the Romans *and* the Jews, two societies known for their intense and careful recordkeeping, have NO record of Jesus of Nazareth. If you dispute this, please show me your proof. Your history is as bad as your science.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Ben
BTW, did you know Crichton came up with the title first, then the plot? Kinda like the stunt-creators on Double Dare.
Ceterum censeo Microsoftam esse delendam.
Or up, seeing as that would also work in keeping you immune. With, what, baking soda and deep breaths? It's been a while since I read good old TAS, and my acid/base knowledgebase never was great.
Your "all that will exist" remark reminds me of a post I saw on Craig's List, selling a used HP printer:
"This printer will last forever! After the nuclear holocaust there will be rats and cockroaches and HP printers!!!"
Ceterum censeo Microsoftam esse delendam.
Maybe, but I still think this comment, at least, bears very troll-like hallmarks. Not the least of which is the near orthogonally stereotypical posture of the comment. Phrases that are obviously intended to spike the trolled into flame wars, like "Thank God I come from somewhere where they value the diff.." give it away.
And a well done one at that.
Yeah, it's just terrible that people won't take you seriously. Then again, maybe if you mentioned some of these "very good reasons for NOT accepting" evolution people might be in a position to enter a discussion with you. Without those, all we can do is dismiss you as another nut.
I don't think you are the person to judge on someone's openmindedness. I do respect your faith ( and the faith of any Muslim/Budist/Hindu etc.), allthough I do not share it, but you are just as closed minded as you say your oponents are.
As long as there is no hard evidence on any of these theories (evolution or creationism) they should be able to coexist.
BTW. The bible, which you seem to see as hard evidence, has been tempered with by the Vatican since the Middle ages, and especially the OT has been passed over orally for many generations before it was ever written down. I don't think any scientist could take it as evidence on it's own.
I have read the Bible and although I know that I can not convince you otherwise I wish that you would try an exercise in open mindedness.
Evolution is a theory inasmuch as Gravity is a theory and scientist (including myself) consider it to be as fallible as gravity (so the next time you jump but don't come down we'll all reconsider the Theory of Gravity). It appears that you are ignorant of the basic ideas behind science. When scientists say theory we do not mean it to have the "maybe" connotation that it has in to the lay people of the word. When we want to say maybe we say "hypothesis." A theory is a model that explains a bunch of facts. The best theories are ones that easily explain a lot of different facts in an easily comprehensible way.
Once again I am going to look at the Theory of Gravity because so called "creation" scientists do not argue over this use of the the word theory. Our modern theory of gravity easily explains the followings facts and laws:
The inverse square law that the force of gravity is reduced by x^2 when the distance is reduced by x
The hypothesis of Newton (considered to be correct) that every particle attracts every other particle
Einstein and his Theory of General Relativity which explains space and mass as products of each other (i.e. space bends around mass)
Einsteins Theory of Special Relativity that equates Energy to mass and has as a hypothesis the idea that nothing can go faster than light
Those are some of the different facts and ideas that are all connected by the same umbrella, namely the Theory of Gravity. Most of these were proven by experimentation, and as such, we are really certain that our modern theory of gravity is correct. If we ever find some situation that does not obey these laws then we will have to re-think and correct our theory. That is the way science works.
Now let's consider the more controversial theory of evolution. Bearing in mind that theory does not mean "maybe" but instead serves only to easily explain and unite different known facts and ideas we find that it also is correct. This explains why there are transitional fossils (you can find them online) which show an unknown species that is between two known species in both anatomy and the fossil record. The theory of evolution explains the experiments with fruit flies that you yourself brought up. In order to understand the Theory of Evolution you should understand its mechanisms. I highly recommend Biology by Cambell, the most popular freshmen bio book. It will explain the principle of genetic drift, isolation, speciation, mutations that allow for better reproductive success - basically all the different methods that fall under the general category of evolution.
Now let's look at Creation "science" objectively. A big difference between creationism and "real" science is that creationism can not be invalidated. It is not falsifiable. Ask yourself what would you need to see in order to stop believing in the bible and the Genesis account of creation. Chances are nothing will ever make you reject this idea. This violates every law of science. Look at the Bible itself. I've read it. Every page, every word. I think that it is remiss of myself to argue for evolution while being completely ignorant of the other side.
Consider the following:
Matthew 17:28 "I tell you solemnly that some of you standing here will not taste death before they see the son of Man coming with his Kingdom" spoken by Jesus. And yet everyone there that he addressed back in ~20 A.D. is now dead. Where is the Kingdom? This is one of many passages that do not turn out true. If this were science and we got 1, just 1, case that contradicted itself we would have to throw the theory out. You base your ideas on old science that has long been discredited.
As my last thought I recommend that you not force this idea on your children. Anyone who believes creation "science" as fervantly as you tends to be a target for ridicule, and in my opinion, rightly so. You are clinging to an ad hoc theory without the tools to even intelligently argue it. You just look foolish is all. That's the reason that this is not taught in schools. It is a patently false idea that does not belong in a science classroom because it is not even remotely scientific. To think otherwise would be to deprive your children of a decent education. Look at the most fervent believes of this crap: Alabama. Then look how often Alabama is at the bottom of everything.
If you are looking for some the real truth please visit the following:
Myths of Creation "Science"
The Rule Book for Sciene
Biology by Cambell
I like food.
the heat from re-entry is caused by atmospheric friction... was there atmosphere before the bacteria came?
mov ax, 13h
int 10h
One could argue that any flavor of Christianity is merely one interpretation of shaky evidence.
And it would be a better arguement than yours.
The experimenters will likely find, when the bacterial cultures have returned to Earth, that one of the cultures now has the ability to extend pseudopods many times their original length, one of them has formed a hard mineralized outer covering, one of them has burst into flames, and one of them has just flat disappeared.
I agree, which was why I said no modern physicist questions either relativity or QM. However, I've seen it stated by some quite knowledgable people that Newton was wrong. His equations, while reasonable approximations for most macro situations, give incorrect results if measured to enough precision and are therefore incorrect. It's more a matter of semantics, I think, than scientific "truth."
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
I don't think it's a matter of questioning QM so much as it is a matter of refining it. I suppose it depends upon how you define the terms. Did relativity replace or refine Newton's laws?
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
A lot of people question theories of physics. For the most part, they have no evidence and show a gross lack of understanding of the actual principles involved, so they're dismissed out of hand. The exact same is true for evolution. Evolution is a comprehensive theory which fits the available facts quite well. I doesn't fit a number of people's personal philosophies, but that's hardly a requirement for a scientific theory. If you come up with evidence which truly calls into question the principles of evolution, the truth will be heard. It may not happen over night, and the entire scientific establishment may not beat a path to your door, but it WILL happen. A number of classical physicist did not want to accept Einstein's theories. Einstein himself, and others, did not want to accept QM. No modern physicist seriously questions either theory. Science moves slow sometimes, but it does work. If evidence supports a theory, it survives. If it doesn't, it dies.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Why should gamma rays and a hard vacuum be any more difficult to survive if it is in space? Because of the combination with EUV and low gravity, perhaps?
In Murphy We Turst
Allright, after seeing a few messages like this, I feel obligated to say something.
Evolution is a FACT. Yes, you heard me. A fact. It has been PROVEN to exist. We've WATCHED IT HAPPEN.
Whether we evolved from monkeys or not is what is being debated, not whether evolution exists.
-- Dr. Eldarion --
I think that I read that Nasa recently admitted to having discovered bacteria that had survived the Apollo mission.
:wq
One day super advanced aliens are going to come to Earth and grab a few billion of us and stick us in space and see if some of us survive.
-- A Human Being is nothing more than mobile CO2 factory. Bow to the plants.
Considering bacteria have been found living in extremely high temperature, low pH conditions (boiling acid), I would not be surprised if they can be found to survive elsewhere. That they can survive in Environment X and that they came from Environment X are two different things, however.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Whats to say that microbes traveling on a meteroite would not have been frozen or sheilded from uv radiation or traped in a small presurised pocket? This test seems abit limited to me!! Boxic
And studying a theory has absolutely no value at all? We should only conduct experiments based on hard facts, right? For some reason, this logic seems to present a problem. If anything, I would say that you fanatics would want more work done on evolution, if you're so sure it can be proven wrong.
Yeah, I know, you're just a troll, but it's crap like this that gives people who really do believe in creation a bad name. You're just using a purposefully weak argument as a way to start a war, and dragging lots of intelligent people down with you.
If you really feel the need to speak out against evolution, at least accquaint yourself with the facts first, and approach it with a dose of common sense.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Aw, c'mon. Just because people kill in the name of God doesn't mean God told them to do it any more than natural evolutionary theory should lead us to construct a master race like the Nazis did.
The larger and more complex an organism gets, the more fragile it gets. Smacking a fly doesn't always kill it, but what would happen to a human whacked with a fleshy 1000' wide baseball bat swung by a Titan the size of Mt Everest? Drop a mouse from from several stories and it'll scurry away. Drop an elephant and it'll splatter.
But, as nature has so kindly pointed out to us, more complex organisms can often do a lot of cool shit that simpler ones can't, which tends to make up for their other shortcomings. They also tend to be able to wipe out their simpler bretheren, which is definitely a bonus for an evolving species.
Lastly, sucking vacuum for extended periods of time is not something evolution has specifically equipped any species to do. It is therefore an ability that will not be missed much when it disappears in the genetic record.
--
Dyolf Knip
Ah yes, You Only Live Twice. You got the character's name right as well.
If someone says that gravity is caused by shadows in the invisible ether wind (we're in the sun's shadow, so the wind pushing us away from the sun is weaker than the wind pushing us towards the sun), it's a highly improbable nonsense idea, but it can still be interesting. If someone says that gravity is caused by invisible angels, it's medeival anti-scientific voodoo claptrap.
Two responses to your last statement: Truth has nothing to do with what you'd RATHER it be. If you are created by God, and you'd rather come from a chimp, you are STILL created by God. People will always do things "in the name of God". Why do you assume that God condones it? You are accepting thier false doctrine just as blindly as a child accepts the religion that their parents teach them. -- Make it idiot-proof, and someone will make a better idiot.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Why would bacteria that can survive gamma rays, vacuum, extreme temperatures and everything else that space can throw at them, evolve into something as wimpy as a human?
I guess from these experiments we can expect new strains of Thing Virus, Invisible Virus, Virus Torch Virus and Mr. Fantastic Virus. All of which will be collectlivly know as the "Fantastic 4 Strain" of virii.
These people should study the works of Jack Kirby and Stan Lee before it's too late!
-----
"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." - Salvador Dali (1904-1989)
Do you have a link for the testicles thing? Never heard of that before...
Don't have a link, but one of Ian Fleming's Bond novels has a character (Tiger Tanaka?) who tells Bond the Samurai used to do that before going into battle. According to this character, they started "training" as boys; by the time you're 14 it's too late to start.
Of course, this all comes out of a novel, so...
--
Freeper Logic
Are you implying the "experiment" is just a public relations stunt?!?! Well, I never! Seriously, though, what's the supporting documentation? Have they already proven that this test will succeed in 10 minute interval as planned?? Thanks!
what about the harsh conditions that typify the the burial into porous rock... ? :)
There is actually a type of bacteria that grows on the fuel rods in neuclear reactors, so I'm not surprised by this. It is interesting, though.
I used to do this with a magnifying glass and a sidewalk full of ants and it cost taxpayers nothing.
Relativity generalised Newton's laws making them applicable to a wider domain, that of relativistic speeds and high gravitational fields. Similarly quantum mechanics generalised classical physics to the domain of the very small.
Superstrings (or whatever) are a further generalisation of both relativity and QM into the Planck-scale domain which is both very small and contains strong gravitational effects. Each further "step" in physics is a generalisation to a new domain.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Jon Erikson, IT guru
Evolution is a FACT.
No it's not, it's a theory. Special relativity, something with a much firmer scientific background and base of evidence, is also a theory. Of course, if you have an undisputable proof of evolution then please share it with us.
It has been PROVEN to exist. We've WATCHED IT HAPPEN.
No, you've watched natural selection occur. From what I know of the theory, evolution is supposed to take place across thousands of years. I very much doubt you are old enough to have watched it happen.
Whether or not you are able to accept the proof of your eyes, the truth of the Creation is out there for all to see. If your precious "evolution" is true, then explain to me how it can account for both the human eye and the human soul.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Jon Erikson, IT guru
And the "evidence" of a few pieces of bone consist of the entire basis for the rediculous claims of the evolutionists. Pieces of bone which exist in no order and are often found in places which contradict evolutionary "theory". But thanks to the anti-Christian dogma which the scientists and liberals have spread throughout the Western world these signs are kept quiet and most people never hear about the flaws from which evolution suffer.
As for the Truth of the Bible, something which should be self-evident to anyone that searches for the meaning of creation, you dismiss it out of hand. After all did not Jesus really exist - he is mentioned in the records of Rome in several places. Your prejudices are overcoming your ability to make reasoned arguments on this matter.
And truly, God is the only argument that fits all of the facts. No "blind watchmaker" could have come up with something like the eye or the human soul, and it is foolish to believe otherwise.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Jon Erikson, IT guru
BTW can you suck your testicles up into your body cavity at will? The ancient Romans could. But since it no longer serves a purpose, the ability has been "bred out" of humans (as is the ability to wiggle you ears) so that today, almost no one can do it.
Do you have a link for the testicles thing? Never heard of that before...
---
Jon E. Erikson
Jon Erikson, IT guru
Born and raised there, although I'm living in England at the moment due to work. At least there they aren't afraid to face up to the liberal establishment in charge of education and teach that evolution is not a fact, but merely one (and not a good one!) interpretation of shaky evidence.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Jon Erikson, IT guru
...ILOVEYOU virus up there. I bet it's VisualBasic-DNA woudn't deteriorate at all ;-)
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
I don't think they even think about this shit before they plan missions. hah How funny is this?
Got shack?
ShackCentral Network
Worlds best gaming network!!!
I'm not sure either. And even if the conditions might not be the same, or they wanted to do a "prolonged test" (let's agree that any microbes traveling through space, would most likely have been traveling for more than 10 minutes), then what's to say that these microbes are identical to the one that supposedly spawned life on earth ? I'd say that the likelyhood is rather low. but then again, I guess it's not really as much a matter of proving the theory, as it is a matter of prooving that the possibility exists.
:)
Maybe kinda like putting a taperecorder in the forrest to record the possible sound of a tree falliing ?
--- To err is human... Am I more human than most ?
My guess: testing delivery of biological weapons from orbit.
Are you adequate?
Surviving in a hard vacuum and radiation is one thing, but surviving a re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere is quite another.
Another interesting topic is surviving (and reproduction) in the atmosphere of another planet.
OK, let's take the existence of God as axiom. Go on, prove everything else!
"Ah, I suppose the poor little mite suffocated?" asked Rolfy. Inhuman sods!
How can they do this to those poor little bacteria? What about their families? As an animal rights activist, I must protest!
wait, never mind, wrong kingdom. The less bacteria the better. Well, not really.
# debian/rules
So they are sending these organisms out into outer space to see if they can withstand the natural forces of outer space in order to prove that life "might" not have originated from elements native to earth? Assuming evolution is true, (or, rather, since so many of us disagree on or can't accept the word evolution, assuming traits come and go depending on their necessity of our survival in our environment is true), any organism or life form that would have come from outer space and been strong enough to survive the travel from wherever it came from in the strenuous conditions space provides, would no longer have those traits while living on earth as it no longer needs those traits. Especially since it has been so long that life has been on earth. These people are trying to take something they think "came from space" and put it "back" into space without any of the protective traits it "might" have had when it "was" living there. This makes no sense what so ever. It seems to me that they are setting themselves up for failure. They would have to "train" an organism and let it "learn" survive in increasingly more strenuous conditions closer to that of space over years and then maybe the organism might be able to survive. Even then, it would not prove that life "might" have come from some other source than the elements of earth, it would only further prove natural selection. What a waste of time and money, unless they are trying to prove natural selection (which we know already exists.. )
"Nothing is more terrible than seeing ignorance in action"
This is a very different test and experiment. The setup is to take some very extreme microbes that have been shown to be hard radiation and vacuum resistent, and see how they react, adapt, and adjust to 'space' conditions. The main mission of the launch is to study the sun and it's corona (that is your tax dollars at work) while the secondary or minor mission is these cultures.
Perhaps you should read the article, first? Anyway, it's hoped this can give us more information on genetic repair mechanisms, among other things, as well as perhaps giving us a clue on whether life could really survive outer space.
The Apollo missions had no controls, no precautions, no safeties, so we don't really know *what* those microbes mean, other than the fact that there were microbes on the equipment. That is all that we can really infer.
Bye!
GPL Deconstructed
I doubt that those petri dishes simulate anywhere near the sort of environment you would find on your average metorite. The bacteria dont need to survive in space to travel between planets, they need to survive in a chunk of rock, and assuming the chunk of rock is big enough to have any left over after entering an atmosphere and burning up, i think it would be large enough to protect the bacteria from the majority of harmful radiation out there. Not that this means that bateria have ever migrated between planets on the back of a rock. That would be silly.
-----
"Almost isn't good enough - but it's almost good enough."
-Me
I thought they already found backteria on a camara lens mounted on a moon buggy (someone sneesed on it).
When they took it back didn't they found they were still alive?
I have this information from "The Planets" BBC documentary
Ok first of all we know the requirements for life. An energy source and a way to reproduce. Of couse something could survive without oxygen, we have found more complex organisms than bacteria on earth living without oxygen, light, in an area exceeding 150 degrees, underwater. But then again, if bacteria was origninally living on the surface of a planet, then hit with some asteroid blasting it into space, there wouldn't be much time for the bacteria to modify itself. But i think if we've found life on the worst part of earth, i think there could be some in a good part of vacuumous space. Now regarding 'holding someone underwater' relating to this subject. What if these bactera's lifespan is like 9 minutes, and it shows it can survive and also reproduce in that time? It like saying 'people can't survive on earth' is the same thing as 'we can live underwater'. We spend a lifetime on earth, but can only temporarily be underwater.
-inferno
the inferno
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
The moderation of this post is wrong, and it is contrary to the moderator guidelines, which call for moderators not to moderate down because they disagree.
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
There is a theory that there is life in the bacterial life within the moon. If conditions are hot enough within the moon then such life can exist. The theory even states that is where life may have from when the earth was formed within the core of the earth. It is just another theory.
Hume's principle is about *probability*, not belief.
--
Peter
In order to justify more funds allocated by the congresscritters...
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
You are probably referring to D. radiodurans, which is one of several organisms that will be carried aloft in this mission.
This NASA article talks about D. radiodurans with an eye on possible uses of the bacterium in space exploration.
I believe people recently found a meteorite that contained droplets of water enclosed within rock salt. Given the melting point of salt and other properties, I think that makes it unlikely that the interior of the meteorite got too hot. Of course, if the bacteria were on the outside to begin with, they might simply "come off" during reentry and then drift down harmlessly through the atmosphere.
They don't _have_ to fight. If you survive to reproduce, you pass on your genetic traits. If you don't survive to reproduce, you don't pass on your genetic traits. This IS well understood. You need neither a biology degree, nor a background in medicine to grasp these basic concepts (although the original poster does seem to have congnitive difficulties). What is NOT yet fully understood are mutation rates, their causes, and how it leads to speciation.
And ignore the other guy, he's a blatant troll, and apparently a pretty ignorant one as well. In his bizzaro universe natural selection magically does not exist (in ours it does. This part is not a theory. See the alt.origins FAQ). Not only that, but according to him, evolution sets out to prove we are "descended from apes" (in the universe WE live in, the theory of evolution says nothing about apes being our ancestors). Poor deluded fellow.
Btw this is so far off topic its not even funny. Please moderate this entire thread down if you have to.
Human eye - random series of mutations where by NATURAL SELECTION, those creatures with bad or no eysight were eaten by creatures with it, thus leaving only sighted creatures to reproduce (more sighted creaures)
Human soul - I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt that it exists. Electromagnetic energy stored in our brains and nervous systems. These are the the 3D representations (shadows if you will) of our multi-dimensional bodies from 4th-7th dimensions existing only 1 mm away (see string and M-theory).
My ideas are just about as provable as yours. The eye thing is absolutly proveable.
As for observing evloution, try microbes. I generation of human life can be millions for a bacteria - plenty of time to observe evolution.
BTW can you suck your testicles up into your body cavity at will? The ancient Romans could. But since it no longer serves a purpose, the ability has been "bred out" of humans (as is the ability to wiggle you ears) so that today, almost no one can do it.
That sound suspiciously like evolution to me.
I'd rather be decended from a Bonobo or Chimp than be created by a God which says its ok to kill someone who doesn't believe in him/her the "right way" - see Northern Ireland, Isreal, Iran, the Crusades, the Inquisition etc all done in the name of God.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
Hey man, I can troll too....hehe
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
Here is the clickable link. That ain't no 10 minutes! This is proof (if true, of course) that bacteria can survive harsh space conditions for extended periods of time.
Sure it doesn't prove that "we are the aliens", but it's the best evidence yet (besides similar lab results of vacuum and radiation) that bacteria can survive things like mars meterorites. (Who knows, maybe even comets?) So life may be more pervasive than we thought. (Or maybe only able to be more pervasive)
-Ben
Trying to figure out if life "arrived" on earth is going to be
difficult, and it really isn't the interesting question. The
interesting question is can we get life off of this planet,
and surviving somewhere else. If mankind is to have any long term
legacy (think geological time scales...) it will be the spread of life
through the solar system and onto passing comets. This research will
help select candidate microbes for such a mission.
I would imagine that a suborbital flight would be pretty darned optimal for picking up stuff like this.
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
While I'm sure this is a troll, some of the points raised are disturbing. I'll throw caution to the wind and feed the beast anyway....
Sorry for my ranting, but at the end of the day evolution is nothing more than a myth with only circumstantial "facts" to back it up, and it doesn't deserve to be taught to children who are blinded to this important difference.
While you may believe that the evidence in favor of evolution is suspect, I would counter that you have not objectively viewed the evidence in question. Furthermore, your viewpoint is in opposition to that of mainstream science and science education organizations, such as the AAAS and the AAPT, who have condemned the change in Kansas school standards. The burden is on you, my friend, to prove that the Christian mythos is necessarily a more consistent explanation of the facts than is evolution. It is not enough to sit back and say "Evolution is wrong, ergo the Christian myth is right." Please keep in mind that "the bible says so" will carry little weight in your argument; heliocentrists were condemned for decades by the church in part because the bible allegedly indicated that the earth was the center of the cosmos.
There are plenty more worthwhile projects we can do in space, ones with real scientific value.
Looking for the boundary of "Heaven?" Searching for "angels on high?" I shudder to think what one who has no understanding of how science is conducted would imagine space projects with "real scientific value" to be. I suppose you do not believe in geology either, that dinosaurs were just big beasts who wouldn't fit on the ark, the Big Bang theory is false, and that nuclear theory is suspect as well (can't have carbon dating indicating an age of a living entity that is older than the age of the universe). Do you object to the term "fossil fuel?"
Allow me to distinguish between science and religious scibabble for you: Science (in principle) follows the scientific method. You formulate a hypothesis, conduct experiments (such as this one) to test said hypothesis, and then you refine your hypothesis based on the results of the test. Sometimes this leads to the unpleasantness of having to scrap your "sexy brilliant idea" and start anew, and sometimes you just have to tweak the hypothesis somewhat to explain the data better. Then more experiments are conducted, and more refinement is performed. Eventually, when the hypothesis is good enough that it stands the test of numerous experiments it gets elevated to the status of "theory." A scientific theory is logically nothing more than a successful hypothesis, albeit one that has passed so many tests successfully that one may strongly suspect it to possess a measure of veracity. Scibabble (I shall use our good friends in Kansas as an example of scibabble at its best/worst) holds that "idea A, my pet idea, is contrary to idea B, which happens to be a scientific theory. I do not believe the weight of evidence in support of B--I shall call it all "circumstantial evidence"--therefore idea A must be correct." It is a position based on a logical fallacy, and as such its conclusions are suspect. When I attended grade school we indeed learned about "this important difference," however it would appear that you did not.
Thank God I come from somewhere where they value the difference between a theory and the Truth.
Kansas, perchance? I find it curious that you capitalize the word "truth"--perhaps you associate the notion of truth with biblical truth only? It must be difficult to do your taxes each year.... "Blast! Where's the 1040A section of Leviticus?!"
Alan Shepard's was a much lower orbit than Gagarin's. If the point of the analogy is to explain what orbit the bacteria are going to be in (low), then it's entirely correct to cite Shepard before Gagarin.
Slava Gagarinu, a hero for all mankind, and all that jazz, but you're still wrong.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Join NASA: Be an astronaut, explore strange new worlds and civilization, and kill their inhabitants with alien bacteria.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Sorry for my ranting, but at the end of the day evolution is nothing more than a myth with only circumstantial "facts" to back it up, and it doesn't deserve to be taught to children who are blinded to this important difference. There are plenty more worthwhile projects we can do in space, ones with real scientific value.
Thank God I come from somewhere where they value the difference between a theory and the Truth.
Kansas?
So what's wrong with the Heterotroph Hypothesis?
Even if you prove that microbes might have landed here from a meteor, you have to explain how they got there. The possibility of life starting somewhere else, then surviving being blasted off their home planet, travelling [b/m]illions of years through space, and landing here would be lower than the possibility of life just starting here, given the ideal conditions that evidence points to. Wouldn't it?
I agree with some other posters here... I don't think the scientists actually wonder if life came from other planets.
Fsck this hard drive! Although it probably won't work...
foo = bar/*myPtr;
Check out Project Upper/Mute, an all-around awesome compiler fra
What about Yuri Gagarin? He was the first person into space! Have some respect when it comes to space travel and try to think about who did what first.
--
Eric is chisled like a Greek Godess
marotti.com
Wasn't this also a MacGyver episode:
S hows/Action_and_Adventure/MacGyver/
They sent some bacteria into space to see how it would be altered by the solar radiation. The satellite crashed to some remote part of the US, and MacGyver was sent to retreive the sample from the woods in a bio-suite. All of the animals around him had died suddenly with the symptoms of "old age". The transmit on his suite gets broken and he almost ends up being napalmed.
Back in the labratory, an over zealous scientist tries to save the bacteria before they're destroyed by Peter and MacGyver. She and her dog get exposed to the bacteria and die. MacGyver gets out just in time to have the whole laboratory incinerated right behind him.
... Then MacGyver puts the building back together with duct tape and his trusty pocket knife! Oh, how sweet were the days when each week's MacGyver was NEW!!!
http://dir.yahoo.com/News_and_Media/Television/
Your tax dollars hard at work I guess
One cannot prove that the universe was not created yesterday out of nothing, with all our memories and all its other internal records made consistent. On the other hand, such a theory has very little predictive power, since the next thing you look at might be the one thing that is not consistent. One cannot prove that the behaviour of gravity will not change tomorrow to cause the Earth to crash into the Sun.
Scientists always have to choose among the theories that fit the available evidence. Then they seek more evidence to test their choices. Experience leads to some "meta-theories" about which choices seem to work out better:
* simplicity -- once you have the right language (usually mathematics) then theories that derive lots of behaviours from a few simple rules seem to do well
* predictive value -- theories that don't let you make predictions about experiments not yet performed are not much use.
* mediocrity -- theories that have our location, our species or our epoch in the history of the universe as somehow special do not seem to do well
* aesthetics -- a bit of a two-edged sword, but brilliant and experienced scientists often seem to develop an effective intuition for which theories are "beautiful enough" to be true.
Anyway, returning to the question of evolution. All reasonably simple theories consistent with the biology that we observe seem to have
+ Mendelian inheritance, with minor modifications
+ Malthusian pressure resulting in not all
juvenile creatures actually breeding
+ mutations
A consequence of this is the sort of evolution by natural selection that can be seen going on over short timescales in (for instance) butterflies adjusting their camouflage to smoke polution, or cod breeding at younger ages under fishing pressure.
The next question is what happens if this process goes on over geological timescales (assuming for the moment the basic theories about the age of the Earth and the basic geological processes acting). Here, you will find more divergence among theorists about details, but most surviving theories do have species emerging, diverging and dying out, matching the fossil record. Recent theories suggest this may be less gradual and more jerky than earlier theories, with processes like the isolation of small populations on islands playing a larger role.
Finally, you can ask whether processes like these have been taking place in past, and if so, how the existing range of species fit in, which brings me back to where I came in: you cannot disprove creation yesterday, or one second ago. On the other hand, teh available records, mainly fossils, but also ice cores and other things, are really quite consistent with the broad thrust of evolution.
The near-Earth space environment is more complex than "gamma rays and a hard vacuum". There is the solar wind and solar radiation, cosmic rays, microgravity etc.
The experiment is a hitchhiker on a sounding rocket used for solar research, so it isn't costing the taxpayer big bucks.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I can imagine bacteria traveling through space, buried inside some porous rock... This way they don't have to be exposed to the harsh conditions of space.
-- Cheers!
Does PETA know about this? Is there going to be a protest? How inhumane! Bacteria have a right to live just like we do. What's next? Monkeys? Dogs? People?!?
--
'...let the rabbits wear glasses...'
Y2038 consulting
They have already found that these bacteria survive gamma rays and a hard vacuum in their lab.
Why should gamma rays and a hard vacuum be any more difficult to survive if it is in space?
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
will involve shooting politicians into space sans spacesuit, to see how well they stand up to the vacuum and solar radiation. Theorists propose that this form of life came to Earth from outer space, possibly on meteorites.
Gonzo
Today scientists dicovered several microscopic life forms living on a 5.25" disk containing the ancient classic Commander Keen. They are eager to investigate how the bacteria survived amid the piles of dust on the floppy.
Surviving in a hard vacuum and radiation is one thing, but surviving a re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere is quite another.
Not to mention the state the artifact must have been in when it was ejected from Mars in the first place. As I understand it, the theory is that significant meteor strikes on Mars can propel martian fragments outside of its gravity well. From all I've read about meteor strikes on Earth, any 'shrapnel' from a blast that large is molten rock when it ejects.
So the real question is: Can microbial life survive a molten host environment, then frozen, irradiated, and exposed to a hard vacuum (the microbes on the exterior, that is), then heated to near-molten levels again when it reenters the atmosphere? If so, we'd better not go to Io!
Kevin Fox
Kevin Fox
http://www.science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast0 1sep98_1.htm
Many have referred to it; here it is from a reliable source. Or as reliable as you get on the internet.
-Ben
I was briefly annoyed when I saw this article, but fortunately the scientists were smarter than the blurb made them sound. Of course throwing some random bacteria into space won't prove anything about the long-term space-endurance of their entire form of life. Bacteria, thanks to their rudimentary life-support needs and short generations, can undergo some truly striking mutations. The extremophiles are a group of bacteria that have evolved to live in ridiculously inhospitable extremes of heat, cold, and toxicity. Some species grow optimally at >100C and pH1.0 -- a hundred times more acidic than stomach acid and hot enough to boil water! In fact, the project appears to be using something similar, a bacterium which was discovered in an extremely hot geothermal spring.
Even then, Earth bacteria aren't necessarily going to have the right stuff. Bacteria that evolved on a planed without a magnetic field to block harmful high-energy particles and an ozone layer to absorb UV might have tolerances to radiation that would be stupidly excessive for anything in our relatively lax biosphere. Like bacteria from our own poles, life from a very cold planet might have a metabolism slow enough that traveling through space for 10,000 years wouldn't be a big problem (and if not, we always have spores). If you had some bacteria initially living on the interior of a chunk of ground that became a meteor, it's even conceivable that they could gradually evolve specifically to survive on the surface of a spacefaring rock.
If this fails, biologists might turn to trying to engineer bacteria that can survive in space. Creating selection pressure for radiation, vacuum, etc. isn't so hard...
- Michael Cohn
-----
Go ahead, blame me... I voted for Nader!