Slashdot Mirror
Possible Signs of Life Detected On Venus
MoThugz writes "This article from the The Houston Chronicle discusses the discovery of mysterious swirling patches on the surface of the planet which may be communities of bacteria. These bacteria might be a genetically-enhanced version of the thermophiles which are known to survive in extreme temperatures. The article suggested the bacteria could be using ultraviolet light from the sun as an energy source, which would explain the presence of strange dark patches on ultraviolet images of the planet."
Not on the surface of Venus, 50 km up in the atmosphere, where the temperature is not too extreme. Their being lifeforms is inferred from the presence of gases that should recombine over time (like oxygen on Earth, which wouldn't stay in the air if life wasn't there to produce it).
The phrase "genetically enhanced" has become an abbreviation of "genes altered through chemical manipulation". All evolution is natural genetic enhancement...even if done selectively by plant breeders who, for example, create large juicy ears of corn from a plant which produced small ears just a short time earlier (and I have no idea how much corn had been altered by pre-Columbus breeders).
The original paper in question here was called "Reassessing the Possibility of Life on Venus: Proposal for an Astrobiology Mission" and published in a journal called "Astrobiology."
Please note that the title of the damn paper is not "Merchants of Venus Discovered, Are Selling Us Meat," but, it appears to me to be an optimistic proposal for another venusian probe.
We can neither love nor pity nor forgive. If you make a slip in handling us you die!
Ummm, Viruses aren't generally considered alive untill they infect something. When the virus isn't infecting a cell it's just a protein coat with some nucleic acid inside. It doesn't need to "do" anything, so is it alive in the air? As far as the scientist's comments, I'm not sure that we can apply our terrestial bound understanding of biology to other worlds: Sure on earth the creation of life probably involved large amounts of liquid water, but that's not to say all life will be like earth life. Perhaps life on venus started as self replicating clouds of gas, or any number of other things
It could be possible that carbonyl suphide might be made by non-biological processes, but it is highly improbable given the time scale of such a reaction. A lot of organic compounds (like carbonyl suphide) can be made without biological processes, but the energy and time requirements are too extremely high to be produced in the AMOUNT that was found on Venus. However, if you add biological catalysts (protiens), you can get these compounds extremely quickly. So, when someone sees a large amount of one of these compounds, he can safely say that some sort of catalyst is causing this reaction. Since carbonyl suphide is a common compound produced by life on Earth, it isn't a giant leap to say that it might be produced by life on Venus.
[Ob.Disclaimer: IANA Smarty Man] Technically, we really have no idea what conditions are necessary to "kick off" evolution. We've deduced that evolution is in effect, based on observable phenomena, but that's about as far as we've gotten. We're still not sure exactly what conditions got it started on Earth, where we actually have the thing to work with. Making statements about how likely Venus is to meet these conditions is laughably premature. We don't know enough about evolution or Venus to do more than gather data and look for patterns.
If there indeed *is* bacteria discovered on Venus it would suggest the dice of the universe are heavily loaded with a bias towards generating life.
Another alternative is that the "dice of the universe" are biased against life, and the presence of life in our solar system is a statistical anomaly produced by some other effect. Certainly the universe in general is extremely hostile to life as we know it.
There could be life in half the star systems in our galaxy, and the dice would still be heavily biased against life in general. If there were life in half the star systems in the universe, that would still only suggest--to me, anyway--that the dice have no particular bias one way or the other, everything else being equal. But I admit that these things are nowhere near my area of expertise.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Back in the 1960s, when the U.S. was planning the first Mars lander to look for signs of life, NASA scientists were proposing instruments such as traps for sand fleas. NASA gave Lovelock some money to look into whether they were going about this appropriately.
Lovelock did not believe that there was life on Mars and proposed that anomalous gases in the atmosphere was the best test for ruling out the presence of life on a planet. As described in Nature:
This hypothesis has the advantage of strongly satisfying Popper's falsifiability requirement: If life must create a chemical balance in the atmosphere that is far from thermodynamic equilibrium, then it's easy to rule out life on a planet by demonstrating that its atmosphere is close to equilibrium.Of course, a non-equilibrium atmosphere is a necessary, not a sufficient condition, so further work must, of course, be carried out before reaching the conclusion that life must be present, but it's so rare to see such strong non-equilibrium conditions that this is indeed exciting news.