Slashdot Mirror


Microbes Alive After Being Frozen for 32,000 Years

An anonymous reader writes "LiveScience is reporting on a new type of bacteria that after being frozen 32,000 years in the Arctic was ready to swim, eat and multiply instantly upon being thawed. Researchers are excited because they're the sort of microbes that might thrive in the ice sea announced on Mars yesterday. The instant revival abilities mean a future mission, if it found anything on Mars, could conceivably culture it and bring it back alive. Maybe NASA could market them as Martian Sea Monkeys."

527 comments

  1. We're all dead!! by StikyPad · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hasn't anyone ever read Andromeda?? Don't thaw them out!!

    1. Re:We're all dead!! by g0dsp33d · · Score: 1

      Or war of the worlds. I for one hope theres no life on mars untill we get there.

      --
      lol: You see no door there!
    2. Re:We're all dead!! by Mr.+Capris · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't worry, by the third mutation or so it stops killing you and only erodes rubber...although it could go back any time now...

      --
      Have you seen the arrow?
    3. Re:We're all dead!! by SafteyMan · · Score: 1, Funny

      Why do you have to be so negative? What if the mars bacteria gave super powers? Now that would be sweet!

    4. Re:We're all dead!! by spectre_240sx · · Score: 1

      No doubt, killer microbes from mars is all we need to deal with right now.

    5. Re:We're all dead!! by Spacejock · · Score: 1, Funny

      "The instant revival abilities mean a future mission, if it found anything on Mars, could conceivably culture it and bring it back alive."

      Great, haven't these idiots seen Alien?

    6. Re:We're all dead!! by Jookoo123 · · Score: 1, Funny

      It really isn't anything new to be afraid of little foreigners.

    7. Re:We're all dead!! by hexium · · Score: 5, Funny

      Opening Slashdot today, I quickly scanned over the articles and saw "Microsoft Alive After Being Frozen for 32,000 Years".

    8. Re:We're all dead!! by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "Hasn't anyone ever read Andromeda?"

      Or seen John Carpenter's _The Thing_.

      Let sleeping procaryotes lie, I say.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    9. Re:We're all dead!! by vzzzbx · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing you mean The Andromeda Strain, not Hercules in Space. :)

    10. Re:We're all dead!! by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "Hasn't anyone ever read Andromeda?"

      http://ijs.sgmjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/ 55 /1/473

      "Growth occurred within the pH range 6595 with optimum growth at pH 7375"

      Uh-oh. Tell me they're not triangular and green.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    11. Re:We're all dead!! by antic · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, 29995 BC called. It wants its microbes back.

      --
      'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
    12. Re:We're all dead!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      its too late they've already taken over...

    13. Re:We're all dead!! by DenDave · · Score: 1

      Ack ack! We come in peace!!! Ack Ack!!

      --
      -if at first you don't succeed, stay the heck away from paragliding.
    14. Re:We're all dead!! by 0111+1110 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Our immune systems are pretty versatile. If the alien microbes are so different from our own that it makes our immune systems useless then it will probably be too foreign to do anything to us. How often have you caught a cold from your dog? Those microbes would have evolved to attack other kinds of animals. They would most likely be harmless to us.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    15. Re:We're all dead!! by Rado.hr · · Score: 1
      I object to that. There are several ways microbes can hurt us. Just for example, imagine some martian microbe that thrives in our atmosphere and produces botulinum as a byproduct of it's metabolism... ;)

      The fact is that we just don't know what might happen. As you said, the microbe might just do no harm at all. But there's still possibility of annihiliation of life (or just some species) on Earth. I don't think we should take any risks with that. And if we want to experiment with the organism, we should do this in it's own habitat, not in some alien conditions.

    16. Re:We're all dead!! by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Fair point but absolute worse case, amazing odds against it, scenario.

      This thing might be able to survive in our current environment and might be compatible enough with us to cause us a problem and we might not be able to evolve resistance to it.

      That's a lot of mights.

      I agree that we shouldn't just bring a bucket of microbes back, dump them in the garden and see what happens, but if brought back and studied under careful conditions, there should be minimal risk. We already study some pretty nasty substances and organisms quite safely.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    17. Re:We're all dead!! by lolindrath · · Score: 0

      Andromeda? Kevin Sorbo is coming after us?

    18. Re:We're all dead!! by The-Bus · · Score: 2, Funny

      Good to know I wasn't the only one. I thought maybe Longhorn got a release date. If so, it is ahead of schedule.

      --

      Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    19. Re:We're all dead!! by skids · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This ain't no laughing matter. Environmental change is
      reviving old diseases left and right.

    20. Re:We're all dead!! by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lot of worry over nothing. Fact is, a lot of martian rock ends up on earth, and some earth rock ends up on mars.
      This has happened often enough that it wouldn't be surprising to find that martian life was an awful lot like life here on earth.

      Heck, there was an interesting discussion on the Mars Society lists about this a while back. With some off-the-cuff calculations of escape velocities, ejecta from planets due to impacts and outer bounds for bacterial spores survivals here on earth - even (especially?) in the frigid extremes of space - of 25 million or so, we were figuring bacteria could easily travel interstellar distances once they got past the odds against having been shot in the right direction.

      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
    21. Re:We're all dead!! by juanfe · · Score: 1

      You're calling it Earth--are you sure you don't mean Teegeeack?.

      --
      ***Foucault is watching you..***
    22. Re:We're all dead!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is so seriously off-topic that I'm posting anonymously, but what the hell is that supposed to mean?
      What in my comment would have given you the impression I was a clamhead?

    23. Re:We're all dead!! by jonnystiph · · Score: 1

      Hasn't anyone ever read Andromeda?? Don't thaw them out!!

      Or At the Mountain's of Madness. He's right people, listen to him. Doom I say, Doom!

      --

      If we don't make light of everything, we are just stumbling in the dark - Blank

    24. Re:We're all dead!! by NetNinja · · Score: 1

      Actually how often are people catching colds from birds?
      It's only a matter of time before nature says "Wake up! It's time to die!"

      poof 10 Million dead.

    25. Re:We're all dead!! by Rado.hr · · Score: 0
      I presume that, if we want to get specimens back to Earth, we would have to protect them from Space, meaning having a shelter designed for retrieval - a shelter that can keep living things alive. ;)

      So far, we just think that meteorites from Mars might brought us some fossils, not living bacteria. On the other hand, it is known fact that some earth-borne bacteria did survive extreme conditions on space vessels they "infected" prior to launch.

    26. Re:We're all dead!! by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 1

      Totally agree, we only have marginal evidence for bacterial "fossils"
      Of course, the problem is distinguishing martian bacterial spores from contamination on earth.
      Earth is teeming with life and any "martian attack" would be quickly overwhelmed or simply blend in.

      And no question a trip through space is hazardous, even to a spore, so trying to get something back from Mars would involve protecting it.
      Just saying the odds against repeated trips between mars and earth for bacterial spores are not that high. And keep in mind most of this would have been when mars may have well been a bit more pleasant.

      I think the calculations from the aforementioned discussion were based upon spore density on earth, freqnuency of impacts in the past, and amount of ejecta from impact to achieve escape velocity.

      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
    27. Re:We're all dead!! by iabervon · · Score: 1

      From an alternate universe in which Microsoft got a judge who was a fan of Empire Strikes Back?

    28. Re:We're all dead!! by acidrain69 · · Score: 1

      Or At the Mountain's of Madness. He's right people, listen to him. Doom I say, Doom!

      I'm gonna sing the Doom song now!

      Piggy?

      --
      -- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
    29. Re:We're all dead!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now I'm to lazy to recover the password for my login.. but that was just too funny not to comment on.
      Hercules in space :D
      Well written.

    30. Re:We're all dead!! by walstib · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our new alien virus overlords!

      --
      The most dangerous strategy is to jump a chasm in two leaps. - Benjamin Disraeli
  2. Mmm... microbe babes! by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 5, Funny
    "bacteria that after being frozen 32,000 years in the Arctic was ready to swim, eat and multiply instantly upon being thawed.

    Wouldn't you be ready to eat and, uh, multiply if you had been without for 32,000 years?

    1. Re:Mmm... microbe babes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can barely think after only being out for a few hours.

      I'm also picturing Austin Powers' first visit to the toilet after being thawed. ...and imagine the morning breath.

  3. Fark headline? by Renraku · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can imagine the fark headline in a few years.

    NASA scientists market Martian microbes as 'Martian sea monkies'. Hilarity ensues.

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    1. Re:Fark headline? by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think the notorious "What could possibly go wrong?" tagline might be more appropriate :)

    2. Re:Fark headline? by Mr.Progressive · · Score: 1

      at least one of the comments will include the acronym UMIA

      --
      Okay, so a philosopher, a philologist, and a philatelist walk into a bar...
    3. Re:Fark headline? by Gunnery+Sgt.+Hartman · · Score: 1


      Sea Monkies+Seamen= Seaciety
      Now if only NASA can find some dude in an ally that will let them have his seamen by merly closing their eyes and sucking on a hose.

      --
      [ ]
    4. Re:Fark headline? by wed128 · · Score: 1

      fark.com

      Silly ass news for the less polite amoung us. Very entertaining comments.

  4. Hmm,... by Fjornir · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Researchers are excited because they're the sort of microbes that might thrive in the ice sea announced on Mars yesterday Yeah, if the likely problems of salt in the martian see can be solved for these critters, maybe.

    --
    I want a new world. I think this one is broken.
    1. Re:Hmm,... by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · · Score: 1

      Except for the fact that life began in the sea with all its salty goodness here on Earth.

      --
      Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
    2. Re:Hmm,... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "There can't be life on Earth, there's too much oxygen there"

      Martian Chronicles

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    3. Re:Hmm,... by Fjornir · · Score: 1
      Think about it. Take an entire salty ocean. Evaporate off a lot of it. How high is the salt concentration in what remains?

      Also factor in that as near as we can tell Mars is a saltier place to begin with.

      --
      I want a new world. I think this one is broken.
  5. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The number of years isn't rounded to 32,768? And you call this a geek site?

    1. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or perhaps 31744 would be better.

    2. Re:What? by Funky+Jester · · Score: 1

      Maybe they got their start working with hard drives...

    3. Re:What? by berglin · · Score: 1

      No, then it would be 32Ki years old.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibibyte

    4. Re:What? by sh0dan · · Score: 1

      Seems like rounding to 115 - (18 + 19) was binary enough.

    5. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I thought the exact same thing, when I read this article. Clearly they have a Y2K, er... Y2^15 problem that they are awakening to fix.

      I guess there are some geeks and nerds among us (besides me).

    6. Re:What? by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      Holy shit, your comment # ends with 2768! :)

    7. Re:What? by Bob+McCown · · Score: 1

      Who do we appreciate?

    8. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pffft. Yeah, and we're supposed to take criticism from someone who operates using a 1-based index?

      Please, VB noob. :)

    9. Re:What? by sinserve · · Score: 1

      nice catch :-)

  6. Didn't I see this.... by MuckSavage · · Score: 1, Funny

    ....in a bad sci-fi movie? Now I guess we're all screwed.

    Smart move, Scientists!

  7. No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is obviously not true because the endospores created by the bacteria have a shelf-life of about ten thousand years before they are rendered 'dead', which is exactly what should of happened here. Hence, this is a made up story, thanks for reporting it too us.

    1. Re:No! by aussie_a · · Score: 0

      Hence, this is a made up story

      Any references?

    2. Re:No! by kronchev · · Score: 1

      You're not full of shit or anything

    3. Re:No! by rs79 · · Score: 1

      Try googling the Latin name and you'll find the abstract of the type species description - the description of this new (uh, to scince) species published online before print publication in a peer reviewed journal.

      It goes into a fair bit of detail. Or you can believe some random asshole on slashdot. Your call.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    4. Re:No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we should take someone who can't spell "SHOULD *HAVE*" seriously because ... ???

  8. Uh-oh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Little Billy pours a packet into a little acquarium only to have something out of Species in his bedroom the next morning.

    Well. I'd buy it.

    1. Re:Uh-oh. by electricsheep7 · · Score: 1, Funny

      Natasha Henstridge? I'd buy it too!

      --

      ~# su -
      fluffybunPassword:
    2. Re:Uh-oh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's the ugly mannish one in She-Spies, right?

  9. I, for one,... by bcrowell · · Score: 5, Interesting
    welcome our new Martian bacterial overlords!

    But seriously, discovering unicellular life on Mars would be the greatest scientific discovery of the last 200 years, and if it's there, we could do it very cheaply with an uncrewed sample return mission, using present-day technology. It's too bad that the average taxpayer thinks germs from another planet just don't sound very interesting.

    1. Re:I, for one,... by syphax · · Score: 4, Insightful


      But seriously, discovering unicellular life on Mars would be the greatest scientific discovery of the last 200 years.


      I suppose it depends how you define scientific discovery, but I'll stick with, I don't know, let's say the general theory of relativity. That theory (I'd call it a discovery) has pretty profound implications about the nature of our universe. On the other hand, Mars is just the next rock over; I wouldn't find it all that shocking if life were found there (although it would certainly raise some interesting questions).

      --
      Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
    2. Re:I, for one,... by rhizome · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >But seriously, discovering unicellular life on Mars would be the
      >greatest scientific discovery of the last 200 years

      I think it's impact would be much greater on the theological world than the scientific.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    3. Re:I, for one,... by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "...I wouldn't find it all that shocking if life were found there (although it would certainly raise some interesting questions)."

      You're probably not a religious fundamentalist either. Remember, the vast majority of the religions on the planet make Earth out to be something special in "all of God's work", and challenging that with something like, "Life has come to be elsewhere without spawning from Earth" would be a real problem for many religions, assuming that the message about life spawning managed to reach the people in these congregations.

      If religious leaders condemn it they could advocate open violence against anyone spreading the knowledge or believing it. Since there are a LOT of people who fall into the Fundamentalist category or are influenced by them this could have really nasty ramifications.

      Most people can't handle a major change in their world view.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    4. Re:I, for one,... by Mr.+Capris · · Score: 1

      uncrewed sample return mission

      Wouldn't it be funny if Earth viruses on the mission craft destroyed all traces of the bacteria before it got to Earth?
      Meanwhile, the scientists stare at each other and say "I coulda swore it was there..."

      --
      Have you seen the arrow?
    5. Re:I, for one,... by grasshoppa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most people are idiots.

      And I have proof: Look at human history.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    6. Re:I, for one,... by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To hell with religion, the impact on the life sciences is what we're talking about. The effect of having a completely different organism to study would be phenomonal. Of course, if it turns out that earth was seeded by metorites thrown up from mars (or visa-versa) the effect will not be so great. Of course, now that I mention that I've given the religous a way to save their creationist theories.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    7. Re:I, for one,... by peccary · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think it would shake the theological world nearly as much as the discovery of intelligent life in the New World did. Christianity survived that one relatively unscathed, save for the invention of a new sect and a sci-fi TV series. I'm sure that it won't struggle too much with Martian microbes. After all, the Genesis account only says that God created life on Earth, it doesn't rule out the possibility that he might have created life somewhere else as well.

      Buddhism, Shinto, Taoism, and Wicca couldn't care less.

      Judaism and Islam share the same creation myth as Christianity, but their adherents don't seem to have quite so much invested in it, so I doubt they would blink.

    8. Re:I, for one,... by Shambhu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was wondering the same thing. How clean could you get a lander? You could carry the lander inside the craft proper, in a 'sealed' chamber. The chamber and the lander would have been as sterilized as possible. And then, if the lander was well-equiped enough, you could warm the sample up and study it right on the Martian surface.

      Is anyone here qualified to say how clean we could guarantee the lander and its chamber would be? Disregard the technical complexities of the rest of the mission.

      --
      Rome wasn't bilked in a day.
    9. Re:I, for one,... by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Of course, if it turns out that earth was seeded by metorites thrown up from mars (or visa-versa) the effect will not be so great

      What would be great is if both planets were seeded with life from another star system. I don't know how that could be proved though.

    10. Re:I, for one,... by phutureboy · · Score: 1

      It's too bad that the average taxpayer thinks germs from another planet just don't sound very interesting.

      I personally would prefer that such missions be financed voluntarily by people who do find them interesting and valuable. Ditto for the arts.

      Just my 2 cents.

    11. Re:I, for one,... by assassinator42 · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure the Bible isn't totally specific about life on other planets. But yeah, it does seem to strongly suggest there isn't. Also, micro-organisms and beings like humans are two different things. Personally, I don't really see what purpose projects like SETI have. If we get broadcasts, how would we understand them? And if we did understand them, what could we do about it? Distances are too long.

    12. Re:I, for one,... by salemlb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Religious fundamentalists will have no trouble with this one. The will be, something along the lines of... "See? We TOLD you life had to be created! How else can you explain something that you can't even do in a laboratory appearing in TWO different places! All this time you've been saying life is rare, and shuckey-durn, we were right all along when we said GOD could make it when, where, and how he pleased." The ones having trouble will likely be the biologists and biochemists... who will now be likely to have yet another chemistry that resulted in life to attempt to explain. The inability to explain the formation of life is the greatest failure of science today... and life on Mars likely will only make that more obvious.

    13. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm posting this as "Anonymous Coward" because I'm too lazy to register.

      Anyway, have you stopped to think that maybe:

      1. God created life on Mars or elsewhere? The Bible is silent about the possibility.

      or

      2. That maybe when a big asteroid hit, and a chunk of the earth was blown into space, that maybe some of it could eventually land on Mars?

      Not all fundies are ignorant idiots. Don't paint us that way.

    14. Re:I, for one,... by Queer+Boy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If religious leaders condemn it they could advocate open violence against anyone spreading the knowledge or believing it. Since there are a LOT of people who fall into the Fundamentalist category or are influenced by them this could have really nasty ramifications.

      I think you're speaking from a very US-centric view. There are very few people outside the US that fall into the sort of "fundamentalist" category that you are describing. There's nothing in the Torah or Koran that says that there's only life on Earth and that Earth is special. To the best of my knowledge there's nothing in the Bible to that effect, either.

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
    15. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would be great is if both planets were seeded with life from another star system. I don't know how that could be proved though.

      Simple. All life on Earth shares some common fundamental processes and constructs. Mars life will either be the same or different, and that's your answer. What are the odds that evolution of life on Mars would result in identical cell structures as found on Earth?

    16. Re:I, for one,... by TWX · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "Not all fundies are ignorant idiots. Don't paint us that way."

      *blink* *blink*

      BWAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!!

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    17. Re:I, for one,... by Flavio · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please explain how extraterrestrial life contradicts theology from the world's major religions.

      Christianity certainly makes humans special, but in no way precludes the existence of other extraordinary mortal creatures. Doing so would actually be inconsistent, since the scriptures mention other special creatures (angels and demons) which don't exist exclusively on Earth.

      Therefore, even intelligent extraterrestrial life wouldn't pose a threat to Christian theology. Since Mars is expected (at best) to harbor bacterial life, there's no point in having this discussion.

      It seems like you're trying to find reasons to condemn religion, but this certainly isn't one. Atheism is the most fashionable belief, but in the end it just rejects every concrete point of view without actually explaining anything.

      In the interest of fairness, try to be more open minded and less prejudiced.

    18. Re:I, for one,... by HappyDrgn · · Score: 1

      I agree, mostly. The majority of religions do not even address the issue of life outside of earth however. I'll agree the majority of congregations believe they where the only ones created by thier respective god(s), and will likely fight you on the idea to their death... I for one welcome our new frozen martian overlords.

    19. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's impact would be much greater on the theological world than the scientific.

      I'm not so sure. Religions have an almost infinite capacity to ignore contradictory evidence -- look at evolution, for example, or all of the "end times" cults.

      On the other hand, the discovery of life on Mars would give us insight into what is really necessary for life to begin and develop elsewhere in the universe, as well as what is merely an accident of evolution.

    20. Re:I, for one,... by chudgoo · · Score: 1

      Something tells me that will mean the most to the "Pro-Life" movements.

      Imagine the confusion when single-celled organisms aren't considered life anymore....

    21. Re:I, for one,... by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      It could just mean life began on Mars or Earth and life was transferred as the original poster said.

    22. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There are people who believe in creation as the concept that everything was created. Even life on other planets.

      There are only a minority of hard-core types that believe that Earth is the center of the universe.

    23. Re:I, for one,... by modecx · · Score: 1

      Meh, I'm confident that the super-religious people that I've encountered would explain it away with something like "God created the universe in 7 days, you don't think he could create some microbes on Mars?", or "We must have faith that God created these Martian Microbes for us to discover, just like he created dinosaur bones so he could fool the unworthy non-beliver heathens!"

      Then again... NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    24. Re:I, for one,... by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well,With any luck SETI would overhear a fleet of warships are headed our way in the next 300 years or so.Then we could stop killing each other over stupidity and join together to get out there and kick ass.Just like us and the soviets in WW2 nothing gets us to band together like a common enemy.Sad but true.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    25. Re:I, for one,... by cmallinson · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I personally would prefer that such missions be financed voluntarily by people who do find them interesting and valuable. Ditto for the arts.

      So research should only be done to satisfy the interests of the wealthy and/or Wal-Mart?

    26. Re:I, for one,... by orpx · · Score: 1

      my my that would be phenominal... marvelous.. stupendously.... redundant, for lemmings on a hi||, an empty hidden bucket, with cracks for noone to drink

    27. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2. That maybe when a big asteroid hit, and a chunk of the earth was blown into space, that maybe some of it could eventually land on Mars?

      See, there's this big star that really is at the center of our local system. It's really freaking massive. Lots and lots of gravity.

      Even if debris from an asteroid collision manages to reach escape velocity from the Earth's gravity well, it damned sure isn't going to fall another 100,000,000 miles straight up, which is what it would take to reach Mars. It would end up in the Sun, or, at the very least, on Venus or Mercury.

    28. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not really.

      Being an idiots increases your odds of being in the history books by a hundred times, as does being powerful. The few, the proud, the Idiotic Powerful are the ones that end up in history books, as opposed to the millions of froods that just had enough power to get by.

    29. Re:I, for one,... by wazo2k · · Score: 1

      I think it's impact would be much greater on the theological world than the scientific

      Not necessarily, the study of unusual species can lead to great discoveries. For example, an enzyme found in heat-loving bacteria that grow in geysers is necessary for PCR amplification, a technique used for genetic fingerprinting (comparing a person's DNA to a sample like blood in a crime scene), paternity testing, detection of hereditary diseases and lots of biology applications.

    30. Re:I, for one,... by TWX · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Even if debris from an asteroid collision manages to reach escape velocity from the Earth's gravity well, it damned sure isn't going to fall another 100,000,000 miles straight up, which is what it would take to reach Mars. It would end up in the Sun, or, at the very least, on Venus or Mercury.
      Okay, what about debris sent hurling through space fifteen or twenty degrees just past the Sun, spun by the Sun into a highly elliptic orbit, where it goes from in as far as the fringes of Mercury's orbit (abeit for a short time) to as far out as Jupiter?

      Or, instead of the Sun, which has nasty radiation, maybe the impact was terribly strong, which could send stuff out past Mars (like, every probe Earth has sent out into deep space ever)...
      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    31. Re:I, for one,... by pyro_dude · · Score: 1

      Buddha spoke of the ten-thousandfold world-system. No problems here...

      --
      --pyro_dude
    32. Re:I, for one,... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Remember those meteor fragments from years ago that supposedly came from mars, space - something like that - which demonstrated that life developed outside earth's atmosphere?

      Turned out that they probably originated from a meteor impact which blew earth chunks out into space. Why couldn't mars have been populated in such a fashion as well?

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    33. Re:I, for one,... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Yes, you're right. Please don't sneeze - you'll be removing all those bacterial organisms from your lungs, which those poor things depend on for life!

      Idiot.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    34. Re:I, for one,... by ThisIsFred · · Score: 1

      Yeesh, how negative. Wouldn't this have already happened when there was that mistranslated and/or misunderstood discovery of "canali" on Mars's surface? I don't think discovery of life on Mars would be the catalyst for a new Dark Age. In fact, I think most people would say, "hey, now that's neat." The radical fundamentalists will always find a reason to kill the non-believer, so it really depends very little on the novelty of that reason.

      --
      Fred

      "A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
      -RMS
    35. Re:I, for one,... by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      Not really. The die-hard creationists would just come up with endless excuses to explain why the life really wasn't on Mars -- at least not originally. Expect to hear tales of contamination from previous probes and even accusations of outright fraud by NASA should any native life of any kind ever be found outside of Earth.

    36. Re:I, for one,... by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      There are very few people outside the US that fall into the sort of "fundamentalist" category that you are describing.

      Not fundamentalist Christians, perhaps. But for other religions--well, just look at Saudi Arabia, for one.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    37. Re:I, for one,... by bm_luethke · · Score: 1

      You know, growing up and living in the Bible Belt (east Tennessee) I know quite a few religious people. From me (generally not what you would call a fundamentalist) all the way to some real fruitcakes.

      The vast majority of those I know pretty much accept life outside of the Earth. In fact the kooky fundamentalist are generally ones that also buy into the kooky aliens infiltrate the earth.

      Can I find some who don't? Can I find high profile religious leaders who don't? Of course, but then you can find Athiest scientist who do that also.

      I wonder how many fundamentalist or christians you actually know or if you are basing this on TV and reputation. It is possible that the Appalachian bible belters are amongst the most technological savvy and accepting of science but I kinda figure that to not be the case. They are the only group I can really speak about with any authority and I guess the rest of the worlds fundamentalist my be years behind us.

      To note, we also have TV's, figure the earth is billions of years old, the universe is very large - most of us do not see science/technology and religion interacting that much, let alone one proving the other "false".

      --
      ------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
    38. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow, six replies and nobody has yet corrected your spelling/grammar...

      "I think it is impact would be much greater ..."

      its not it's!

    39. Re:I, for one,... by Tablizer · · Score: 1


      I think it's impact would be much greater on the theological world than the scientific.

      Why? The Bible says nothing about the existence or non-existence of life outside of Earth (that I know of). It simply does not address it.

    40. Re:I, for one,... by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      Would it be a great scientific discovery? I guess we'd have to see it to know, but I'd imagine it to be kind of a neat story in the newspaper, but essentially irrelevant to science, and then half-forgotten a year later.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    41. Re:I, for one,... by kamapuaa · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I don't really understand how you're taken seriously, when you're obviously much more a zealot than any religious person I've ever met. Christianity doesn't have a stance on life on other worlds, although the Catholic church says it's a possibility. Mormons specifically believe in other populated worlds. Muslims believe God created other worlds. Many forms of Buddhism and Hinduism believe in parallel worlds. Scientologists believe in Zetans or some shit.

      Considering it was formerly a commonplace view that other planets were populated, how would it even make sense for religions to be fundamentally opposed to the concept?

      Can you please name a single religion with a dogma that specifically condemns the possibility of life on other worlds? Or are you just blindly opposed to religion?

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    42. Re:I, for one,... by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 1

      I agree. The nice thing about religion as a concept is how flexible it is. Once you've excepted the notion of a supreme being that can do anything, excepting anything else is easy. You just say "God did that too."
      It's just too bad so many people are rigid and unwilling to look at it that way.

    43. Re:I, for one,... by Magic5Ball · · Score: 1

      I am not a materials scientist, just a microbiologist.

      We want to build several 1 cc sample spaces, and possibly a probe/scraper/collector of some kind, that is completely sterile of Terran life (and living compounds) that we know about, and exclude the possibility of anything living on our instrument. Also, the material used to build this can't be antibiotic (broad sense) or we risk killing Martian life with our kit, so it can't be made of highly radioactive material.

      Assuming an unlimited lander (power and space), I would equip the lander so that it is able to expose this sample space to all the environmental extremes we know of and then some, in an autoclave-like contraption that would probably destroy other autoclaves. The instrument would be exposed to extreme heat, cold, acid/base (careful selection of non-organic acid/base required), pressure, vacuum, light, electricity, desiccation, other radiation, etc that would kill each of the extremophiles that we know about. This expoure needs to happen at least once on Earth, and once after landing. Exposing the package to cosmic radiation along the way to Mars, without contaminating it with space dust, would be a plus.

      I'd love to strip a layer of atoms from the surface of this instrument after launch using something like 20 molar H2SO4, but we know of spores that might survive that particular acid. Perhaps a concentrated binary acid with pH < 0.

      For a simple solution that accomplishes most of this, perhaps a block of magnesium given all the listed non-chemical treatments, with the actual sample space and instrument fashioned with controlled redox while on the surface. A reaction that carves a hole in solid metal and is exothermic to a couple thousand degrees will destroy most organic particles.

      Of course, we'll also need to sterilize the liquid solutions the probe will need to test for life if we are doing more than just melting Martian ice samples. The starting materials for any kind of metabolite test will need to be clean (I don't know that we can currently do this for all but the most simple SM without simutaneously destroying our SM since most of our tests are for the production of Earth organics from other Earth organics). Perhaps we could focus on gas exchange tests which do not depend as much on touching/reacting the sample, but inorganic processes also convert gases.

      Looking a bit into the future, I would build the entire mission out of space dust, bootstrapping with nanites so that there is no possibility of directly contaminating the instrument with Terran life. (If life as we know it exists in open space, well, that's an important discovery, but for different reasons.)

      Of course, all this is moot if we've already contaminated the surface with Terran life. And if we have not already, current practices are likely sufficient to maintain a sterile environment.

      --
      There are 1.1... kinds of people.
    44. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This wouldn't be a problem for most religions.

      I can't thing of a single mainstream religon that defines "the world" as a big ball of rock and water.

      "The world" can simply be adapted to mean the solar system, the galaxy, the universe etc etc...

      For all their flaws, the designers of most religions did build a certain degree of future-proof-ness into them!

    45. Re:I, for one,... by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      "Not all fundies are ignorant idiots"

      Maybe you weren't idiots to start with but embracing any kind of religious fundamentalism ( or religion in general ) certainly signals your intention to act like one.

    46. Re:I, for one,... by CmdrGravy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think you will have to admit you are also an aethist before you go accusing other people of being close minded and prejudiced.

      The problem with Christianity and all other religious beliefs is that they have no basis in any kind of facts or evidence and are therefore perfectly capable of changing to suit any situation.

      We should listen to what Christian Theology has to say about life elsewhere with exactly the same weight as listening to the trilling of nightingales to tell us about life elsewhere since both are equally meaningless.

    47. Re:I, for one,... by bruthasj · · Score: 1

      Why?

      I believe in God and I also believe in life on other Planets. I think most will accept it without that much fuss and without too much modification to personal theological belief systems.

    48. Re:I, for one,... by Matje · · Score: 1

      Atheism is the most fashionable belief, but in the end it just rejects every concrete point of view without actually explaining anything.

      Sounds intriguing. How about this sentence:

      Believe in some God is the most fashionable belief, but in the end it just rejects every concrete point of view without actually explaining anything.

      Me thinks it's equally true to your version. After all, where did God come from?

    49. Re:I, for one,... by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 1

      Einsteins theory is not what I'd call a discovery. More comparable would be Ørsteds discovery that light had a speed, or Michelson-Morley discovery that the speed of light seemed independent of Earth's motion.

      Biology suffer from the fact that all biological life we know is likely related. For some of the more fundamental questions in biology, this means wo only have a single observation around which to build our theories. Independent life on Mars would double the number of observations, which would put questions like the origin of life within the realm of science.

    50. Re:I, for one,... by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 1

      The impact would enourmous in biology.

      I doub't it would mean anything in theology, those who now accept science and adapt their religion to scientific findings (like the pope does) will accept it, and those who deny facts today in order to keep a literal and closed minded interpretation of old translations of ancients texts, will just deny this one as well.

    51. Re: I, for one,... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > I believe in God and I also believe in life on other Planets. I think most will accept it without that much fuss and without too much modification to personal theological belief systems.

      Even intelligent life on other planets shouldn't be too much problem; Gospel of John 10:16 will just be interpreted as prophetic:

      "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold."
      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    52. Re:I, for one,... by jandersen · · Score: 1

      'Remember, the vast majority of the religions on the planet make Earth out to be something special in "all of God's work"'

      Not quite - Judaism (and its two major sects, Christianity and Islam) works that way. I don't see much of that in eg. Hinduism or other religions. I think this kind of boneheaded intolerance is something that is more or less built in to monotheism: 'Since there is only ONE GOD all others are false by definition and therefore evil.' It is unfortunately very easy to extend this kind of intolerance to all aspects of existence.

    53. Re:I, for one,... by Mant · · Score: 1

      There is lots of things fundamentalists hate, but only a very, very tiny proportion of them actually comit violence.

      Can't see this being any different.

    54. Re:I, for one,... by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      I don't think it would shake the theological world nearly as much as the discovery of intelligent life in the New World did.

      Er, they thought it was India. Of course it didn't shake the theological world. Hence the term "American Indians."

    55. Re:I, for one,... by xSauronx · · Score: 1
      I read a book my mother once gave me; i have it at home, but I forget the author's name. The title of the book is "the collapse of evolution" where, and I'm sure this will shock a number of you, he writes about "facts" that "disprove" evolution.

      Some of it is "scientific" arguments like the ones used about bombardier beetles (which, if you've read anything about them, and then read this book, you'd know he was wrong) and some are based on the Bible; where he argues that since the bible didn't say there was life elsewhere, and it *did* say (this is according to him, remember) that the universe would be destroyed when god was done with our earth; god wouldn't create life elsewhere that he would be destroying based on what happened on earth.

      There are certainly christians who agree with him; I won't discuss it with my parents because I don't have the patience to deal with people quoting lies and misinformation with no interest in fact-checking.

      Perhaps all christians don't feel that way, but some do, and I would imagine some people of other religions probably would feel the same way: that there *can't* be life on any rock but earth.

      To rephrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" some people think that "absence of it's mention in the scripture, means it *is not*"

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    56. Re:I, for one,... by WoodieR · · Score: 1

      life on Mars would be THE greatest discovery of all frickin' time !

      --
      Question Authority before IT questions You ...
    57. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on, he's speaking in the context of scientific discoveries, not religious dogma. Not that you don't have a point (though whether it is valid is another matter), but funny that you would think it appropriate to bring up a religious discussion in such circumstances.

    58. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me thinks it's equally true to your version. After all, where did God come from?

      True, but Christians (and Jews afaik) can expect an explanation of the nature of God (and as a bonus, the nature of all universe(s)).

    59. Re:I, for one,... by Epistax · · Score: 1

      Not only that but who says the bible can't have deliberate lies. That is, it contains what it is supposed to contain, it's just not all true. People try to rigidly defend the bible instead of actually looking at it. Has it completely flown everyone that perhaps not every sentence is supposed to be correct? Why should it be when what it is supposed to say may be better than the truth?

    60. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      To hell with religion

      ... interesting way to put it.

    61. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not this idiotic "religions will crumble if life is found on other planets" crap again. Why is it that only antheists seem to think this way?

    62. Re:I, for one,... by Orestesx · · Score: 1

      People make deceisions based on emotion, not logic. Sure this might be win a convert here or there but what about evolution? Why isn't the the fact that evolution appears to be correct creating tons and tons of converts to atheism/agnosticism? It's because people want to remain religious so they make their decisions based on emotion (spirtuality) and relationalize back (intelligent design). I have no doubt that a discovery of life on mars would have a similar effect ("It must have come from earth!" or "God put it there, too").

    63. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The problem with Christianity...is that [it has] no basis in any kind of facts or evidence

      That's about the most ignorant statement I've ever heard made about Christianity. The entire belief system is based on documented historical evidence. Thousands of people witnessed the coming of the Messiah, and hundreds witnessed him after he came back from the dead. Just because you don't particularly believe this fact doesn't mean it isn't one, nor that there is no evidence that it happened.

      It blows my mind that your comment -- which was really just a personal antichristian rant -- got modded up.

    64. Re:I, for one,... by iceteep · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Where is your "documented historical evidence"?

      Correct me if i'm wrong, but the gospels were written sometime between 50 to 100 years CE by unknown authors (ie not actually by the attributed disciples) who had no first hand experience of the events in question.

      It's utterly meaningless to say that thousands witnessed the coming of the messiah or hundreds witnessed his return from the dead. Who were these people exactly?

      If I were to claim that in 1864, thousands of un-identified people witnessed Santa Claus land from the sky with his reindeer would that be credible?

      Second hand accounts from four unknown authors are not the same thing as seperate verifiable accounts from thousands of individuals as you seem to claim.

    65. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Atheism is the most fashionable belief, but in the end it just rejects every concrete point of view without actually explaining anything."

      Heh. Yeah. As opposed to, say, Christian beliefs, which, faced with anything they don't understand, tend to explain it thus:

      "It was God! Or Jesus! Or Satan! Or magic fairies! But whatever it was, there's definitely NO logical or scientific explanation for it!"

      If you can't understand why I'm a little skeptical of this line of reasoning, you may want to poke your nose out of your Bible for a bit.

    66. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      You make the assumption that only the scriptural texts mention the man. No learned individual is going to deny the existence of Jesus, tho they may, and often will deny his claims to diety. Flavius Josephus and others speak of a man that can only be marked as Jesus of Nazareth. Seems you let your bigotry for religion cloud the truth.

    67. Re:I, for one,... by WinterSolstice · · Score: 1

      So... you're saying that a quick spray of Lysol and a clean lint-free cloth wouldn't cut it? :)

      -WS

      --
      An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
    68. Re:I, for one,... by Flavio · · Score: 1
      The problem with Christianity and all other religious beliefs is that they have no basis in any kind of facts or evidence and are therefore perfectly capable of changing to suit any situation.

      Christianity has the largest historical record among major religions. It details the lives of real men and their acts which were witnessed by thousands of people. It's not derived from unverified evidence such as a person's dream or vision.

      You may choose to reject biblical records, but what would you do about secular documents which corroborate them? Academic honesty would force you to reject them as well. Assuming an unbiased treatment, applying the same level of scrutiny to historical accounts would obligate you to reject most of what's known about human history. You might as well dismiss ancient Greek history and philosophy, for instance, since Christian records by far outweigh them in quality and numbers.

      We should listen to what Christian Theology has to say about life elsewhere with exactly the same weight as listening to the trilling of nightingales to tell us about life elsewhere since both are equally meaningless

      Fair enough. My comment questioned the original poster's attack on major religions. Extraterrestrial life poses no contradiction to any major religion's theology, and concluding this is good enough for me.

    69. Re:I, for one,... by iceteep · · Score: 1

      I'm not denying that Jesus existed. My point was: a small numer of people claiming that 1000 unidentified bronze age goat herders saw someone come back to life is not a particularly strong piece of "evidence".

    70. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please explain how extraterrestrial life contradicts theology from the world's major religions.

      There are several branches of Christianity which engage in biblical literalism. To these folks, if it's not in the Bible, it didn't happen. These are the people putting stickers on textbooks saying that evolution is just a theory, because evolution contradicts their religions beliefs. Life on Mars _definitely_ contradicts the theology of this particular branch of Christianity. It involves the creation of life which was not described in the Bible.

      In the interest of fairness, try to be more open minded and less prejudiced.

      How about waiting for someone to give an argument defending their stated opinion _before_ judging them? Believe it or not, other people might have thought of arguments which you haven't.

    71. Re:I, for one,... by ckaminski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We can certainly explain it. Like the Big Bang, it's reproducing the experiment that is proving to be the problem...

    72. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Being an idiots increases your odds of being in the history books by a hundred times

      Just because you're not in a history book don't mean your not an idiot. Just look at the 60 million people who re-elected Bush... that's 60 million idiots for ya!

    73. Re:I, for one,... by Flavio · · Score: 1
      Your parents remind me of my father. He finds the notion of evolution repulsive and doesn't want anything to do with it.

      Evolution does away with the concept of a personal creator, and that's uncomfortable from a theological point of view. It doesn't clash logically with the Bible's notion of personal god, but it practice it certainly draws people away from religion. In response, people like your parents lash out and don't even bother with facts.

      I haven't read the book you mentioned, but I've read a few good books questioning evolution. My favorite is Not by Chance, by Spetner. The author's got a Physics Ph.D. from MIT and has a background on information theory. He analyses probabilities involved with successful evolution using actual numbers. After a very generous analysis the conclusion is that evolution is impossible from a complexity point of view.

      Every single text book and article I've read on evolution treats it as an issue of faith. They simply quote each other, presenting a probabilistic theory without attributing values and without estimating -- no matter how roughly -- the chances involved. Justifying reality with imagination is not science or even philosophy. In the interest of fact-checking, I think you'd like Spetner's analysis.

    74. Re:I, for one,... by Mr.+Capris · · Score: 1

      Now, how do we get it back? Or do we just radio pictures back to Earth? I, for one, would want to bring back the life for various experiments *if* we find some. Kinda like Columbus bringing back the locals he found, except without the whole problem of European diseases.
      Maybe we could try a Genesis-style reentry...minus the Terran desert part, that is...

      --
      Have you seen the arrow?
    75. Re:I, for one,... by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Millions of people write about and celebrate the Easter Bunny. Doesn't make him any more real, past, present or future.

    76. Re:I, for one,... by TWX · · Score: 1

      "Like the Big Bang, it's reproducing the experiment that is proving to be the problem..."

      Apparently you've never seen the Houston 500...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    77. Re:I, for one,... by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      Oh, sheesh. There's nothing more annoying than an anti-religious bigot who thinks he knows all about what religion teaches, opens his mouth to tell us all about it, and proves that he doesn't have a clue at all as to what religion teaches, all the while thinking he is enlightening us with his brilliant understanding of religion.

      Christianity (which is what you really mean when you say religious fundamentalist, let's just be honest about it). Teaches that MAN is a special creation of God. There is NOTHING in modern Christianity that would be threatened whatsoever by the discovery of life on Mars, your little prejudices notwithstanding.

      Christianity also would not be threatened by the discovery of other intelligent life that wasn't like Man. The Book of Revelation discusses other creatures in the attitude of worshipping God. Christians could simply point to this scripture if other intelligent life were found.

      Now, let's just cut to the chase. You don't like Christianity because it talks about sin. Specifically, it talks about some particular sin that you like. It threatens your lust for personal anarchy born of your radical individualism and so you must discredit it at all costs.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    78. Re:I, for one,... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Sure, if you assume evolution is based *purely* on random mutation, Spetner's analysis seems logical. The problem is, evolution *isn't* just about random mutation. It's about random mutation coupled with the non-random element of natural selection based on fitness. Moreover, the idea that you can measure the amount of "information" in an organism is more than a little silly... how do you define "information"? If I had six arms, I'd be less fit for survival (I'd require more energy, be less agile, etc), but my DNA would arguably contain more "information".

      You can read a longish countering of Spetner's book here.

    79. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If religious leaders condemn it they could advocate open violence against anyone spreading the knowledge or believing it. Since there are a LOT of people who fall into the Fundamentalist category or are influenced by them this could have really nasty ramifications.

      This could be the best thing to happen to people in a long time. Think how the American political landscape would change if all of the abortion-clinic-protesting, stem-cell-research-hating, textbook-banning, homosexual-hating, pain-in-the-ass, progress-stopping fundamentalists were suddenly all busted under the USA PATRIOT Act and sent down to Cuba for a little R&R (rack & renunciation).

    80. Re:I, for one,... by chudgoo · · Score: 1

      Wow...did you miss the point or what...

      If your religion depends on the idea that we are special in the universe and that we are the only forms of life that were created by god then you will likely have a problem with the idea that there is life on mars and end up having to reform your ideas of what constitutes "life". This is where the abortion paradox comes in. THEY believe that life begins at conception (which is when sperm meets egg, for those of you living in your mom's basement). The problems with this are obvious and I'll leave them for you to find...
      Eh...on second thought, they will probably continue to live in conflict with logic and be seen as archaic fools forever more.
      oh yeah, uh....Idiot.
      there! I've met my "be an asshole on slashdot" quota for the day! w00t!

    81. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Judaism and Islam share the same creation myth as Christianity, but their
      > adherents don't seem to have quite so much invested in it, so I doubt they
      > would blink.

      As a Muslim I can attest to this. Islam is very open minded when it comes to
      science, and it's arguments for the existance of the Almighty are purely
      personal and open to interpretation.

      Islam is not entirely sane however; the rest of our faith deals primarily with
      the insignificant. Like what kind of meat to eat and which hand to wipe your
      ass with. Annoying.

    82. Re:I, for one,... by pianophile · · Score: 1

      You may choose to reject biblical records, but what would you do about secular documents which corroborate them?

      Such as...? Links, please.

      Oh, and Josephus doesn't really count. Most of the stuff about Jesus was added later.

      --

      'Your brain is God.' -- Dr. Timothy Leary
    83. Re:I, for one,... by cruachan · · Score: 1

      Physicists regularly seem to have problems with evolution, primarily I guess because it's not a mechanism that comes into physics much. As such there arguments against always seem to fall into the old hookum of 'the chances of this set of molecules assembling into this pattern are billions to one, ipso facto evolution is impossible'. Which of course completely misses the point about how natural selection works.

      Actually no real biological scientist argues about if evolution occurs nowdays, although there is a lot of argument about how it occurs in detail - which you'd expect because life is complex. Possibly a good book here is Gould's 'The Panda's Thumb'. It's twenty years old now but still an interesting and worthwhile read, especially in light of the current 'intelligent design' hookum - the title essay argues that one of the most compelling arguments for Evolution by Natural Selection is that no 'intelligent' being would ever make the choices that nature has been blindly forced to make - as the bizzare construction of the panda's thumb so nicely illustrates.

    84. Re:I, for one,... by TheSync · · Score: 1

      In the interest of fairness, try to be more open minded and less prejudiced.

      Yes, just because someone believes in an non-existant supernatural being does not mean they are nuts. There are nuts who take religion to extremes, but they are actually rare. Most religious people are able to rationalize scientific realities with the semi-mythological basis of their beliefs, even if it requires an extremely complex process (7 days? oh wait, those days are actually billions of years long, uh huh!)

      Religion is probably an evolved behavior, and is just as natural (and weird) behavior as love. No doubt religion & spirituality was useful for organizing tribes of early humans for survival purposes.

      If anything, it is atheists who believe in reality that are the true mental oddballs...

    85. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Maybe you weren't idiots to start with but embracing any kind of religious fundamentalism ( or religion in general ) certainly signals your intention to act like one.*

      I don't intend to do anything, you just did it for me.

    86. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > What are the odds that evolution of life on Mars would result in identical cell > structures as found on Earth?

      No one really has any idea what the bounds or preconditions are for the evolutionary process. That's why Fermi's Paradox is still interesting.

      It could be that life on Mars, if it exists, evolved separately from life on Earth, but coevolved to become similar to, say, the microbes in the story. All without panspermia. There could be absolute, natural limits to how evolution can start and what can evolve. We just don't know.

    87. Re:I, for one,... by WaterBreath · · Score: 1

      since the scriptures mention other special creatures That really depends on how you interpret certain scriptures. It's certainly the marjority-held view. But it's not the only view.

    88. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Now, let's just cut to the chase. You don't like Christianity because it talks about sin. Specifically, it talks about some particular sin that you like. It threatens your lust for personal anarchy born of your radical individualism and so you must discredit it at all costs.

      You've just proved you don't know what you're talking about. Why should anything else you wrote be believed?

    89. Re:I, for one,... by WaterBreath · · Score: 1
      After all, where did God come from

      I'll tell you where God came from when you tell me what happened before the Big Bang.

    90. Re:I, for one,... by ashayh · · Score: 1

      Atheism is the most fashionable belief, but in the end it just rejects every concrete point of view without actually explaining anything.
      And thats infinitely better than wrong explanations.

    91. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See John 14:2

    92. Re:I, for one,... by WaterBreath · · Score: 1
      It is unfortunately very easy to extend this kind of intolerance to all aspects of existence.

      How does simply thinking something is wrong equate to intolerance? Some people think killing animals for food or clothing is wrong. Would you say they are all "intolerant" of everyone who eats meat?

      The label of "intolerant" has taken the place of the pre-Renaissance "heretic", or "blasphemer". It is used for exactly the same purposes: psychological supression of certain specific, unpopular opinions.

    93. Re:I, for one,... by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      What I find funny about Fermi's Paradox is no-one seems to consider the most obvious answer. Maybe the aliens havn't shown up here yet because our civilization is one of the first.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    94. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and Josephus doesn't really count. Most of the stuff about Jesus was added later.

      Such as...? Links, please.

      Backatcha!

    95. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The biggest problem I see for Christianity if there's intelligent life out there, is Christ having to live and die on possibly millions of panets in order to save the inhabitants' souls. It'd get tiring after a while.

      Don't get me wrong. I am a Christian and it wouldn't upset me in the least to find extra-terrestrial life. See John 14:2 Maybe we're the only ones who needed saving.

    96. Re:I, for one,... by aiabx · · Score: 1

      Well, Giordano Bruno was burned by the Catholic Church in 1600 as a heretic for proclaiming that the stars were orbited by other populated worlds. Granted, they've eased up a bit in the past 400 years.
      -aiabx

      --
      Just this guy, you know?
    97. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Uh, horse pockey! Yes Christianity has a stance on intelligent life on other planets. They may ignore the microbial life and what not but they don't believe in intelligent life on other planets. They would most likely call alien visitors demons. Read up if you dont believe. Try reading stuff from the christians who are heavy into the mystical christianity.

    98. Re:I, for one,... by trufflemage · · Score: 1

      "Atheism is the most fashionable belief"

      Really? Fashionable in what circles? At my workplace religion is not much spoken of, but when it is, folks generally conclude with something along the lines of "I disagree with some of the tenets of the church, but I can't understand how people can look at the world and not believe in God."

      But that's my personal experience. According to statistics widely available online, a full third of the world's population is Christian, over a fifth is Islamic (add these together and already over half the world's population believes in a God). Secular/agnostic/atheist is somewhere around one sixth of the world's population. I'd say that historically, theism is unquestionably the most popular position, and even today, atheism is decidedly unfashionable.

      Numbers taken from: http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.ht ml

    99. Re:I, for one,... by tepples · · Score: 1

      Christianity doesn't have a stance on life on other worlds

      Didn't death enter the cosmos when Adam and Eve bit the apple? If so, this wouldn't be just to residents of other planets, if they existed.

    100. Re:I, for one,... by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

      Christianity and mystical Christianity. That's like comparing apples and...well, rotten apples. The grandparent made a statement about Christian beliefs in general. There is a wide range of beliefs held by people who still maintain the divinity of Jesus and there for call themselves Christians. As has previously been stated, though, Christianity has no generally accepted stance on the possibility of intelligent life on other planets. Many Christians like to speculate, however, and only few propose that if there is, they must be demons. There's also no references in the Bible to life on other planets (although no doubt there's a group of fundementalists somewhere out there who can spin verses either proving there is or there isn't).

      One thing you should consider before making a fool of yourself by presuming the teachings of a religion I am assuming you don't accept, is that the many of people you're discussing this with (myself included) do accept those teachings and (hopefully) know something about them. I can tell you that the Catholics in particular have no doctrine addressing the issue.

    101. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just under 60 million other idiots who use this logic:
      1: concentrate on WMD sentence in Bush speech
      2: concentrate on oil
      3: GOTO 1
      4: consider genocide on Kurds
      5: consider that the scientists ADMITTED they were working on nukes
      6: consider every single country unanimously agreed and had the same intelligence we did (hindsight is nice but not practical)
      7: consider the countless murders by Hussein and the massive body count still being uncovered.
      8: consider he was shooting at allied planes for 10 years before we attacked (act of war)

      That and the fact that something had to be done about it was Clintons idea.

    102. Re:I, for one,... by Xentax · · Score: 1

      But then you have to answer why we're first, or one of the first.

      Earth is 4 or 5 billion years old; the universe is quite older (12? 20? I can't remember the latest estimate).

      Wouldn't you think someone with a 8 or 15 billion year head start would have shown up by now? If not, why not? Unfavorable conditions for the first few billion years, or what?

      It's just another wrinkle to the paradox, not a sufficient possibility by itself.

      Xentax

      --
      You shouldn't verb words.
    103. Re:I, for one,... by Severious · · Score: 1

      What kind of argument is this? You can't prove I am wrong so that makes me right? You are the one with the beliefs and claims of evidence you show the proof. This is a perfect example of idiotic religious logic.

      I have a monkey in my pants, prove me wrong, prove me wrong!!!

      --
      Tinfoil hat? Naa, I long since replaced it with a reinforced titanium alloy.
    104. Re:I, for one,... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Extraterrestrial life poses no contradiction to any major religion's theology, and concluding this is good enough for me.

      Tell that to all the fundamentalists who go into a furor at the mention of Evolution. Maybe you don't think there's a contradiction, but to millions of people there is.

    105. Re:I, for one,... by Severious · · Score: 1

      Well I had a lot of beans for dinner, then I farted.

      --
      Tinfoil hat? Naa, I long since replaced it with a reinforced titanium alloy.
    106. Re:I, for one,... by Magic5Ball · · Score: 1

      Bringing back a sample of anything that isn't frozen/dormant would require figuring out what substrates these things need to survive and what waste products need to be removed before they become toxic, which isn't always easy even on Earth. If we've already sent a sterile container to Mars, it should be comparatively easy to strap a rocket to it for a trip back (I am not a rocket scientist...).

      Chances are, we won't pack the correct life-sustaining juices on the outbound spacecraft on the first few tries (we still don't know how to culture in a lab everything that grows in a human body), so it would be much easier to return a block of ice/rock in a shielded container that we could activate/examine with more tools.

      All this assuming that we *want* to put Martain bugs on Earth. Not knowing how these things could interact with Terran life, nor knowing how to kill them makes me *not* want them anywhere near our biosphere until we know them inside out. Granted, things living in the specialized environment of a frozen Mars lake shouldn't be well adapted to living on Earth.

      --
      There are 1.1... kinds of people.
    107. Re:I, for one,... by bcrowell · · Score: 1
      Why isn't the the fact that evolution appears to be correct creating tons and tons of converts to atheism/agnosticism?
      Maybe because there's no contradiction between Christianity (for instance) and evolution. The Catholic Church endorses evolution as scientific fact, and so do all the mainstream Protestant churches.

      Intelligent life forms on Mars would certainly be an interesting thing to see Christianity deal with (did they get their own Jesus?), but that's not likely.

    108. Re:I, for one,... by Magic5Ball · · Score: 1

      Antimatter Lysol would do it.

      But when we've figured out how to selectively destroy the contents of a container without destroying the container itself using antimatter, fabricating arbitrary life-free spacecraft from particles is no longer an engineering challenge.

      --
      There are 1.1... kinds of people.
    109. Re:I, for one,... by Severious · · Score: 1

      "Oh, sheesh. There's nothing more annoying than an anti-religious bigot who thinks he knows all about what religion teaches, opens his mouth to tell us all about it, and proves that he doesn't have a clue at all as to what religion teaches..."

      "Now, let's just cut to the chase. You don't like Christianity because it talks about sin. Specifically, it talks about some particular sin that you like. It threatens your lust for personal anarchy born of your radical individualism and so you must discredit it at all costs."


      You sir have accused the previous person of doing exactly what you have done in your own post. Perhaps you should turn your eye upon yourself.

      --
      Tinfoil hat? Naa, I long since replaced it with a reinforced titanium alloy.
    110. Re:I, for one,... by Severious · · Score: 1

      " life on Mars would be THE greatest discovery of all frickin' time !"

      Of all time? For those of us who already assume there is life all around the universe the future is looking to be a pretty boring place if this is as good as it gets.

      --
      Tinfoil hat? Naa, I long since replaced it with a reinforced titanium alloy.
    111. Re:I, for one,... by Flavio · · Score: 1
      There are a lot of books on the historical authenticity of the Bible. Just search Amazon for them.

      For starters, 100 Prophecies is a pretty interesting web site but the internet can't replace good books.

      If you choose to reject the reliability of manuscripts and their origin, make sure to throw out all of antiquity. The Gallic Wars are a good example.

    112. Re:I, for one,... by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      There are two aspects to Christianity, it's history and it's beliefs.

      I agree there is a lot of historical evidence suggesting that Jesus was a real person, that the apostles were real people and the bible was written by Christians.

      However I am able to agree that this history is quite probably genuine and disassociate it from claims that Jesus was the son of god, that he performed miracles, that there is a god and that he sends prophets to Earth.

      There is no credible evidence at all for these claims and no reason why anyone should take anything based on these claims even remotely seriously, after all Christianity has had 2000 years to prove their claims scientifically but hasn't come up with anything so far.

    113. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most places I go and specially on Slashdot people have great satisfaction in calling Christians idiots and bigots.

      In these places, Christianity is considered an irrational psychological crutch. It gives me the impression that I'm the minority, which may very well be my case.

    114. Re:I, for one,... by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Please see my post further down for my views on documented historical evidence. In addition to that the idea that anyone witnessed "the coming of the messiah" or "witnessed him after he had died" is so far from being a fact that it's ridiculous.

      Please don't think of this as a particulary anti christian rant since it applies equally to any religion or religious belief.

      I assume you have some good reasons to deny the existence of all the other gods such as Thor, Odin, Mars, Baal, Loki, Zeus, All powerful lizard creatures etc etc etc ?

    115. Re:I, for one,... by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Read some of Richards Dawkins essays and books, he has quite a lot to say about Creationism versus Evolution and he doesn't really mince his words too much.

    116. Re:I, for one,... by Flavio · · Score: 1

      The objective function certainly cuts the number of total individuals by several orders of magnitude but it doesn't decrease the length of the shortest loop-free path between a 1st generation individual and a differentiated example of a new species. Since Spetner is generous regarding evolution, he actually calculates probabilities for this shortest path. In other words, Spetner's analysis already accomodates non-random selection even though he doesn't say so.

      I haven't got the time to read that article now, but the author has his mind set on criticizing Spetner for his Jewish beliefs and dwells a lot on that. I also disagree with his (initial) criticism of Spetner's probabilities.

    117. Re:I, for one,... by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      What, dumb luck isn't a good enough reason? Maybe no-one has invented FTL travel yet (assuming it is possible).

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    118. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bits and pieces are true. There was a city called Jerusalem, for example.

      However, there are no documented miracles. The "eyewitness" accounts of Jesus coming back from the dead would, if they were current, be categorized as Urban Legends. Lest we forget: eyewitness testimony is the least reliable kind of evidence, and third-hand eyewitness testimony is worse than useless.

      A historical study of Jewish mythology wouldn't hurt you. Some of the names and places are real, but there's been a whole lot of spin-doctoring going on.

    119. Re:I, for one,... by Cat_Byte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think its mainly ppl looking for a reason to hate religion that make that assumption though. Yes there are some that believe we are the only ones...but it did say God created the heavens AND the earth. Never said the heavens didn't have other civilizations or life. We have oceans separating continents on this planet...same as having space between planets for other areas for life. It all fits.

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    120. Re:I, for one,... by Xentax · · Score: 1

      I'm just saying, those are variables IN the equation, rather than a hand-waving-explanation of why there's no paradox at all.

      That is, along with the # of stars in the universe, the avg. number of planets in the green zone of each, etc., you'd have to add factors like "percent chance that the planet is sterlized by local gamma ray burst before the species becomes interstellar", stuff like that.

      Maybe those factors have combined to make us the first to get this far along; maybe not. Or maybe I should say, maybe those factors are enough to keep everyone from reaching interstellar exploration that we'd be able to observe so far. After all, I'm not convinced that some civ about like our own would be able to detect US yet, either (Star Trek movie 1, Berserker, and Contact aside).

      Xentax

      --
      You shouldn't verb words.
    121. Re:I, for one,... by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

      Trouble with life is it is so small but can have a profound impact, like say wiping out all life on earth. The downside could be extreme. Maybe we send some people up to study Martian microbes on the condition that they never come back and never send anything back except information. That might work.

    122. Re:I, for one,... by pianophile · · Score: 1

      If you choose to reject the reliability of manuscripts and their origin, make sure to throw out all of antiquity.

      I wouldn't throw anything out completely. I would prefer to regard all ancient texts, the Bible included, with an equally critical eye. I'm sure the Gallic Wars is full of inaccuracies, and so is the Bible.

      --

      'Your brain is God.' -- Dr. Timothy Leary
    123. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ..mention of Evolution. Maybe you don't think there's a contradiction, but to millions of people there is..

      No contradiction at all. Its all in genesis and you can easily fit evolution in with it if you can get over the concept of a "day" being an earth day.

      Day one: created heavens and earth. separation of light and dark. big bang?

      Day two: firmament, oceans forming, dry land appears. Could be cooling off of the earth and water/earth settling into place.

      Day three: grass, plants, fruits show up

      Day four: mentions stars, moon, sun.

      Day five: life in the water, birds.

      Day six: more animals mentioned, then man afterwards. Interestingly it says "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth". Replenish...as in...there were others and they are gone?

    124. Re:I, for one,... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      but the author has his mind set on criticizing Spetner for his Jewish beliefs

      Oh please. If that isn't a mischaracterization, I don't know what is. Try to read a little more carefully. He doesn't criticize Spetner's beliefs. He criticizes Spetner's motivations for his book, making the claim that his attempts to debunk evolution come, not from a desire to further science, but from a desire to resolve the conflict between the theory and his religious beliefs. This is a valid point, as it raises question regarding of the motivations of the researcher.

    125. Re:I, for one,... by Queer+Boy · · Score: 1
      Not fundamentalist Christians, perhaps. But for other religions--well, just look at Saudi Arabia, for one.

      Tell me about Saudi Arabia, tell me one thing that you personally know to be true about Saudi Arabia that can be applied to a large scale. Again you reinforce my assertion of a US-centric view of the world: "Everyone is like us and everyone who isn't is exactly like we stereotype them to be."

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
    126. Re:I, for one,... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      If you want to redefine stuff in the bible to fit readily available scientific evidence instead of just realizing the bible is just full of it, that's your choice.

      My point is that there are many Christians (mostly in the US probably) who simply don't. The bible says the heaven in earth were created in one day, so to them that means, literally, one day. Of course, these are the same people who were clueless when "The Passion of the Christ" came out with a lot of Aramaic, and they didn't even know what Aramaic was (they think Jesus spoke Middle English), but that doesn't matter either. What matters is that these people are very numerous, have political power, and will be very upset if life is discovered on another planet.

      The Roman Catholic Church was very upset when Galileo wrote that the Earth revolved around the Sun, instead of vice versa. We laugh about it now, but I'll bet Galileo wasn't laughing. Catholics now don't believe that crap, but they did then, and they made life difficult for people who didn't indulge their lunacy. We may have similar problems in coming years, with people pressuring their politicians to ban research on other planets, pull funding for NASA, ban any textbooks mentioning life on other planets, etc.

    127. Re:I, for one,... by Cat_Byte · · Score: 1

      Maybe not lies but more like oversimplification. Trying to explain how the quantum physics and astrophysics work in a big bang would be much more difficult than just saying "I created the heavens and the earth". Explaining how a rainbow is formed with light defraction is more difficult than just doing it and showing the end result.

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    128. Re:I, for one,... by Cat_Byte · · Score: 1
      have you actually read the bible? God and Jesus interacting on earth is very minimal. Physics or science can show how something works in the laws of our universe...but without the universe, none would apply. Imagine a universe where the big bang never popped. Just a big mass of matter of such imaginable pull that no light or matter would be outside of it. It would be a universe dark and void and there would be absolutely nothing.

      Imagine a scientist comes up with a new breed of animal. It starts multiplying over several lifetimes, the scientist dies and all known knowledge of this event is lost. Further down the line you just say the new ones are perfectly explained by medical reasons of procreation. Yeah...but....they wouldn't be there if they hadn't had the first one created.

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    129. Re:I, for one,... by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Are you trolling, or just stupid? I'm not going to bother doing your research for you. Just look up "Wahabbi" or "Wahhabism". It's a fundamentalist sect of Islam that's just as fundamentalist as America's fundamentalist Christians, if not more so. And it's just the beginning.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    130. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Most people can't handle a major change in their world view.

      Make sure you remember that. It is as applicable to the dogmatic atheist as it is to the religious zealot.

    131. Re:I, for one,... by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      Allow me to disagree. If life was found on Mars, I wouldn't doubt even for one second that there would be a very high probability of dozens of other planets having life, possibly intelligent one.

      Unless it was questioned if life was transferred from Earth to Mars (be it nowadays - by the martian probes - or many years ago)...

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    132. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mormons specifically believe in intelligent life on innumerable planets.

    133. Re:I, for one,... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You shouldn't list Scientology alongside legitimate religions, it just gives them credability.

    134. Re:I, for one,... by mcc · · Score: 1

      The possibility of that will be probably one of, if not the first thing science would begin looking for an explanation for if life of any kind on mars was discovered. It would probably mostly come down to, is there any resemblance between the xenian and earth life, and could they in any way have shared a common ancestor?

    135. Re:I, for one,... by trufflemage · · Score: 1

      Ah, fair enough. I'm new enough to Slashdot I'm not yet ready to characterize the user base, so I take your word for it.

      I hate that sort of namecalling, though. Idiot you obviously are not.

    136. Re:I, for one,... by qwasty · · Score: 1

      What's really interesting for mormons is, what if we are alone?

      For catholics, their early mistakes, and subsequent corrections, basically condemn their religion as a farce, across the board. Most of them don't realize that the last Inquisition didn't end until 1834. Yes, THAT Inquisition, where random people, as well as scientists, were burned at the stake, tortured, etc for supposedly threatening the power of the Church.

      All lies have flaws that eventually expose them as the lies they really are, but few religions are as much a beacon of fraud, greed, and evil as the history of the Catholic church. Anyone sensible ought to be able to see that - Though I know many won't, for whatever reasons. I hate to use the word "obvious", because a lot of people just don't get things sometimes, regardless of how smart or sensible they seem. Not sure why.

      One thing I am sure of though, is that religious people are are easy to categorize as the kinds who might behave unpredictably based on "beliefs" or "faith" or whatever. Practically speaking, it's worked for weeding out odd would-be roommates. A lot of my friends are religious, and in this world, you'd be mighty lonely if you ostracized the religous ones...but, as far as my roommates are concerned, the religious ones might be great, and you'll get along just fine for a whole year, and then one day I might find my roommate eating my food, or not flushing the toilet because God supposedly told him to.

    137. Re:I, for one,... by onepoint · · Score: 1

      Well given, Jesus was a real person. That's almost a given: just too much documentation from multiple sources. Unless it was one heck of a media trick of the time.

      as for the rest, who knows, you are most likely right.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    138. Re:I, for one,... by peccary · · Score: 1
      Er, they thought it was India. Of course it didn't shake the theological world. Hence the term "American Indians."


      Er, they figured that out pretty quickly, hence the term "New World."

    139. Re:I, for one,... by kamapuaa · · Score: 1
      On a similar note, please name to me a single Scientist targeted by the Spanish inquisition. You do know that the Spanish Inquisition was a policy of the Spanish state and not of the Catholic Church, right? And that is was directed at the cultural unification of Spain and taking money from rich converted Jews and Muslims?

      The self-righteousness and complete disregard for facts from many atheists is funny.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    140. Re:I, for one,... by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Uhhh, you don't need to "look for a reason", the simple fact that no evidence, what-so-ever, can prove or disprove the existance of god is more than enough reason to not bother talking about it.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    141. Re:I, for one,... by qwasty · · Score: 1

      I'm not a historian so don't get your panties in a knot if I don't act like one - But, I don't think I have to be so highly educated to realize that it's irrelevant who was targeted in a specific inquisition. Killing is killing, regardless of whether it's illiterate peasants, or elite boat-rocking scientists. The Catholic church is no less evil, either way. It's hard to be courteous and respectful to people who tolerate and support the organizations responsible for such unimaginable violence.

      The self-righteousness and complete disregard for facts from many atheists is funny.

      At least when the atheists do it, it doesn't result in death and torture on an epic scale. In any case, what RELEVANT facts have been completely disregarded? Are atheists the "Bad Guys"? What atheist organizations kill for their beliefs? What do atheists even have to do with any of this?

    142. Re:I, for one,... by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      Actually that term wasn't in common parlance until the 19th century, and even then only amongst the English speaking people of the world, who at the time represented a significantly smaller percentage of the global population than today :-)

  10. What??? by Dana+P'Simer · · Score: 1
    Maybe NASA could market them as Martian Sea Monkeys.
    And allow them to complete thier plan of terran conquest by infecting your children with thier mind control microbes? I for one will welcome our new Martian Overlords.
  11. Well, so will I by metlin · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Am sure that if I were to be frozen and reawakened 32,000 years later I'd want to eat, screw and... yeah, that's about it.

    Bah.

    1. Re:Well, so will I by porky_pig_jr · · Score: 0

      what? you wouldn't want to make some posts on slashdot?

    2. Re:Well, so will I by someguy456 · · Score: 1

      Am sure that if I were to be frozen and reawakened 32,000 years later I'd want to eat, screw and... yeah, that's about it.

      I'd probably also do a lot of catching up on /. ...

    3. Re:Well, so will I by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If slashdot is still going to be around 32,000 years from now, I guess I don't want to live forever.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Well, so will I by someguy456 · · Score: 1

      If slashdot is still going to be around 32,000 years from now, I guess I don't want to live forever. Historians have agreed that the popular nerd site "Slashdot.org" single handedly caused the stagnation of human civilization ever since it launched close to the beginning of the internet... - Encyclopedia Galactica

  12. Tastes just like chicken they say by Holy_Obfuscated_Call · · Score: 1, Funny

    Yum

    1. Re:Tastes just like chicken they say by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      They been chilled longer than the chicken in the back on my fridge, but yeah, you're probably right.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  13. strange meaning for "new" by muqo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    LiveScience is reporting on a new type of bacteria that after being frozen 32,000 .... yeah, new... only 32 Kyears...

    1. Re:strange meaning for "new" by Ayaress · · Score: 1

      It's kind of like when you buy a "new to you" car. It'll be a year or two old, have around 15,000 miles on it, and have the most annoying radio station ever programmed to all six buttons and the page in the manual that tells how to program the buttons missing. But it's "New to you," so the dealer just drops the "to you" part and calls it new.

    2. Re:strange meaning for "new" by Queer+Boy · · Score: 1
      LiveScience is reporting on a new type of bacteria that after being frozen 32,000 .... yeah, new

      It says "new type" not "type of new".

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
  14. tardigrada by tardigrades · · Score: 5, Interesting

    tardigrades are way cooler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrada

    --
    really bored? My blog
    1. Re:tardigrada by aussie_a · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How long can they survive in this natural "near suspended animation"?

    2. Re:tardigrada by Deanalator · · Score: 1

      wasnt tardigrades a couple weeks ago or something?

  15. Uh oh... by nebaz · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's Encino Paramecium

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    1. Re:Uh oh... by NeuroManson · · Score: 1, Funny

      Co-starring Pauly Shore as the Flesh Scarfing Bacterium, buhhhhhhhddy!

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  16. maybe nasa could.. by KingPunk · · Score: 0

    market their astronauts as:
    Nasa Space Monkeys!

    now thats a more interesting concept.

  17. Honest Question by mdiep · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Really, I'm just wondering: how do they know the microbes were frozen for 32 000 years?

    --
    matt
    <insert sig here>

    1. Re:Honest Question by spune · · Score: 1, Funny

      The same way you know you've cooked your ramen for three minutes..?

    2. Re:Honest Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't RTFA yet, but I'd bet you it's by how many layers of ice they dug through, and their composition (I think the amount of gas dissolved in it tells them something or other). That's how they figure out arctic climate change from ye olden days anyway.

      Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. I didn't research it or nothing.

    3. Re:Honest Question by Mr.+Capris · · Score: 2, Informative

      Prolly by guessing the age of the ice it was found in...based on strata, isotope dating (if possible)

      --
      Have you seen the arrow?
    4. Re:Honest Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carbon dating... maybe? I don't think you can carbon date living anim... excuse me, bacteria, but maybe the ice around them?

      32.000 years... Do you have any idea how scary that'd be if you suddenly fell asleep and woke up shivering your buns off and needing food and sex 32,000 years later!?

      It'd be like every morning here when the heater breaks, but only 32,000 years later.

      -rico

    5. Re:Honest Question by ATN · · Score: 0

      I read the article it doesn't give any detail on dating methods. :) So reading the article won't help much. They might have links to more detailed reports though, I didn't bother to check.

    6. Re:Honest Question by pronobozo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Doesn't say in the article how they knew but I do know that in some instances, they track the layers in ice/snow from each years snow fall.

      They can find out a lot of information because water and pollutants can travel all around the world and deposit in them.

      I've also read about microbes being able to do the same thing.

      As for this instance... well... google it.

      --
      ------
      insert sig here,here, and here
    7. Re:Honest Question by clayasaurus · · Score: 1

      simple. the deeper you drill into the ice, the older it is. also ice traps the atmosphere of that time inside of it, so scientists can figure out the time period by looking at the composition of the gases :-)

    8. Re:Honest Question by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      All frozen in time movies have a fluttering calendar (or a changing shop window) to show the passage of time. They probably just looked at the date on the month at the bottom of the heap.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  18. cane toads by oo_waratah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sounded like a good idea at the time is now a major problem.

    Don't bring them back!

    1. Re:cane toads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are they killing millions of people yearly? No? They can't be that bad then.

    2. Re:cane toads by bmalia · · Score: 1

      For those who don't know about Cane Toads... http://www.fdrproject.org/pages/toads.htm

      --
      There's no place like ~/
  19. Ed wood wants out of his grave to direct... by blankoboy · · Score: 1, Funny

    queue asstastic Sci-fi ripoff movie in 3...2...1...

  20. Martian Life... by Kr3m3Puff · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder though, which Star Trek and other series sort of gloss over, is that if Martian bacteria did develop, seperate from ourselves, we would probablly lack any auto immune response to be able to combat them. We are the product a millions and billions of years of fighting other life forms for our existence. It would be naive of us to assume that other lifeforms out there would fundementally eat us for lunch, and the reverse being true.

    On the other hand, maybe the right of universe is made up of right handed Amino Acids and we will be safe...

    --
    D.O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V.M.
    1. Re:Martian Life... by detritus` · · Score: 1

      You also have to remember that our basic needs arent so far from the bacteria/virii/etc that we are fighting (or hosting) as we came from a common ancestor (no creation vs. evolution debate please). As such any microbes from a distant planet would not have said common ancestor and would most likely have different needs/enzymes/etc. and would probably not pose any threat to us. Of course the theory of space spores (bacterial spores ejected into space by meteors, dont laugh its probably true.) could mean these bugs might have a chance at totally decimating us, or our immune system will recognize them instantly and destroy them before they have a chance to do any damage. But overall the whole foreign microbe plague (and war of worlds deal too) is very highly unlikely

    2. Re:Martian Life... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow, you sure do make some hair-brained assumptions.

      1: Life does exist outside of Earth.
      2: Mars has life.
      3: Our immune system cannot adapt to (possible) extraterrestrial microbes.
      4: The microbes would have the similar makeup of chemistry to interface with Earth Chemistry.

      Of course you have an interesting.. You made up plenty of stuff. Lets find some microbes and then make wild-ass guesses.

      --
    3. Re:Martian Life... by Lehk228 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      at the same time the martian bacteria would not "know" how to do anything with our biological systems and probably would not find our bodies to be a suitable environment.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    4. Re:Martian Life... by Illserve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's not really the way the immune system works. It attacks things that are different. The differenter the better.

      The germs that are most dangerous are ones that have evolved tricks to evade detection.

      Germs from Mars would be the first against the wall when the T-cells rolled into town.

    5. Re:Martian Life... by Matilda+the+Hun · · Score: 1

      at the same time the martian bacteria would not "know" how to do anything with our biological systems and probably would not find our bodies to be a suitable environment.

      I'd think we'd be just fine, as far as suitibility goes. A Martian bacteria would have to be able to live through some very harsh environments. Even some pretty ugly parts of the human body (like, say, my large intestine) would be paradise compared to a planet with temperatures going from several hundred degrees above to several hundred below freezing every day.

      --
      Tluin natha Linux xxizzuss uriu olt bwael mon'tun.
    6. Re:Martian Life... by espressojim · · Score: 1

      Please mod parent up, for Illserve gets the idea of self/non-self. Wouldn't it be strange if the human immune system had to 'know' about everything we could possibly ever come in contact with?

    7. Re:Martian Life... by rebelcool · · Score: 2, Insightful

      yeah like how the immune system doesnt deal with ever-changing and evolving new things like cold and flu viruses...

      oh wait... heh.

      immune systems attack anything remotely suspicious and sometimes even things that they shouldnt, like ones own cells. thats what an allergic response is. martian bacteria wouldn't do anything pathologically interesting compared to what millions of years of bacterial evolution have done on earth.

      --

      -

    8. Re:Martian Life... by greenplato · · Score: 1

      That may be so, but they'd compete for the limited resources (space, water, nutrients) with the bacteria that are already there. And the bacteria that survive there are specially adapted to that environment.

      A martian bacterium would have all sorts of adaptations that allow it to live in its Martian environment. It would have to make special proteins and lipids for its cell wall, for example, to protect it on Mars that wouldn't be needed in your gut. All of these extra capabilities would put it at a competitive disadvantage against the existing bacteria in your gut. Because they can't be just "turned off", they would cost the bacteria in efficiency at every stage in its lifecycle. Think of it as genetic baggage slowing it down.

      So I say the hypothetical bacteria trying to give you Martian's Revenge wouldn't stand a chance against your natural bacterial flora in your intestines.

    9. Re:Martian Life... by ebrandsberg · · Score: 1

      You are assuming one thing--they would have to be on the surface of Mars. If you went 20 feet below the surface, I'm sure conditions would be MUCH nicer for microbes, possibly having liquid water. Who knows until we send a probe that can actually dig into the surface and analyze what is found there.

    10. Re:Martian Life... by ThisIsFred · · Score: 1

      It attacks things that are different. The differenter the better.

      This thread has me confused now. Are we still talking about radical fundamentalists?

      --
      Fred

      "A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
      -RMS
    11. Re:Martian Life... by Seahawk · · Score: 1

      And the human body would be totally different from anything a martian body has ever seen!

      Odds are that the human body would be much more dangerous for the martian bacteria than for the human body.

      Most bacteria/virii has problems transferring between different mammals - why should it be any easier for extraterrestial bacteria?

    12. Re:Martian Life... by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Germs from Mars would be the first against the wall when the T-cells rolled into town.

      That's the best line I've seen on slashdot in quite some time.

    13. Re:Martian Life... by dogfull · · Score: 1

      an popular scenario, but highly unlikely, for two reasons.

      An species survises the best if it is highly adopted to it's enviroment. There are no humans living on martian soil. Thus, the bacteria that might live on mars, wil not be adapted to humans. Thus, they shall not attack humans. It is in fact very unlikely that they will be able to live on earth, since it has a high oxygen concentration which mars lacks.

      Second of all, there is this thing we call a-specific imunno-defense. Put shortly, it consists out of cells which kill everything that is not of our own body, such as bacteria, viri, and some tumor cell. They even try to kill our babys when a woman gets pregnant.

      So I guess we will be able to live through this.

    14. Re:Martian Life... by lisaparratt · · Score: 1

      Why is it always the aliens that are the bad guys? Why couldn't it be that we've not been visited by aliens because they're absolutely terrified of us and what we could do to them?

    15. Re:Martian Life... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You meant "hare-brained", not HAIR brained.

    16. Re:Martian Life... by TractorBarry · · Score: 1

      And Martian bacteria would also not be able to attach to our cells as the receptors would be the wrong shape for them.

      Works both ways you see, that's why humans don't get cat flu etc. etc. etc.

      Anyway Martian bacteria be damned. You should see the stuff in my fridge. I eat that daily so I ain't scared of no pansy space bacteria. Pah ! my mighty gastric juices will analyse and dissolve it beofre I've even got up the gas for a good belch.

      --
      Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
    17. Re:Martian Life... by ertdredge · · Score: 1
      immune systems attack anything remotely suspicious and sometimes even things that they shouldnt, like ones own cells. thats what an allergic response is.

      To clarify, immune systems attacking one's own cells is an autoimmune response. An allergic response is an excessive immune reaction to typically nonimmunogenic substances.

  21. Have you *never* seen by OneArmedMan · · Score: 4, Funny

    this movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084787/ The Thing.!?

    Sometimes its a good idea to leave that frozen stuff the way you found it.

    1. Re:Have you *never* seen by Mr.+Capris · · Score: 1

      me, i was thinking Andromeda Strain

      --
      Have you seen the arrow?
    2. Re:Have you *never* seen by xpeeblix · · Score: 1

      I dunno, I've kinda always wanted my own collection of Sand Kings....

      Pray to me heathens, or go hungry!

  22. Hare-way to the Fark! by Tackhead · · Score: 1, Funny
    > I can imagine the fark headline in a few years.
    >
    >NASA scientists market Martian microbes as 'Martian sea monkies'. Hilarity ensues.

    Dehydrated martians? Yeah, I can work with that.

    Audioedit: This bunny yelling " Run for the hills, folks! Or you'll be up to your armpits in Martians!"

    K-9 wants steak?

  23. tomorrows /. by acklogic · · Score: 1

    entire populations wiped from ancient microbes.

  24. But after a while... by astebbin · · Score: 1

    The so-called Martian "sea-monkeys" would turn out to be no more than an elobarate deception consisting of (admittedly Martian) brine shrimp larvae being passed off as something decidedly more cute and consumer friendly.

  25. Theological Impact by BioCS.Nerd · · Score: 1

    I'm not exactly a religious person, but as the parent wondered, I too was curious how the discovery of life elsewhere beyond our planet would affect the more religious of our /. kindred? Would this challenge your faith, or do you see life elsewhere as sort of inconsequential?

    IMHO, the impact of the discovery isn't much different than when people were discovered to live in the "new world" (read: the Americas, numerous then unheard of peoples in the Pacific, and elsewhere), who would have been totally absent from any of the on-goings of the "olde world" religions.

    [Note: To those who entertain my question, it isn't my intent to start a flame war as I'm genuinely curious. This topic has long been a curiosity for me]

    1. Re:Theological Impact by zarthrag · · Score: 0

      Marklar?

      --
      Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
    2. Re:Theological Impact by creysoft · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As a former fundie Creationist nut turned atheist, I can say that they WILL have an answer for it. Creationists tend to come up with very convincing arguments, and - for what it's worth - I'm still not satisfied with the Big Bang, or the theory of evolution, despite the fact that I've rejected creationism.

      How I would have viewed it is that the Bible never says that God ONLY created life on Earth. The Bible says the Christ *died for teh sins* of humans, which the Bible implies are only on Earth. In other words, until we find sentient life on other planets, the Christians won't really have to change their tune much.

      I want 19 years of my life back...

      --
      Formerly GNU/Anonymous Coward. This message has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.
    3. Re:Theological Impact by creysoft · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      By the way, I should clarify that by "fundie Creationist nut," I was referring to my view of my former self. I was fairly vocal about my usually ill-informed opinions. I certainly don't wish to imply that all Creationists are nuts, or apply the blanket term "fundie" to all Christians. I know a lot of very, very good Christian people, and I have a great deal of respect for them.

      --
      Formerly GNU/Anonymous Coward. This message has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.
    4. Re:Theological Impact by DarkSarin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      erm.

      I have to agree with others here--it wouldn't bother me a bit (as a person who frequently gets labelled as a right-wing religious nut, but views himself as fairly tolerant and open about various ideas).

      To me, there are so many ways that this fits in with what the Bible posits as the creation of the world, and then what my personal beliefs are. To me, it matters VERY LITTLE how the earth was formed and life began. I believe that God is responsible for it, and I also believe that he works through an advanced understanding of physics that makes us look like the savages that are still curious about that hot red stuff, but haven't discovered that you can cook stuff with it.

      Would the discovery of microbes on Mars make any difference on religion? No. Would there be a few individuals who would either lose their faith, abandon their belief or otherwise be impacted? Almost certainly. A number of folks would also deny the discovery outright. They are the true nuts (listen to George Nory (sp?) for a sample).

      Personally, I say that if there is life elsewhere in the universe, God is also responsible for that, and he created it for a reason, whatever that is. The Bible, for all its worth as a behavioral guide, and wealth of prophecy, fairly stinks as a theological guide. The problem is that the authors mostly wrote for an audience that were familiar with the basic stuff (and therefore don't explain it very well, if at all), or needed correction (in the mind of the author) on specific points. Even direct quotes from Christ are generally of this nature. Many in his audience were well studied on the topics he addressed, and therefore his speech was centered on corrections and changes.

      The Old Testament is equally bad. From the very beginning there is an assumption that the reader understands what is meant by God. The most specific and basic areas of instruction are not, however, theological, but commandment. This is all in the Torah. The remainder of the OT is all about the different trials and tribulations of the Jews OR prophecies regarding the Messiah. While some of this does present a moralistic tale, the concept of a clear doctrine and theology has been largely omitted.

      Furthermore, the New Testament suffers a different problem. Certain basics are assumed, and then the point is made to convince people that the New way is better than the Old, or to clarify specific points of doctrine that had already been explained.

      In a practical sense, this results in there being a large number of views regarding the specifics of basic theology. This also means that there is very little (if any) information on what else God created, other than the general "everything". Personally, I think that we are VERY likely to meet intelligent life in other parts of the universe if we ever get there (I doubt it), and even if it took a radically different form, this would have little impact on my personal views.

      That is where, as you probably know, religion and science depart ways--science requires evidence. This is good. Religion requires faith. This can also be good. However, where many religious folks get into trouble is when they deny evidence. This is foolish.

      I would write more, but I am VERY tired.

      Good night

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    5. Re:Theological Impact by MrYotsuya · · Score: 1, Funny

      The Bible says the Christ *died for teh sins* of humans, which the Bible implies are only on Earth.

      I remember seeing a painting in the church where the placard on his cross said that "H3r3 15 J35u5 Chr157, 1337 d00d". It didn't make sense until just now.

    6. Re:Theological Impact by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

      I find that funnier after I think about it. It would have been better though if you had actually matched the first letters to the original: Iesus Christus, Regnum Iewibus (INRI). Sorry to all the grammar nazis if I got my declensions wrong. I know even mistakes in Latin are unacceptable on Slashdot.

    7. Re:Theological Impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Former fundie here, turned to, well, uh, some form of theism I guess you could say...

      Anyways, life on other planets was actually advocated by everyone I had ever talked to about it in the churches I grew up in. My grandfather, a devout catholic(of the good hearted variety), was convinced we would find life throughout the universe, if not our own solar system. His reason was simple: Why would God make the entire universe and then only put life on one planet, orbiting around one sun, in one arm, of one galaxy?

      I'm certain that some segments of whatever faith can be found that will try to denounce it, and I'm also certain that they will be held up as examples of what's wrong with that entire faith, and the sad, pathetic, pointless, and utterly moronic war between True Believers in science and True Believers in religion will continue.

      While the intelligent find whatever synthesis of the two that is required for them to realize their own potential and happiness.

    8. Re:Theological Impact by Ayaress · · Score: 1

      It would cause minor chaos in Christianity, Judism, and Islam no doubt. I think in the long run, the religions would accept it because they have little choice. It would also probably expedite resolutions to many of their existing conflicts of belief. As St. Francis said, "If a nonbeliever cannot trust us in matters so meaningless as the motion of the sky or the turning of a leaf, how can they be expected to trust us in matters of eternal life?"

      However, just to raise an interesting point, Hinduism would be largely unaffected by my understanding of the religion. I'm not Hindu, but I have a good friend who is, and we've discussed the philosophies of the religion quite extensively.

      As he's explained to me, Hindu has yet to find itself in a real conflict with science. As his preist had taught him, evolution is an integral part of karmic transmigration, where (I apologize ahead of time for simplifying this to the point that it's almost meaningless. We discussed a lot of this, but I'm not entirely clear on the whole concept) "good" souls are reincarnated with a higher social status or such, and bad souls can find themselves at the other end of the food chain. As the world progressed, higher and more appropriate organisms had to appear to accomodate higher souls. This isn't exactly how the religion was a few hundred years ago, but it's a change of unknowns, not of absolutes.

      Also, Hinduism integrates a belief in an eternal cycle of creation and destruction which mirrors itself at every level of existence, driven by Brama (creation) and Shiva (destruction), and blanced by Vishnu (preservation). The old die to make room for the young. Old technologies vanish to make room for new ones. Civilizations fall and rise. Cities are destroyed and rebuilt, buildings are demolished and replaced, species go extinct and new ones rise. Entire worlds die, and entire universes have arisen and vanished. Big Bang theory, stellar evolution, virtually every theologically controversial scientific theory fits quite nicely with the Hindu philosophy.

      Now that I'm done with that, back on topic:

      The case of extraterrestrial life, although he and I never discussed it, doesn't sound like it would produce any conflict. The significance is placed on life, not earth. By the constant cycle of birth and death, it would follow that Earth is not the first world, nor would it be the last. For that matter, this entire universe is just one in a series, and no more or less important than all the others. Life elsewhere may be very different than life here, and may live very different than it does here, but it's reasonable to expect it to live by certain simmilar rules: It would take in energy (if it didn't, it would be a perpetual motion machine of the first type, doing work (living) without energy input), it would reproduce (if it didn't, the odds would be vastly against its survival. A single creature would likely be wiped out eventually), and it would eventually die by some means. Whatever else it may do, it fits into Hindu belief fairly smoothly.

      All in all, I think it's almost like the early Hindu's could see the future. Of the great religions, only they and Buddhism (which has its origins within Hinduism) put a special emphasis on one of the most universal laws ther are in science: Entropy.

      Christianity, for example, asserts that the inexorable process or decay in the world is a result of the original human sin, and is not really natural. Many older religions (and even some Christian denominations) took the view that it was the acts of angry and vengeful God(s). These sorts of beliefs lead to an inability to come to terms with concepts like evolution, as it proposes that decay can only lead to more decay, and not new creation (this is among Henry Morris's primary disputes with evolution).

      Hindu takes what I find a more reasonable and enlightened stance on the subject. Decay is not a punishment, but a mercy. If Shiva did not kill the old or sick, the world would become overcrowded with all manner of

    9. Re:Theological Impact by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudaeorum

      Note that Nazarenus and Iudaeorum are in the genitive case. So it reads "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews"

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    10. Re:Theological Impact by Ayaress · · Score: 1

      I want 19 years of my life back...

      You'll never live if you think this way. There are a lot of reasons I want most of my life back, but it won't happen. Even if you're as determined a pessimist as I can be, it's better to think of how bad things could get screwed up tomorrow than how bad they were screwed up yesterday.

      I was never what you would describe as a "fundie nut", but like you, I found a considerable portion of my life dominated by Christianity. I'm not sure how you came to change, and it's really not my place to ask. In my case, it was a slow slide. I'd be told to believe one thing on Sunday, and forced to believe something else for the next six days, only to be told - sometimes by the same set of people - that it was all wrong. Even when it wasn't taught to me, I came to a lot of those conclusions on my own, and it scared me at first. I read Morris, Hawthorne, and all those, thinking it would all make sense, and it made things worse. The proponents of what I thought I believed came through in their writings as charlatans and bigots.

      I found the writings of Polkinghorne to be quite comforting when I finally came to grips with the fact that I just couldn't believe what I'd been told to anymore. On both sides of the evolution debate, Polkinghorne is probably the most level head I've ever read. I propose he's more familiar with theology than Morris or Hawthorne. He's not on par with Hawking in scientific knowledge, but he has a wealth of it, and like Hawking, he specializes in simplifying it for the everyday Joe without dumbing it down.

      He's an Anglican, but also an evolutionist. Even if you're comfortable as an athiest, he might be just what you need to put those 19 years behind you. It may not make you believe in evolution or the big bang, it will certainly help you come to terms with them. I found after reading several of his books and and learning about other religions (Hinduism particularly, I have a post in reply to the grandparent down a few from yours about that) that it's possible to make a solid and satisfying worldview that is largely immune to scientific advancement. I don't think science will be able to come up with something that could force me to reassess that worldview, but equally important, any existing scientific theory could be overturned without overly upsetting it either.

    11. Re:Theological Impact by Cramit · · Score: 0

      Latin Grammer Nazi's...Now I can't stop thinking about John Clease (sp?) correcting the grammer/spelling of the rebel painting on the walls in Monty Pythons The Life of Brian...if I weren't on my way to sleep I would look up the quote.

    12. Re:Theological Impact by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't matter in the least. Why do you assume it should?

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
    13. Re:Theological Impact by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 1

      Posted above without preview; I see that you don't. But many other non-religious believers here do. I wonder why.

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
    14. Re:Theological Impact by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for fixing that. Dang I'm tired. I honestly had no idea off the top of my head how to say Jew, and switched the possessive and dative, but I don't know why I typed Christus.

    15. Re:Theological Impact by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      Idiot.

      Of course, I'm kidding. I'm having too much trouble in that class to be a dick to anyone who puts themselves out there. :-)

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    16. Re:Theological Impact by iwan-nl · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I took the liberty of looking it up for you. Hilarious stuff. Thanks for bringing it up.

      [Brian is writing graffiti on the palace wall. The Centurion catches him in the act]
      Centurion: What's this, then? "Romanes eunt domus"? People called Romanes, they go, the house?
      Brian: It says, "Romans go home. "
      Centurion: No it doesn't! What's the latin for "Roman"? Come on, come on!
      Brian: Er, "Romanus"!
      Centurion: Vocative plural of "Romanus" is?
      Brian: Er, er, "Romani"!
      Centurion: [Writes "Romani" over Brian's graffiti] "Eunt"? What is "eunt"? Conjugate the verb, "to go"!
      Brian: Er, "Ire". Er, "eo", "is", "it", "imus", "itis", "eunt".
      Centurion: So, "eunt" is...?
      Brian: Third person plural present indicative, "they go".
      Centurion: But, "Romans, go home" is an order. So you must use...?
      [He twists Brian's ear]
      Brian: Aaagh! The imperative!
      Centurion: Which is...?
      Brian: Aaaagh! Er, er, "i"!
      Centurion: How many Romans?
      Brian: Aaaaagh! Plural, plural, er, "ite"!
      Centurion: [Writes "ite"] "Domus"? Nominative? "Go home" is motion towards, isn't it?
      Brian: Dative!
      [the Centurion holds a sword to his throat]
      Brian: Aaagh! Not the dative, not the dative! Er, er, accusative, "Domum"!
      Centurion: But "Domus" takes the locative, which is...?
      Brian: Er, "Domum"!
      Centurion: [Writes "Domum"] Understand? Now, write it out a hundred times.
      Brian: Yes sir. Thank you, sir. Hail Caesar, sir.
      Centurion: Hail Caesar ! And if it's not done by sunrise, I'll cut your balls off.

      Oh, and it's Cleese.

      --
      I'm trying to improve my English. Please correct me on any spelling/grammar errors in this post.
    17. Re: Theological Impact by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > for what it's worth - I'm still not satisfied with the Big Bang, or the theory of evolution, despite the fact that I've rejected creationism.

      In what sense are you not satisfied with them?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    18. Re: Theological Impact by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Sorry to all the grammar nazis if I got my declensions wrong. I know even mistakes in Latin are unacceptable on Slashdot.

      That would be NAZI GRAMMATICORUM (singular NAZUS GRAMMATICORUM).

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    19. Re:Theological Impact by BlueFashoo · · Score: 1

      That sounds so Discordian.

      --
      Nice Marmot
    20. Re:Theological Impact by BioCS.Nerd · · Score: 1

      That was absolutely fascinating! Thank you for taking the time to write this reply. :)

    21. Re:Theological Impact by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      > As he's explained to me, Hindu has yet to find itself in a real conflict with science.

      How can i put this nicely... he's wrong. Witness...
      the caste system (theory of racial superiority, google for "Aryan Dasyu"), mythical creation history (giant turtle supporting the world), support for unscientific superstitions make the Indian populations easy prey for charlatans etc.

      Don't get me wrong - there are many things right with Hindu tradition, with wisdom about herbs, medicines, several graceful and beautiful customs, etc. But as a religion, it's just not right. :0)

      I'm an Hindu by ethnicity (I have no part in the religion anymore).

    22. Re:Theological Impact by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      As a former fundie Creationist nut turned atheist, ...
      Creationists tend to come up with very convincing arguments, and - for what it's worth - I'm still not satisfied with the Big Bang, ...


      As a former athiest nut turned creationist Christian, I repeat: science backs the Bible on creationism.

    23. Re:Theological Impact by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So you were an atheist - this is an entirely irrational and unscientific view - and you became a christian wingnut, believing that god created the earth in a week and put dinosaur bones here to test our faith. And you link to a post that's already been significantly debunked, and expect someone to care? Only long enough to write a short blurb explaining why you're full of it, mister.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re:Theological Impact by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      I can't tell if you're trolling, or serious. The post you linked to was hardly convincing.

    25. Re:Theological Impact by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      I paraphrase Carl Sagan a little here, but I'd be awfully disappointed in a God who created this Universe only for us... It seems very selfish of us to think we're unique in his eye...

    26. Re:Theological Impact by ATN · · Score: 0

      :) To think that God put dinosaur bones in the earth to test our faith is foolish. Most biblical creationists do not believe this. If you wish to have a more informed view on what Creationists believe for future reference and posts I recommend reading the following: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dino saurs.asp

    27. Re:Theological Impact by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So now they're blaming the iridium layer on the flood? That doesn't explain shit. Thanks for linking me to that site; it proves that creationists are willing to abuse the scientific process to "prove" their side of the story.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    28. Re: Theological Impact by creysoft · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, I lack the depth of scientific knowledge to debate this effectively. Simply put, I think there is a lot of evidence that points toward a young(er) Earth, such as fossilized trees sticking through multiple periods of sediment, the ever shortening distance between us and the moon, and so on and so forth. Do I believe the earth is 6,000? years old? No, not really. I don't, however, think its age is measured in billions, or even hundreds of millions.

      Furthermore, the entire Big Bang theory seems to violate the second law of thermodynamics on its face. Similar with Evolution, although I'm not sure the laws of entropy directly apply to the behavior of living organisms.

      Then again, I am but a humble PHP programmer. What do I know about this shit? ;)

      --
      Formerly GNU/Anonymous Coward. This message has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.
    29. Re:Theological Impact by Ayaress · · Score: 1

      Aryan Dasyu is not native Hindu thought. The Aryan religion originated farther east, with a nomadic people from central Asia. They conquered the Indus and Hindu civilizations, and abolished their native religions for several hundred years.

    30. Re:Theological Impact by DarkSarin · · Score: 1

      precisely.

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    31. Re:Theological Impact by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      "Significantly debunked"?

      No.

      Do _you_ have something significant to debunk those conclusions... perhaps a tree with 500 additional tree rings than these oldest ones?

      I remember you drinkypoo. The last I heard from you, you were requesting me to "eat shit". It wasn't wise to say that with a moniker like yours.

    32. Re:Theological Impact by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      No, you may have been mixed up. The term "Aryan" and it's related culture is an integral part of Hinduism.

      To accept what you are saying, we must to accept the Vedas aren't Hindu, and neither is the Bhagavad Gita (search for the term aryan in the link), neither are brahmins, etc, etc. In fact, there won't be anything left that generally accepted as part of Hinduism today if we remove "Aryan" thought from Hinduism.

      As a side note, I am ethnically Aryan and personally attest this term is used widely in Hindu religion. Europeans are _not_ Aryan - it's a term Indologists borrowed from Indo-Iranian culture - it does not exist in European historical records.

    33. Re:Theological Impact by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So, last time we "spoke" I requested that you consume feces, and you're coming back for more? What does the oldest tree left standing have to do with the age of the earth?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    34. Re:Theological Impact by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      > ...you're coming back for more?

      Don't you realize your request to "consume feces" sullies your mouth alone and does nothing to mine?

      > What does the oldest tree left standing have to do with the age of the earth?

      Didn't you read that thread? The oldest pines are still living... the oldest was cut down (!) a few decades ago. There is no ready reason trees cannot live longer than the mysterious 4800 year mark, other than the global flood the Bible claims took place at that time.

    35. Re:Theological Impact by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Actually, my mouth is not soiled. I typed those messages. When I said coming back for more, I meant that if you didn't find the conversation rational before, why are you bothering me again?

      Back to the meat:

      Are you claiming that the only thing that can knock trees down en masse is a flood? Firestorms and such can't do that, I guess. A sufficiently-sized and long meteor shower can do that job just fine. That would also account for the thorium (etc) layer supposedly laid down by the great flood. I guess I am as gifted at speculation as hard creationists! Maybe I should start my own religion. I'll call it... Martinetics! (I would call it Martinizing, but that's already taken.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    36. Re:Theological Impact by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      Well, your heart and mind is soiled, as is the whole of you.

      I am not bothering you. You are bothering me. You replied unsolicited to my reply to "creysoft".

      Onto your meat:

      > Are you claiming that the only thing that can knock trees down en masse is a flood?
      No.

      > Firestorms and such can't do that, I guess.
      They can, but there's no record of a worldwide firestorm 5000 years ago.

      There are records of a worldwide flood though.

      > A sufficiently-sized and long meteor shower can do that job just fine.
      Yes, but there's no record of a worldwide meteor shower 5000 years ago.

      There are records of a worldwide flood though.

      > That would also account for the thorium (etc) layer supposedly laid down by the great flood.
      So 5000 years ago, the entire earth was blasted with huge amounts of metorites that killed all the trees and laid down a worldwide layer of their distinctive metals?

      The data fits a worldwide flood better.

      > I guess I am as gifted at speculation as hard creationists!
      You are the unchallenged champion.

      > Maybe I should start my own religion.
      > I'll call it... Martinetics! (I would call it Martinizing, but that's already taken.)

      As long as it isn't drinkypooism.

    37. Re:Theological Impact by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      Obviously, I am serious. What faults did you find with it?

    38. Re:Theological Impact by ATN · · Score: 0

      Please see the following information on why origins has very little do with the scientific process in the operational sense.

      http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/crit ics.asp

      Creationists are looking at the same evidence as everyone else, and it is my opinion and that of many other's that the evidence fits with a creation model much better. This includes very prominent and educated scientists that are experts in the fields of biology, genetics, and geology.

    39. Re:Theological Impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you ever researched the matter, you might have learned a few things yourself as to who aryans are. For starters, the Aryans come from Persia, as the parent poster said. Not India. They worshiped the god Ahura Mazda. Ever heard of that one as a Hindu? It's Zoastrian, who are Aryan. Second, In this thread you have claimed to belong to two (or three depending on how you count it) different religions currently and two past (one of which is also one of the current claims). Make up your mind, eh?

  26. On one hand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah I'd like to know it's there. On the other hand, I think I'd like for them to wait on bringing it back until they can confirm the initial six astronauts are not dying and highly infectuous.

    On the other hand, who wouldn't like to have a symbiote like Venom from Spiderman? hehehe

  27. we're all gonna die! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is our immune system still ready to compbat bacterias of more than 32,000 years ago?

    Or are we unleashing a monster? Letting the genie out of the bottle? Something reminds me of "curiosity killed the cat".

  28. See? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are Catholics on Mars?

  29. Re:All hype about this but... by DarkMantle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe martian microbes will give us clues towards a cure for these and other illnesses. We haven't had any luck finding cures here.

    I'm also confident in my belief that we could find new minerals on mars, or other planets that could be put to good use as well.

    --
    DarkMantle I been bored, so I started a blog.
  30. Yet Another Reason To Worry About Global Warming by sourcery · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ...the melting ice might liberate some long-dormant microbe for which we have no immunity.

    --
    Cthulhu for President! Why settle for the lesser evil?
  31. What are the odds by Dorsai65 · · Score: 1

    that any Martian bacteria would serve as a cure for penicillin?

    --
    --- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
    1. Re:What are the odds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I checked Penicillin was a good thing.............

  32. Its like a movie! by ddent · · Score: 0

    Uh, Jurassic Park?

    1. Re:Its like a movie! by Dorsai65 · · Score: 1

      Except on a teeny, tiny little scale (they are microbes, after all).

      --
      --- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
  33. 32,000 years without coffee by guided_by_coffee · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...will make for very grumpy awakenings, they're gonna some be pissed-off little buggers, I wouldn't wake 'em up... unless of course you thaw them out in a nice cup o' joe.

  34. Could you handle it? by r00t · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Suppose that, in a rather obviously impressive way, God descended from Heaven. Suppose he drops by your place and performs a few miracles. Maybe then he beams you down to Hell for a 5-minute tour, either Star Trek style or via the Earth just opening up for a moment...

    I sure couldn't handle it, but I know people who could.

    1. Re:Could you handle it? by sevenmonkey · · Score: 1
      That would totally rock.

      By the way, if you're into that, you might want to fill out one of these:

      http://www.raptureletters.com/

    2. Re:Could you handle it? by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Suppose that, in a rather obviously impressive way, God descended from Heaven. Suppose he drops by your place and performs a few miracles. Maybe then he beams you down to Hell for a 5-minute tour, either Star Trek style or via the Earth just opening up for a moment..."

      Okay, I don't normally, but I'll bite this time...

      If God exists and did this, or part of this, and it was obvious to all of those involved that he actually did these things and that there was absolutely no other way that these things could have happened then those involved would have a reason to believe in him. Fact of the matter is that none of these things have happened to me or to anyone I know, and those that I know who claim that God did something in their lives that's overly special are either crazy or are so bad at stastics that they're not accounting for the 10x number of bad things that happen for the one "miracle" that is simply fortuitous coincidence.

      The British didn't defeat the Spanish Armada in Queen Elisabeth I's day because God helped, they had several unexpected advantages. Likewise, 1910-1920 era Germany lost the first World War despite asserting to themselves in some national motto "God is Great." The man referred to as "Comical Ali" the Iraqi Information Minister continually ranted how the Americans were losing, and how Allah was going to see the Iraqi army to victory over the Infidels.

      This is the same damn argument that Science has had with religion from the earliest days of the discipline; skeptics don't blindly accept "truth" simply because people insist that it's true. Continual restatement of a position doesn't have anything to do with reality.

      Show me one 'miracle' and I'll show you ten anti-miracles, like my 30 year old friend who was a vegetarian and otherwise the picture of health who died of completely natural causes, not realising that she had pulmonary hypertension until it was far, far too late to do anything about it.

      In the mean time, I'm not going to believe something transcribed by hand over generations, across multiple languages, and at times by organizations with manipulative agendas. It was also originally written by people who didn't understand the natural world like we do. I don't doubt many of the positive "lessons" that are the ultimate theme of the parables, but the exact verbatim message can't be literally interpreted in my opinion.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:Could you handle it? by PedanticSpellingTrol · · Score: 1
    4. Re:Could you handle it? by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

      The problem with your stance is that there's always some other way things could have happened. You are perhaps right in being skeptical of your perceptions, but deciding to be more skeptical of your perceptions just because you perceive things you don't like is what many would consider a mental deficiency: it's basically the same thing that causes us to be a bit didainful of rabid fundamentalists of all kinds.

      --
      ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
    5. Re:Could you handle it? by TWX · · Score: 0

      huh?

      Without trying to be patronizing, please clarify what you mean. I'm curious. The section, "You are perhaps right in being skeptical of your perceptions, but deciding to be more skeptical of your perceptions just because you perceive things you don't like..." is what I'm having trouble interpreting.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    6. Re:Could you handle it? by anagama · · Score: 1, Funny

      amen brother!

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    7. Re:Could you handle it? by eraserewind · · Score: 1

      Some of us have principles that preclude worshipping some egomaniac, real or imaginary.

    8. Re: Could you handle it? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Suppose that, in a rather obviously impressive way, God descended from Heaven. Suppose he drops by your place and performs a few miracles. Maybe then he beams you down to Hell for a 5-minute tour, either Star Trek style or via the Earth just opening up for a moment...

      In such a case, I'd get back on my medications.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    9. Re:Could you handle it? by BlueFashoo · · Score: 1

      That would be such strong proof, that it would be proof of the non-existance of God; for proof denies faith, and without faith, God is nothing. So, in a puff of logic, God would promptly vanish.

      --
      Nice Marmot
    10. Re:Could you handle it? by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Depends on the magnitude of the miracle. He could blink the stars out of the sky and I'd still have my doubts it wasn't just some mental delusion he was inflicting upon me.

    11. Re:Could you handle it? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I could handle it. I sure wouldn't be agnostic any more. I would, however, be upset with God, Job-style. I'm not quite so put upon as he "was" though :)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Could you handle it? by booyah · · Score: 1

      Do me a favor, tell him Thursday is all booked up, but maybe he could come back at a better time?

      thanks

      stupid TPS reports, and their cover pages

      --
      #include sig.h
    13. Re:Could you handle it? by ashayh · · Score: 1

      Thats a pointless question.

      Does it make sense if I asked you, "Would you be able to handle it if pigs sprouted wings on March 23rd '05 and dropped firebombs on NY city?"

    14. Re:Could you handle it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Not me! Stallman is my GNU/hero!

      "The worst thing you can say about God is that, if he exists, he's basically an underachiever." -Twain (I think)

    15. Re:Could you handle it? by Cat_Byte · · Score: 1

      That site is pretty cool. Wouldn't it be funny if the "dead mans switch" malfunctions and it starts sending out the messages to ppl saying they are gone...heh.

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    16. Re:Could you handle it? by phyruxus · · Score: 1
      Yeah, it strikes me that he just wants geeks to imagine what if "God" proved it's own existence. It's like an old man exposing himself to kids - there's no redeeming value.

      Suppose that the bible turns out to be an encoded message which reads "this is a metaphor, do not interpret literally, keep out of reach of idiots." I know I could handle it, but I know some people who couldn't.

      Suppose the Pope revealed to the world that religion is no longer relevant because God *used* to exist, but he got sick of all the crap people were doing in his name, so he replaced himself with a small shell script and willed himself nonexistant. Suppose it! Woooo!!

      Suppose that the real nature of religion is to promote social harmony by telling a "noble lie", but it's been twisted into a corrupt power structure that uses faith as an excuse to commit the very acts the religion was created to prevent. Suppose!

      Suppose Jesus shows up at your door and says "Hi, I'm Jesus Christ. You may remember me from such religions as Catholicism and Puritanism. I'm here to tell you that Hare Krishna is the One True Religion. I was close, but due to the nature of spiritual introspection, the closer I got to the truth, the more I misunderstood it. Now I walk the earth spreading the truth of Hare Krishna until I work off my bad karma."

      Pat Robertson sure couldn't handle it, but I know people who could.

      --
      "A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
      "d'Oh!" ~Homer
    17. Re:Could you handle it? by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

      You seem to be more skeptical of religion just because it's religion. I find that strange. Sorry if I'm incomprehensible, I usually haven't had my coffee at the time i read slashdot.

      --
      ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
    18. Re:Could you handle it? by qwasty · · Score: 1

      The hebrew people who wrote the old testament were backwards hillbillies, even for their time. Most people don't realize this, but compared to the other civilizations, it's true. While some civilizations were building pyramids and grand cities, the hebrews were still living in the middle of nowhere, stoning women who had been raped because they were "unclean".

      Their writings are practically worshipped by religious people, and for no one good reason. It's not necessarily the oldest, biggest, most interesting, or best set of writing available from that time period. It's just religious, and that's all that's interesting about it. I'm not a religious scholar, so maybe there's something unique and special about the old testament/talmud/etc that I don't know about, but so far, no one who says it's the word of god has been able to say anything about it other than it's supposedly the word of god.

    19. Re:Could you handle it? by CFTM · · Score: 1

      The problem with that is fundamental to all religious beliefs is the notion of "faith" that removes the requiste of faith from the spiritual practice. I am by no means an expert nor do I pretend to be the man with the answers but based upon my own emperical experiences of the world I would argue that religions power exists through fatih. Without faith religion is no different than any other institution.

      That really doesn't have any validity to the discussion at hand so mod me down all you want :)

    20. Re:Could you handle it? by TWX · · Score: 1

      I tend to be skeptical of religions because most large religions have done something patently foolish during the era that they're establishing themselves, or else a significantly visible portion have done something stupid, claiming it for the religion. The Christians burned Alexandria and other "pagan" knowledge archives. The Muslims have gone from the days of invasion (Moors into Spain) to terrorism.

      Most religions have at times held other faiths and people of those other faiths in distain to the point of suggesting they be killed for their beliefs. I find this offensive, and I interact with people who feel that their way is "the one true way" as absolutely little as possible. I do not seek to be 'converted', nor do I want to subject myself to the words of someone who refuses to accept me even though I'm relatively stable, not a drag on society, and not filling the world with children that have to be fed.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  35. Still No Martians by Witchblade · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is a great discovery, but only for what it tells us about what things were like 32,000 years ago. Everytime something like this is discovered everybody immediately jumps up and down about life on Mars. At this point it's pretty damn clear that life has found ways to survive everywhere on Earth from the highest clouds to somewhere around the planet's core. But it didn't start there. All of these discoveries are the harshest possible environments on Earth- but they're more like the best conditions on Mars. In fact each new discovery makes the odds of finding life on Mars less- if it's so easy to find life in such amazingly cold and barren conditions why have we still found nothing on Mars that isn't, at best, something that isn't easily made by simple geological (areological?) chemical processes? (But also, sometimes, are by-products of living things.)

    Then again no one's gotten a chance to really peak under any Martian rocks. Yet...

    1. Re:Still No Martians by PapayaSF · · Score: 1

      All of these discoveries are the harshest possible environments on Earth - but they're more like the best conditions on Mars. In fact each new discovery makes the odds of finding life on Mars less

      Good point, but if life evolved when Mars was warmer and wetter, frozen in the seas might be Martian extremophiles who were the last to succumb to their climate change.

      --
      Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    2. Re:Still No Martians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we find life in cold and barren places of earth, because organisms are continuing to live there. In the case of mars, current surface conditions can't support life, and because there has not been biological renewal, organisms that may have lived on the surface have been subject to thousands of years of weathering.

  36. Re:Yet Another Reason To Worry About Global Warmin by KingPunk · · Score: 1, Funny

    haha, you mean, like aids/hiv? ..how about cancer?

  37. First thing the microbes did upon waking up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    take a really long piss.

  38. Problems for religion by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Generally religions tend to get round such things in time (though not without much wailing and gnashing of teeth).

    Most of them will probably be happy accepting that it is "our kind of life" that is the special thing and that the existance of microbes etc elsewhere doesn't diminish how special us higher beings are. After all, most of them don't seem to like the thought that we and simpler organisms have common origins anyway.

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    1. Re:Problems for religion by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 1
      Most of them will probably be happy accepting that it is "our kind of life" that is the special thing and that the existance of microbes etc elsewhere doesn't diminish how special us higher beings are.

      Of course, if we did somehow stumble upon an advanced alien civilization, with a rich, complex culture and superior intelligence, our local Christians would pause for less than a microsecond before deciding that the most important priority for humanity would be to send missionaries and start spreading the gospel. Personally I would find that very embarrassing.

      It would be great if the aliens exploded on contact with water. That would make the sacrament of baptism much more interesting!

      OK, I will shut up and go to Hell now ....

      --
      Soylent Green is peoplicious!
  39. Why are there so many 5, Funnys? by ZeeExSixAre · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's all 5, Funny until an entire (human) race gets obliterated by Martian bacteria...

    1. Re:Why are there so many 5, Funnys? by Anynomous+Coward · · Score: 0

      Then it becomes 5, Finally.

      --
      I'm not a coward by any name.
    2. Re:Why are there so many 5, Funnys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say it as if it's a bad thing...

  40. what an idea by joNDoty · · Score: 1

    "...could conceivably culture it and bring it back alive. Maybe NASA could market them..."

    Can you even think of a worse idea???

    1. Re:what an idea by Mikito · · Score: 3, Funny

      Can you even think of a worse idea??

      Yes. Let's try to make yogurt with them.

      You can try the first batch.

      --
      Anakin Simpson: If you're not with me, then you're my enemy--ooh, donuts!
    2. Re:what an idea by salemlb · · Score: 0

      Give them away for free?

    3. Re:what an idea by Meumeu · · Score: 1

      Market them with DRM and the broadcast flag?

    4. Re:what an idea by lisaparratt · · Score: 1

      Put a Kefir grain into orbit round Mars - it'd be a veritable Deathstar of micro-organisms!

  41. How to date ice, and bring it home to your mother by yuckysocks · · Score: 3, Informative

    The basic way to date ice samples is pretty similar to "endochronology"
    (which is looking at tree rings to determine their age). Ice cores
    have similar striations which can be counted to determine the age of the
    surrounding ice.

    And I couldn't find a link, but I thought at one point
    scientists were looking at the air composition inside the ice and comparing
    it to historical atmospheric ratios of gasses to date things.

  42. Reporters on Mars? by msblack · · Score: 0
    Researchers are excited because they're the sort of microbes that might thrive in the ice sea announced on Mars yesterday.

    When did we send reporters to Mars to get the news?

    --
    signature pending slashdot approval
  43. Re:Yet Another Reason To Worry About Global Warmin by CupBeEmpty · · Score: 1

    I am not really sure that is a likely scenario. Things that we use to kill bacteria are "highly conserved" genetically. That is because bacterial metabolism is basically the same and has been most likely for a very very long time. Anything that thaws out of 32,000 year old ice will likely be just like normal old today bacteria. We should probably worry more about things like viruses from today or bio-terrorism.

  44. but we still don't know all bacteria on Earth by wikinerd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    we found that bacteria can live after 32000 years in frozen condition and we are considering the possibility of Martian bacteria, but we still don't know all bacteria living on Earth. We explore other planets and we know very little about our own planet. For example, we recently identified three new bacteria species by closely examining publicly available DNA data. It is surprisingly how easily we can look at a DNA sequence and miss vital information in it. All that data were available to all scientists, but just one understood that there were new species footprints hiding in them.

    1. Re:but we still don't know all bacteria on Earth by wikinerd · · Score: 0

      Sorry I pressed Submit before finishing my post: This means that we will have great difficulty analysing and understanding Martian bacteria, considering how easily we can miss Earthly bacteria even when their DNA sequence is available at genetic banks where everyone (on the Internet) have access. I wonder how Martian DNA will look like and whether we will be able to decode it.

    2. Re:but we still don't know all bacteria on Earth by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      This means that we will have great difficulty analysing and understanding Martian bacteria

      Your logic is flawed. It's like saying because we don't have a unified field theory, we can't use electricity.

      There are bacteria we are extremely familiar with, because we've studied the hell out of them (Such as E. coli). There are new ones we find all the time, simply because we're not really looking that hard for more of them. But the fact that we have not cataloged every bacteria on Earth does not mean we can't study the hell out of E. coli.

      If bacteria are found on Mars, we will study the hell out of it, and we can expect to understand it as well as E. coli within a few years, no matter how exoctic it's processes are. The techniques we've developed to study terrestrial bacteria would still be useful in studying Martian bacteria. For example the techniques we developed for gene sequencers to study DNA would still be useful to study whatever Martian bacteria use for genetic material....assuming that it's not just DNA.

  45. what would Fry say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "What if I never fell into the freezer-doodle and came to the future-jiggy?"

    I wonder if the microbes are surprised with how much has changed on Mars since the year -30,000.

  46. Time to find out by beef3k · · Score: 0

    which of the researchers had a bad tuna sandwich for lunch on the day of "discovery"...

  47. blind eye by DreadSpoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why is it that religious leaders can always incite their zealot followers to violence against those who are different, but they can never incite their zealot followers to embrace the tranquillity, harmony, sanctity of life, forgiveness, mercy, tolerance, and passiveness that pretty much all of the major religions are based on?

    I've never believed religion to be anything more than a crutch. It's a crutch for the immoral to have a reason to stay moral, just like law and prosecution are reasons for the criminally-minded to avoid crime. It's too bad that the crutch can be used both ways, and can facilitate the very thing the crutch was invented to stop.

    Behold, mankind.

    1. Re:blind eye by strelitsa · · Score: 0

      God is dead. Neitszche
      Neitszche is dead. God

      --
      No mod points, no meta-moderating/Firehose/all the other free work Slashdot wants me to do.
    2. Re:blind eye by Foggerty · · Score: 1, Funny

      Re: inciting followers to be peacefull hippies - that's pretty much what the Buddha did to his followers :-)

    3. Re:blind eye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that religious leaders can always incite their zealot followers to violence against those who are different, but they can never incite their zealot followers to embrace the tranquillity, harmony, sanctity of life, forgiveness, mercy, tolerance, and passiveness that pretty much all of the major religions are based on?

      because humans are fundamentally pack animals, and talking up The Other (tribe) as a threat is always easier than teaching people to learn full control of their animal instincts (a rather difficult task that requires years of work). see also the monkeysphere.

    4. Re:blind eye by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      Wow, I thought only stoned teenagers talked like that.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    5. Re:blind eye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, stoned adults have been known to talk that way too.

    6. Re:blind eye by gowen · · Score: 1

      Jerry Garcia, too.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    7. Re:blind eye by WaterBreath · · Score: 1

      but they can never incite their zealot followers to embrace the tranquillity, harmony, sanctity of life, forgiveness, mercy, tolerance, and passiveness that pretty much all of the major religions are based on

      This is a "3, Insightful"??? You've got to be kidding me. Slashdotters, we've hit a new low. I've seldom heard a more narrow-minded sweeping stereotype. And there it is modded Insightful in all of it's bigotted glory.

      Wholly dismissing the beliefs of millions of people simply because your deem them to be unnecessary doesn't sound much different than what the oh-so-hated fundamentalists do. But actually it sounds much more simliar to what Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler, did to enslave the minds of their nations.

      Yes, let's wipe out all metaphysical philosophy. It's worked so well in the past.

    8. Re:blind eye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that religious leaders can always incite their zealot followers to violence against those who are different, but they can never incite their zealot followers to embrace the tranquillity, harmony, sanctity of life, forgiveness, mercy, tolerance, and passiveness that pretty much all of the major religions are based on?

      Actually they do. It's only a small minority that ever chooses the violent solution. The rest just stand by like sheep. We'd be seriously fucked without religion, whether there's any truth in in or not.

    9. Re:blind eye by SdnSeraphim · · Score: 1

      I don't particularly agree, being religious. However, before I became religious, I was a "moral" person. Now I have learned that I should be better than I was. I did not need religion to know what was right from the view point of other people. This is an aspect of empathy.

      However, what I have learned is all of those items you say the religious don't have, peace, sanctity of life, mercy, tolerance.

      Now the argument that religion is a crutch seems strange. My religion taught me how to be a better human, better to those around me. All of us, no matter whom is speaking, does or has done something immoral, for which I would include something as "easy" as lying. Crutches are supposed to make life easier. It would be easier for me to not be religious. How is it then a crutch. I am required to do work, physical and mental, in order to fulfill the obligations I accepted. My religion is obviously not a crutch for me. A crutch (for me) would be to say God does not exist and there is no reason to care about other people.

      What I find interesting is you say laws are a reason for criminals to avoid crime? That idea is logically backwards. You can't be a criminal unless there is a law directed against your actions. Unless you are talking about "moral law," which is an entirely different beast. There is no law directed against the practice of my religion, currently. If there was a change, would that make me a criminal?

      Regarding life on other planets. It doesn't affect me much. Of course I am not a fundamentalist, and neither were early Christian Church believers. The story of Genesis was not considered a precise story of creation. I do not know about Jewish understanding of Genesis, but my guess is that they do not believe in a fundamentalist viewpoint either.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right on a subject on which the established authorities are wrong. - Voltaire
    10. Re:blind eye by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      However, what I have learned is all of those items you say the religious don't have, peace, sanctity of life, mercy, tolerance.

      You needed a religion to gain those things? I would think that being merciful and tolerant are things that are self-evident. You don't need fear "hell" to be a tolerant person. You only need to understand how acting in these ways betters your life and the lives of those around you. And that has nothing to do with religion, supreme beings, etc.

      My religion is obviously not a crutch for me. A crutch (for me) would be to say God does not exist and there is no reason to care about other people.

      Here again, you make the typical religionist's mistake of believing that a lack of belief in a god somehow relieves people of the ability of caring about other people.

      I really don't understand why Western religions consistently promote the idea that you need to accept a religion in order to be a moral person. The Eastern philosophical movements like Buddhism, Taoism, etc., not to mention many Western philosophies, long ago managed to promote ideas of acting ethically, treating other people well, etc., without having to resort to the idea of gods, eternal punishment, and the entire infrastructure necessary to support all that (churches, witch doctors, high priests, sacred texts, rigid commandments, and dogma).

    11. Re:blind eye by TWX · · Score: 1
      I really don't understand why Western religions consistently promote the idea that you need to accept a religion in order to be a moral person. The Eastern philosophical movements like Buddhism, Taoism, etc., not to mention many Western philosophies, long ago managed to promote ideas of acting ethically, treating other people well, etc., without having to resort to the idea of gods, eternal punishment, and the entire infrastructure necessary to support all that (churches, witch doctors, high priests, sacred texts, rigid commandments, and dogma).
      Exactly. I'm a generally nice guy, even though I don't subscribe to the "you're going to hell" or "there's a big invisible man up in the sky looking at you" beliefs. I do as I will because being nice to people has helped me build a base of people that have shown themselves to be reliable and willing to participate in what I'm interested in. People are willing to go a long way with you through difficult times if they like you.
      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  48. When Asked to Comment by the+pickle · · Score: 0

    The microbes replied:

    "Throw us a fricken bone here. We've been frozen for thirty thousand years!"

    p

  49. Re:Didn't I see this.... Ice man's revenge or by j_w_d · · Score: 1

    ... who goes there?

    Heh

    --
    ------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
  50. Or, flip that... by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "we would probablly lack any auto immune response to be able to combat them."

    It's easy enough to speculate on a vice versa: our modern earth bacteria are tough customers, honed by millennia of unending counter-immune war. Wimpy mars bacteria would cower in their meteorite, like preschoolers dumped in a rough biker bar.

    Yes, scientific types, I'm blowing smoke, too. Vote me +1, funny.

  51. microbes? by tooth · · Score: 1

    I wish my microbee survived this long... it barely managed 10 years.

  52. /Evolution by conna01 · · Score: 1

    sounds like the plot line of Evolution, a movie that had Duchovny in it.

    --
    Acrylic Bubble Panels www.beyond7.com
  53. "market them as Martian Sea Monkeys." by jamesbuko · · Score: 0

    "Martian Sea Monkeys."..hmmmm... nice name for a band...any takers?

  54. I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when companies will start wanting to take a look at these microbes and then start patenting their DNA, proteins, or any other sort of chemicals they may be able to extract from them...

  55. Global Warming Safety Net by FreshMeat-BWG · · Score: 2, Insightful
    A more interesting scenario to me would be one where it is discovered that these organisms, when thawed, begin multiplying and emitting quantities of gasses (or have some other global effect) whereby the effects of global warming are reversed until they are frozen again, thus bringing our planet back into harmony again.

    Or then again, maybe everyone else is right and they are just going to kill us.

    1. Re:Global Warming Safety Net by Meumeu · · Score: 1

      We do have a solution for global warming: nuclear winter!

  56. I spit on your 32K years. Try 25M! by Markus+Registrada · · Score: 4, Interesting
    My cousin, working for Raul Cano at CalPoly, worked with bacteria extracted from the crops of bees stuck in amber tens of millions of years ago. Of course everyone insisted the bacteria they got were just lab contamination, until they sequenced the critters and showed that they were ancestral to modern strains living in modern bees!

    Of course the bacteria were entirely dessicated, not just frozen, so it's a better model of the martian situation.

  57. Re:How to date ice, and bring it home to your moth by abb3w · · Score: 2, Informative
    The basic way to date ice samples is pretty similar to "endochronology" (which is looking at tree rings to determine their age).

    That's dendrochronology. "Endochronology" has to do with study of some of the odder properties of thiotimoline.

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  58. Re:Yet Another Reason To Worry About Global Warmin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ah, yes. The good old cancer microbe.

  59. Re:How to date ice, and bring it home to your moth by Yeshua · · Score: 1

    The basic way to date ice samples is pretty similar to "endochronology" (which is looking at tree rings to determine their age).

    I think you mean dendrochronology. Unless you mean endocrinology, but that has little to do with trees. Endochronology would be a rather intriguing temporal effect, possibly involving relativistic effects.

  60. What are these "new" bacteria related to? by a_d_white · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The abstract of the research paper says that this 'new' bacteria, Carnobacterium pleistocenium, has a 99.8% similarity to Carnobacterium alterfunditum, as determined by gene sequence. I don't have access to this journal, so perhaps someone can fill in the details (how do these frozen bacteria differ from their modern day relatives and/or descendants?).

    Phylochronology is a new field that proposes studying molecular evolution on both spatial and temporal scales, using the tools of aDNA and paleontology. Here, however, we have living samples with which to make a comparison. Thus, there's the potential to compare not just nucleotide sequence, but differences in morphology, development, and evolvability.

    1. Re:What are these "new" bacteria related to? by Stripsurge · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Carnobacterium pleistocenium, has a 99.8% similarity to Carnobacterium alterfunditum
      "
      Not quite. 99.8% refers to the similarity between a specific gene common to both (all) bacteria. The gene in question codes for ribosomal RNA of the 16s subunit. It is required for protein synthesis. Due to its importance not too many mutations normally occur in it. Most mutations are lethal.

      Overal their DNA was only 39 % the same. Unfortunately I don't have full access either :( although this early on I doubt they'd know too much other than what's stated in the paper.

  61. Listen up, Dannon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...conceivably culture it and bring it back alive.

    Let's hope they sell it in 8 oz. containers, not those skimpy 6 oz. ones...

  62. The Deadly Mantis (queue horror music) by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1, Funny

    I remember a great old Scifi movie (with the usual commentary by Mike, Servo, and Crow on MST3K) called The Deadly Mantis. It's about a giant preying mantis (that can fly) trapped in the antartic ice but freed when the ice shelf it's in breaks up. Of course, the first thing it does is waste the air force base, then heads south to take out Washington DC. Fortunately, there's an expert on bugs or radioactive mutations, or wearing suits on the big screen or something like, who follows it into a tunnel and kills it in some creatively unspectacular fashion that I don't remember. It ends with him getting the girl, who is, of course, only in the movie in order to be "gotten" by the hero. Now we've unleashed this terror upon ourselves.

    MST3K fans will remember this as the episode where Bobo blows up the earth, followed by Crow's immortal words, "It was as though millions of monkeys cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced."

  63. you've got it backwards by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

    If there are bacteria on mars, actual bacteria with mitochondria, genetic information encoded on ribose chains, etc, then I think a lot of the atheist block of science would spontaneously convert. I mean, really, why would identical chemical makeup in two different spontaneously generated lines be a hindrance to creator religions? If it happens, I might even give those creationist nutters some credence.


    Really nasty ramifications. Haha.

    Also, I meet your "vast majority of religions", and raise you a "The vast majority of religions don't care one way or another wether the earth is the center of the universe, balanced on a turtle, or shaped like a klein bottle. They just don't."

    --
    ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
    1. Re:you've got it backwards by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      I don't see why atheists would convert. The pressence of bacteria on Mars could mean one of two things, either one world seeded the other with life, or life evolved on both worlds the same way individually.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
  64. A claim you might hear by nuntius · · Score: 2, Funny

    If evolution is a process requiring billions of years to occur and such exquisitely balanced conditions that life has never been created from raw materials in the lab, wouldn't finding life on other planets make evolution EVEN MORE improbable?

    Evolution seems to imply that each occurance of life is an independent event. If p(1)=10^-100 (boosted to 1 since life is observed), then p(2)=10^-200 (boosted to 10^-100)... Having a Creator boosts the probabilities to p(1)=1 (observed), p(2)=?? who knows? No reason not to create again. The Bible gives you places full of plants, animals, angels, cherubim, leviathon; just not people on any other planets.

    Both creationism and intelligent design (aka aliens/other almost-godlike-but-not-quite-gods) should get major PR boosts over evolution if life is found on other planets.

    I first heard this reasoning ~8 years ago. Take it or leave it.

    PS. 93% of the statistics used on /. are created as needed to meet the demand.

    1. Re:A claim you might hear by Ayaress · · Score: 1

      It's the argument you'd hear, but probability doesn't really work quite like that. Assuming you do have a 10^-100 probability of life on one planet, each planet would be an independent case, not each life-bearing planet. There are probably millions of viable planets out there. Billions if not trillions or some other meaninglessly huge number if you go outside our galaxy. Each one of them would be an independent case, with probability of life not existing of 1-10^-100 (again, their numbers, which are dubious at best). It's a high probability that any given planet would have nothing, but the sheer number of planets makes up for it, to the point that the expected number of planets that do have life is quite high.

    2. Re:A claim you might hear by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Just because evolution may not have an instant answer to a particular scenario does not by any means increase the likelyhood that intelligent design or creationism must be able to explain it either.

      Evolution is an evolving scientific excercise based on evidence and observations whilst Intelligent Design or Creationism are based on no substantial foundations whatsoever and have absolutley nothing useful to say about anything.

    3. Re: A claim you might hear by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > If evolution is a process requiring billions of years to occur and such exquisitely balanced conditions that life has never been created from raw materials in the lab, wouldn't finding life on other planets make evolution EVEN MORE improbable?

      Pedantic note: other than the faulty logic, you're confusing evolution with abiogenesis.

      > Both creationism and intelligent design (aka aliens/other almost-godlike-but-not-quite-gods) should get major PR boosts over evolution if life is found on other planets.

      Why? Do they actually predict it or something?

      > I first heard this reasoning ~8 years ago. Take it or leave it.

      I'll leave it, thank you.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    4. Re:A claim you might hear by Meumeu · · Score: 1
      Both creationism and intelligent design (aka aliens/other almost-godlike-but-not-quite-gods) should get major PR boosts over evolution if life is found on other planets.
      Aliens can't be a good explanation for where does life come from, it merely moves the problem to another planet.
    5. Re:A claim you might hear by KeensMustard · · Score: 0

      It's a high probability that any given planet would have nothing, but the sheer number of planets makes up for it, to the point that the expected number of planets that do have life is quite high.
      Actually no. In order for that to be true the "sheer number of planets" would have to be a number of the same inverse magnitude as the low probability of life occurring on a single planet:
      Suppose a reasonable probability of life in the universe (excluding earth) say P(n) = 0.55. Then
      if P(n) = n * P(1)
      and P(1) = 10^-100
      Then n = 5.5 ^ 100
      Which is an absolutely ENORMOUS number, many magnitudes greater than the number of stars in the universe ( http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20010810.html says about 3*10^15 stars).
      So, if here is life on mars, we would need to weigh the possibility of independent evolution against the possibility of sharing of life passed via shared material between the planets: the latter is much more likely.

    6. Re:A claim you might hear by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Evolution is what happened _after_ the first cells were created from the raw materials.

      And either of them doesn't really involve anything spectacularly improbable, and which can then be ascribed to a God/demi-God/alien/whatever. It just needs time. And time it had. Billions of years of it.

      Statistics and large numbers are a funny thing. If you're one in a million, there are 6,000 just like you world-wide. Think about it. Because therein lies your answer: the key is very large numbers, not divine intervention. (And also that's the usual problem why people just don't get it: human brains has trouble working with really large numbers.)

      Well, the same applies to both evolution and abiogenesis. No matter how improbable a mutation is to happen _and_ get passed on, given enough specimens over millions of years, it _will_ eventually happen. (Note, I said "improbable", not "impossible".)

      Smaller mutations are easier: they happen all the time. An animal is born who's slightly smaller and faster than its parents. Another is born with slightly bigger claws. Another one is born who's slightly bigger and stronger, but needs more food. Etc.

      From there it's merely a question of selection. Some of those deviations will give the animal more chances to survive and have offspring, some will make it less likely.

      This affects the others too: the foxes that have an easier time finding food, might leave less food for the ones who don't. The mutated gazelle which runs faster, makes the _others_ an easier prey for lions. Etc. Essentially the most fit mutation puts the others at a disadvantage.

      And you don't even need to believe in Darwinism to see that in action: artifficial selection is based on exactly the same kind of natural diversity, except the criterion who's the fittest is an artifficial human criterion, and the culling out the "unfit" is much faster.

      See starting with dogs that looked like wolves, and ending up with the Pekinese. That was dilligent selection of those random mutations that were the closest to the desired end result: something (A) looking like a Chinese dragon, and (B) small enough to fit under the Emperor's tea table. It worked. Enough generations of selection turned a wolf ino the Pekinese.

      Well, the same happens naturally too, only slower.

      And here's the fun part: trying the same independently on two planets doesn't reduce the chances in any way. Your chances of rolling a 6 with a die are not influenced by my also rolling my own dice at the same time. The fact that you rolled a 6 doesn't say I can't roll a 6 too.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    7. Re:A claim you might hear by clambake · · Score: 1

      a process requiring billions of years to occur and such exquisitely balanced conditions that life has never been created from raw materials in the lab

      FALSE! It HAS been created in a lab... Or I should say, WILL BE in a few billion years.

    8. Re:A claim you might hear by Pragmatix · · Score: 1
      And here's the fun part: trying the same independently on two planets doesn't reduce the chances in any way. Your chances of rolling a 6 with a die are not influenced by my also rolling my own dice at the same time. The fact that you rolled a 6 doesn't say I can't roll a 6 too.
      Sure it does. If the chance of life existing on a planet was 1/6, then the chance of life exising on two planets would be 1/36. 3 planets would be 1/216.
    9. Re:A claim you might hear by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      3* 1,000,000,000,000,000

      That's an awfully small number for a very big universe.

      Your source:
      <quote>
      Other star enumerators we located on the Web offer numbers ranging from more than 200 billion stars in our galaxy to 3 thousand million billion stars (3 followed by 16 zeroes), in the universe. NASA alleges there are zillions of uncountable stars.
      </quote>

      Since the child source document for your 3*10^16 is missing, I can't refute their calculation logic.

    10. Re:A claim you might hear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've obviously not had any statistics, or else had a pretty shitty professor. P(n) is NEVER n*P(1) in any distribution. If we confine ourselves to binomial, it's P(1)^n. (1-10^-100)^3*10^15 is what you want, and that comes out to be the probability of there being no life in the universe, which comes to ~30^-15

    11. Re:A claim you might hear by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      The mutated gazelle which runs faster, makes the _others_ an easier prey for lions.

      I understand what you are trying to communicate here, but this analogy is a big flawed. Just because a particular gazelle can run faster than the others doesn't necessarily make the others easier prey. There are a lot of other factors that would have to come into play to make that true. What it does is make the number of potential targets smaller for the lion. If there were n gazelles to choose from before, there are now (n-1) to choose from... but that doesn't implicitly make those (n-1) any easier to catch... And the lion isn't guaranteed to catch any of them.

    12. Re:A claim you might hear by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      The chances of life on BOTH are 1/36 in your example. That is correct. But that still doesn't mean they influence each other. The chances of life on each is still 1/6, regardless of the result on the other.

      (That is, of course, assuming that no other causality existed between the two. E.g., if a meteor actively carried life from one planet to the other, it's no longer two independent rolls.)

      That's just how maths works, sorry. When you roll an ideal die, you have 1/6 chance to roll a 6. Period. Regardless of how many other people roll their own dice at the same time. The fact that two happening at the same time is a 1/36 chance is not a mutual influence. It's _based_ on the fact that each still has the same unchanged 1/6 chance taken separately.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  65. SUB Arctic, not Arctic by gurudyne · · Score: 1

    "in the Arctic"

    Fox, Alaska, home of the northernmost brewery in North America, http://www.ptialaska.net/~gbrady/pages/about.htm (obligatory beer reference), is just 10 miles NE of downtown Fairbanks and a few hundred miles SOUTH of the Arctic circle.

    This makes it SUBarctic. You don't need a refrigerator, though, just a shovel/dynamite to get down to the permafrost. This may be the origin of a beer blast.

    Maybe they should try pitching the bacteria in some beer wort and see what happens. It would probably taste better than what comes via the Clydesdales.

    There is no problem that cannot be solved as long as you have sufficient quantities of beer or dynamite or both.

    --
    Hey, Mom! Is it beer, yet?
  66. Re:so....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    About the same amount of time it will take you to have intercourse with an actual member of the opposite sex. Of your own species. Whatever that is.

  67. Re:Yet Another Reason To Worry About Global Warmin by rebelcool · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually the worst would be someone who died of an extremely virulent form of a virus and was subsequently frozen, then thawed later.

    I recall reading about how in some scandinavian country they found a body of a man who died of the 1918 influenza pandemic (one of the worst flu strains ever, millions died) that was frozen in some tundra. They set up a quarantine area around him while he was recovered, lest the extremely contagious and deadly form of the flu in him get loose.

    --

    -

  68. Panspermia and previously thawed 2800 yo bacteria by Linuxathome · · Score: 4, Informative

    Thawing out old bacteria is not a new discovery--what's interesting here is that it is older bacteria.

    The more interesting question about possible unicellular organisms in Mars is whether they share a common ancestor with Earth's unicellular organisms or did they develop independently of each other. If there is a link/common ancestor, then the currently weak theory of panspermia (life exists and is distributed throughout the universe in the form of germs or spores) would have a big boost in support. Also see this article about possible space bugs written over 2 years ago.

  69. reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is John Polkinhorne's website. Has a list of his books, as well, complete with amazon links.

  70. not true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think about it: if it's adapted to live at -200 degrees, it will boil at room temperature. Same as our bacteria will die on Venus. Or our bacteria from hot sulphur streams down in the ocean would probably die on the surface.

  71. They never learn by martian265 · · Score: 1

    Haven't these scientists ever watched an episode of the X-Files? You NEVER thaw out anything that you find in ice. Or touch any mysterious black oil spots in a hole in Texas. Or stay in a small town in the forests of Colorado. Or visit a logging camp in Oregon. Or.....well you get the idea.

  72. They aparently have found a frozen sea on Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This just appeared online in the past hour or so:
    Space Probe Finds Frozen Sea on Mars

  73. Also found in the cave by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    "Itsa 32,000 year-old Twinkey!"

  74. Re:I spit on your 32K years. Try 25M! by afidel · · Score: 4, Informative

    Uh, check your facts budy. Here's a link since you obviously can't use google.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  75. Why is religion always being attacked here? by DarkRecluse · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We have 32k year old bacteria discovered in Antarctica that wake from the deep freeze and people take this time to bash religion for inciting violence and being a mental crutch for the weak willed. Very easy to make statements like that on slashdot, but try doing it in a forum where a majority of the people you're speaking to are "crippled". I'm tired of hearing it, and I'm sure people are tired of responses to responses like mine, condemning said responses with a conscending moral tone.

    BTW I can't help but parallel this story to Jesus's life, crucifixion, and resurrection. I for one, welcome our new microbe lord.

    --
    --"It's Bradford Company, slash your last name, dot your first name"
    1. Re:Why is religion always being attacked here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I somehow doubt that the Slashdot community, which is mostly made up of logical, questioning, and skeptical minds, many of whom are members of academic and the scientific community, are also bible thumping religious zealots as you suggest.

    2. Re:Why is religion always being attacked here? by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Very easy to make statements like that on slashdot, but try doing it in a forum where a majority of the people you're speaking to are "crippled".

      Yeah, it'd be pretty amusing to see a slashdotter on http://www.freerepublic.com/. Sometimes I do enjoy participating in the evolution/creationist debates there, though.

    3. Re:Why is religion always being attacked here? by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      If it really was a parallel, it would have disappeared three days later, leaving behind the petri-dish of Turin.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    4. Re:Why is religion always being attacked here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In what way does this parallel Jesus' life? Hardly at all?

    5. Re:Why is religion always being attacked here? by sexylicious · · Score: 1

      BTW I can't help but parallel this story to Jesus's life, crucifixion, and resurrection. I for one, welcome our new microbe lord.

      That's blasphemy. God will strike you down for worshipping a false god.

  76. No panic by Chooche · · Score: 1

    I am getting my flame thrower ready right now.

  77. Did anyone else by fedx · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else read this as Microbees Alive After Being Frozen for 32,000 Years. Sure they were slow PCs, but damnit they'll recover from crashes eventually...

    1. Re:Did anyone else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. actually it read it as Microsoft Alive After Being Frozen for 32,000 Years. This tought both scared me and made me happy.

      Well of to the doctor I go...

  78. Two issues by Rei · · Score: 2, Insightful

    1. It's "possible ice sea", not "ice sea". The paper hasn't even been peer reviewed yet, let alone actually examined for the presence of ice, let alone liquid water. There is just as much reason to believe that it's *not* an ice sea (similarity to regions viewed as volcanic flows, the rate of sublimation of even insulated ice as Mars' equatorial temperatures, and greatly exaggerated claims about things like the viscosity of ice vs. lava).

    What's with this culture of "one scientific team says so, so it is an absolute fact"? That's why you all were suckered by the "methane from life" claim that turned out to have been a misinterpreted overheard conversation at a party.

    2. Why was Mars even mentioned at all? We're talking about Earth life here; if there is any life on Mars, it will likely be playing by significantly different "rules" at a molecular level. This discovery on its own was neat; no need to try and jazz it up by trying to distantly connect it with Mars.

    --
    "Lock and load, Brides of Christ!"
  79. Holy shit. by hot_Karls_bad_cavern · · Score: 1

    Just read this:

    * Temperature--Tardigrades can survive being heated to 350 K and cooled to less than 30 K.
    * Radiation--They have been known to withstand 570,000 röntgens of x-rays (500 röntgens would be fatal to a human).
    * Pressure--They can withstand being in a vacuum and in pressures that are many times greater than atmospheric pressure.

  80. Immortality is Overrated by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Hasn't anyone ever read Andromeda?? Don't thaw them out!!

    More likely these things aren't up to the 1337 5ki112 today's evolved fauna (bacteria,virii,fungi) and wouldn't last long outside the petri dish. Makes for some what sci-fi, but what you have today is the stuff tough enough to last through whatever nature and errant meteorites have chucked at it.

    On another note, immortality is overrated. Survive 32K years and you get to swim around a petri dish among strangers. Hmph.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Immortality is Overrated by Ansonmont · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but the real question is "what were the environmental conditions that led them to die out, or at least go into amber frozen bee gut hibernation?" If today's conditions are more favorable, they will do just fine.

    2. Re:Immortality is Overrated by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      Maybe, but the real question is "what were the environmental conditions that led them to die out, or at least go into amber frozen bee gut hibernation?" If today's conditions are more favorable, they will do just fine.

      I didn't read the article, but heard all about it on the BBC, how they were digging these tunnels under the permafrost, tusks and jaws of long dead animals jutting out of the walls, and this layer from what must have been a pond or marsh being sampled. The question is, what caused this to suddenly be overlayed with a layer of earth? Frozen then flooded?

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  81. New type? by Orlando · · Score: 4, Funny

    a new type of bacteria that after being frozen 32,000 years

    This is obviously a meaning for the word new I hadn't previously come across

    --
    -= This is a self-referential sig =-
    1. Re:New type? by erinacht · · Score: 1

      new to science... there is nothing new under the sun, just our knowledge of it, so yes, new is fair.

  82. Alternate preparation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bacteria that after being frozen 32,000 years in the Arctic was ready to swim, eat and multiply instantly upon being thawed
    Or ... just pop 'em in the microwave for two minutes and enjoy. Yum!

  83. ***Yawn***....as the bacteria wake up... by d474 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bacteria 1: "Yawwwn...good morning..."
    Bacteria 2: "ZZZzzzzZZZzzzz..."
    Bacteria 3: "Morning!"

    Bacteria 1: "Hey, wake up!"
    Bacteria 2: "ZZZzzz...aaahhh...morning. How long this time?"
    Bacteria 3: "Uh...looks like...32,000 years."

    Bacteria 1: "Well that's a lot shorter than last time."
    Bacteria 2: "Yes, it is. I wonder why things warmed up so quickly."
    Bacteria 3: "Well any-hoo, you boys ready?"

    Bacteria 1: "I most certainly am..."
    Bacteria 2: "Let's get it done quickly, I want to go back to sleep."
    Bacteria 3: "Okay then, let the next Extinction Commence!!!"

    --
    Authority questions you. Return the favor.
  84. And the only customer will be ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bill Gates.

    Seriously, from the business point of view they better grow them here on Earth 'cause's ceaper.

  85. Microsoft? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is it just me who reads "Microbes" as "Microsoft" (I guess it's because the latter is much more common on Slashdot than the former)? Read it that way twice already, actually. And it even makes sense!

  86. we are not who we are.. by Suchetha · · Score: 1
    --

    learn from yesterday, plan for tomorrow, party tonight
    or one out of three ain't bad
  87. frozen for 32.000 years? by boeserjavamann · · Score: 1

    maybe they are good at cobol for the next millenium! just kiddin...

  88. Couldn't Help It by Dasch · · Score: 1, Funny

    I for one welcome our new martian sea monkey overlords.

  89. If I could too. by Mr+Europe · · Score: 1

    I wish I will too multiply at the age of 32000...

    BTW The microbes can be said to be the oldest living things on earth we know! The oldest Giant Pines in California and Nevada are just over 4000 years old. http://www.rmtrr.org/oldlist.htm

  90. Hold it! by noselasd · · Score: 1

    Who knows what relics of the past one might unleash(!)
    It may very well surviving pieces from the plague that haunted The Ancients

  91. Re:I spit on your 32K years. Try 25M! by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

    Is there by chance any documentation of that? It seems like a very striking finding, and I've never heard of it.

  92. nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not anything new, scientists have found bacteria from millions of years deep down in the earth and ice caps. they have even found bacteria that can survive over 256 oC water. the bacteria found really deep down in the earths depths tends to have a metabolic rate 99% slower then what it would be if it was on the surface. this wasnt really known about bacteria untill 20 or 30 years ago. since then some people have come up with the idea that bacteria could travel across the galaxy(maybe due to a comet or something hitting a planet) over millions of years to seed life on another planet or even to reseed destroyed life on the planet that the bacteria came from.

  93. Re:I spit on your 32K years. Try 25M! by FleaPlus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ooh, never mind, found it. Yay for google scholar:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7538699&dopt=Citation

    Revival and identification of bacterial spores in 25- to 40-million-year-old Dominican amber.

    Cano RJ, Borucki MK.


    A bacterial spore was revived, cultured, and identified from the abdominal contents of extinct bees preserved for 25 to 40 million years in buried Dominican amber. Rigorous surface decontamination of the amber and aseptic procedures were used during the recovery of the bacterium. Several lines of evidence indicated that the isolated bacterium was of ancient origin and not an extant contaminant. The characteristic enzymatic, biochemical, and 16S ribosomal DNA profiles indicated that the ancient bacterium is most closely related to extant Bacillus sphaericus.

  94. And we wonder why the government is in debt... by raehl · · Score: 1, Funny

    might thrive in the ice sea announced on Mars yesterday.

    Wouldn't it have been much cheaper to announce this ice sea here on good ole' planet earth? Do we really need to be supporting the Martian tourist industry with these thinly vieled vacations to other planets for government officials? We shouldn't be supporting these Martian bacteria when we have so many unemployed Terran bacteria here at home.

  95. reason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    they woke up to have sex.

    I always new that the scene in Alien (the movie) was a lie, after a cryo sleep you dont want to eat Spaghetti. :) /moak

  96. pff, feeble by ChrisJones · · Score: 1

    frozen for 32,000 years and springs back to life. yippee ;)

    Try being alive for 16 million years!

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4291571.stm

    --
    Chris "Ng" Jones
    cmsj@tenshu.net
    www.tenshu.net
    1. Re:pff, feeble by Darby · · Score: 2, Funny

      Try being alive for 16 million years!

      I am trying as hard as I can. So far I'm doing perfectly, but I suspect I haven't collected enough data points yet to accurately predict my eventual success or lack thereof.

    2. Re:pff, feeble by ChrisJones · · Score: 1

      not being an extremely simple organism in a very stable environment, I'm going to rate your chances of making 16 million years about zero ;)

      --
      Chris "Ng" Jones
      cmsj@tenshu.net
      www.tenshu.net
    3. Re:pff, feeble by Darby · · Score: 1

      Who are you calling, "not a simple organism" ?!?

  97. Old bacteria! by jilbert · · Score: 1

    ... a new type of bacteria that after being frozen 32,000 years in the Arctic was ready to swim, eat and multiply instantly upon being thawed.

    Shouldn't that be an old type of bacteria?

    1. Re:Old bacteria! by erinacht · · Score: 1

      no, it shouldn't be old, it's new to science, unless you want to create some from scratch, it's all old...

  98. Something similar on TV months ago by Trinition · · Score: 1

    I watched a show, probably on the Discovery Channel, months if not a year or so ago. They had retrieved some dead, frozen mammoth tissue from the tundra somewhere in North America (I want to say Alaska). They brought it backto the lab, and amongst the ice0destroyed cells of the mammoth, they found some ultra-small things they thought were maybe just junk. However, when they inspected them further, they were cells -- and when thawed, they came back to life. And they divided. I's as if they were some sort of spore-like stem cell from the mammoth spread throughout the tissues.

    I don't remember muchmore about htis show, but I'd really like to see it again and learn more. Does anyone else remember this show? I googled but couldn't find anything remotely close.

  99. 32000 years? Big deal! by imipak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is no biggy. The BBC has a report today on microbes found 400m below the earth's surface inside solid rock that are at least sixteen million years old. That's right, the same actual cells, not the colony, individual bacteria cells... 'practically immortal', as the article says. The discoverers speculate that life may originally have evolved underfound as the surface was being regularly sterilised by impacts in the early epochs of earth's history. I leave the implications for life on Mars as an exercise for the reader ;)

    1. Re:32000 years? Big deal! by Illserve · · Score: 2, Informative

      The article says nothing of the sort.

      The cells are certainly not 16 million years old.

    2. Re:32000 years? Big deal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, great.

      This means in a couple billion years we'll have *MORE* telemarketters calling us.

      *JUST* what we need...

    3. Re:32000 years? Big deal! by fluxrez · · Score: 1

      It seems to state that indeed "Some of the new bacteria identified are about 16 million years old, surviving 400 metres below the sea bed. "

  100. Re:Panspermia and previously thawed 2800 yo bacter by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

    Actually Martian bugs are a win/win situation - if there is no common ancestor then we'd get to see how similar they are - like if they use DNA with a different "instruction set", or a different molecule, or maybe even a completely different mechanism for storing their genes. My guess would be that truly alien life, with no common ancestor would be very different indeed.

    As you point out, if there is a common ancestor then panspermia gets a boost. Panspermia between Earth and Mars seems fairly plausible to me - I read articles that calculated the amount of rock transferred by impacts between Earth and Mars in the last few billion years. Even with worst case assumptions, it was possible for viable bacteria to have been transferred.

    Plus, you might actually get funding for my favourite mission, one that checks the Europan sea for life. I reckon you'd have a much better chance of finding truly alien life on Europa than Mars - the amount of rock transferred from Mars/Earth to Europa should be fairly minimal. Also, since the seas on Europa are kilometres beneath the surface it should be fairly well protected against 'infection' from meteorites.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  101. That's not how it worked IRL by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Think the flu brought to America by the conquistadors/missionaries/colonists/etc. Something that for the europeans was just a flu, was deadlier to the Indians than the black plague back in Europe. It killed more of them than the conquistadors, wars, and inquisition combined.

    "The differenter the better" is good and fine, but at one point it becomes "different enough to not be detected". The immune system and its cells aren't a complete genetics lab, complete with a team of top-notch scientists, fully analyzing every cell and deciding if it belongs there or not. It reacts to certain patterns, but doesn't react at all to others. Things that they never had to detect, they might not. Or not reliably.

    Or to put it otherwise, that too is the result of evolution, rather than intelligent design. Being able to detect and solve problems that actually could kill the animal before it reproduced, were obviously favoured by natural selection. Having an immune system that reacts to viruses and bacteria you meet every day, now that's the kind of thing that natural selection is all about.

    On the other hand, having an immune system capable of reacting to fundamentally different stuff, that's never even been there in millions of years, that's something _not_ enforced by natural selection. You can be born, grow up, reproduce, and die, without ever needing to heal from a martian flu.

    In fact, au contraire: there's a good evolutionary reason to _not_ evolve an over-reacting immune system. See the auto-immune Type 1 diabetes where your pancreas is destroyed by your own immune system. Individuals with an immune system even more strict than that, got themselves out of the gene pool.

    And evolution can be even more perverse than that. There are a whole bunch of genetic diseases or other disfunctions, which didn't get filtered out by billions of years of selection, nor get defenses evolved against them, because they made no difference in reproduction rates. Either because:

    A) The're very rare recessive genes. Individuals could be "the fittest", even while carrying these genes. Or

    B) They kill you after the age where you've already reproduced. E.g., skin cancer. Stuff that could kill you in your thirties-fourties wasn't a priority to evolve defenses against, when those hominids lived less than half that.

    Basically all I'm saying is: I wouldn't be _that_ sure. There are good chances that, yes, the germs from mars would be the first against the wall. But as history shows, there are also non-zero chances that they won't.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:That's not how it worked IRL by Mant · · Score: 1

      That rather makes the parents point though. The flu virus was something evolved to attack humans already. So when it, evolved to attack humans, met humans without an immune system that had experienced it before and was ready to fight it, proved lethal.

      Anything on Mars hasn't been evolving to attack humans, so won't have the advantage of the flu virus. If there isn't any multi-celluar life on Mars, the single cellular stuff probably isn't geared to attacking it at all.

      It could by sheer random chance be able to attack us in a way the immune system couldn't cope with, but the odds don't seem to high.

    2. Re:That's not how it worked IRL by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      Well, that's an entirely different point, but yes, a very valid one. Those microbes may not even be compatible enough with life on Earth to attack it in any way. I was just saying that _if_ (yes, ad absurdum) it did, chances are slim, but non-zero, that it wouldn't necessarily be as simple as "the germs from mars will be the first up against the wall."

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    3. Re:That's not how it worked IRL by aggies11 · · Score: 1

      Well it's been a few years since my Immunology Class, but if I remember correctly..

      The flu isn't a good comparisson. It's a virus. We are talking about bacteria. The Immune system's response is somewhat different depending on what you get. It's actually much more complex when dealing with viruses, and alot more simple/brute force when dealing with bacteria.

      To grossly simplify everything:
      - Virus's require pre-knowledge to develop the best immune response. Building up antibodies etc (which is why we have vaccines).
      - Bacteria largely don't ellicit the complicated viral response, they are treated in a more traditional (evolutionarily older) manner. The emphasis is not soo much on pre-knowledge (hence little to none "bacterial vaccines").

      To bring it all home, chances are bacterial infection from alien bacteria (as long as they aren't silicon based lifeforms ;) ) will illicit the same immune response as Terra based bacteria. And judging how often people alreadyget strep throat, e.coli etc, they will be quite effective at killing us off :)

      The good news is, is that they will probably NOT already be antibiotic resistant. So penicillin will work quite nicely... :)

    4. Re:That's not how it worked IRL by Illserve · · Score: 1

      Actually, your immune system is a sort of genetics lab.

      When it encounters something new, it creates a template to it and stores that away in memory.

      And differenter the better IS how it works, in general. You don't have a catalogue of every possible germ and virus encoded into your DNA, that would be ridiculously impossible to evolve. Your immune system needs to react over the course of days, not generations!

      The problem with new flus are not that they are too different, it's that they people haven't been exposed to low levels of them from a young age, and therefore get caught with the pants down. But over in Europe, immune systems were trained from birth by chronic exposure to low doses.

      Now if there came along a germ with no holes or receptors in its surface, that would be tough to deal with. This is why your body doesn't try to reject titanium, there's nothing for the system to create antibodies too. But such a germ would difficulty sensing the environment and eating.

    5. Re:That's not how it worked IRL by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      Well, ok, the flu is a virus, but honestly I couldn't come up with an example where a foreign bacteria nearly wiped out a civilization.

      I can think of stuff that was clearly "imported", such as syphilis, but then it didn't cause that kind of massive mortality (unless you count the induced dementia driving a king to kill people, or go to war. Think: Ivan The Terrible.) Still, I suppose it could be mis-used as an example of when the immune system doesn't react to something clearly different to us.

      Or I can think of bacterial stuff that caused many deaths, but then I'm too lazy to research where did it come from. I.e., if the problem was its being imported (my point), or merely a case of an existing bacteria developping "stealth" mechanisms (the point I was replying to.)

      Well, you get the idea. That was the best I could come up with to illustraze a point.

      Still, maybe even flu isn't that horrible an example. _If_ Mars ever had a bacterial soup, there is a possibility it also had viruses. Hence that one day we'll also thaw some of those. Or that we thaw some cells that are already modified by a virus to reproduce it.

      Will it be dangerous to us? Good question. Most probably not. It is made to parasite entirely different cells, after all. _If_ it is, will our immune system be up to the challenge? Not sure. Seein' as what even flu did when it was a new thing, or what HIV still does, I wouldn't really bet on it.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    6. Re:That's not how it worked IRL by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't Martian bugs (assuming that they don't share a common ancestor) be different enough to be orthogonal to life on earth.

      E.g. right handed molecules instead of left, different DNA coding/components etc.

      That's the cool thing about finding truely alien bacteria - how similar they would be. You could tell how much of the choices life makes are frozen accidents or whether they optimal in some way.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    7. Re:That's not how it worked IRL by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Well, ok, the flu is a virus, but honestly I couldn't come up with an example where a foreign bacteria nearly wiped out a civilization


      There is one actually - the development of photosynthesis by cyanobacteria and the resulting oxygenating the atmosphere 2B years was presumably not good news for anerobic bacteria when it happened.

      Not saying I can see this happening with Martian bugs, if Mars had life like this we'd detect it easily.
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    8. Re:That's not how it worked IRL by perrin5 · · Score: 1

      and this would be applicable to martian microbes if there were humans there for them to evolve with.

      Your example is a brilliant one of what happens when a finely tuned virus or bacteria is exposed to a new subset of its target species who are "naive", or have never been exposed to it.

      This would not be the case for martian bacteria. Microbes evolve the ability to change their metabolic pathways to take advantage of higher temperatures, and particular levels of sugars, salts, and nutrients available in mammals. Those which have not been constantly exposed to humans are far less pathogenic than those that are.

      In all, I fear martian microbial infection about as much as I fear the uprising of the penguins.

      --
      hmmmm?
    9. Re:That's not how it worked IRL by ertdredge · · Score: 1

      In all, I fear martian microbial infection about as much as I fear the uprising of the penguins. Dude. That's already in progress.

  102. No, seriously... by BobPaul · · Score: 1

    Hasn't anyone ever read Andromeda?? Don't thaw them out!!

    The frozen bacteria they find on mars could have been what killed those little dudes we used to see in movies all of the time, but strangley don't anymore. (Last time I saw them was in Mars Attacks, and they were obvious fakes..)

  103. Did Pat Robertson's head explode? by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Or is the explanation that the God mysteriously planted the evidence to throw us off the trail?

    1. Re:Did Pat Robertson's head explode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't you know, god put them there to test your faith, they aren't real, they are a test from god.

  104. First Frozen Meal, but Smart! by lcsjk · · Score: 0
    "They immediately started swimming when the ice melted," Hoover told LiveScience, adding that the cryopreserved bacteria were instantly ready to eat and multiply.

    Sounds like a very old frozen dinner that can do math!

  105. 250 million year old bacteria by idlake · · Score: 1

    Perhaps the most amazing find is the bacteria staying in a dormant state inside liquid inclusions in salt crystals for 250 million years (BBC story).

    In fact, that finding by Vreeland and Rosenzweig is apparently not the first one of bacteria that are alive after hundreds of millions of years in a dormant state, but it has caught the attention of other researchers because they seem to have been particularly careful to avoid contamination.

    Nevertheless, until those findings are more widely accepted, they will need to get replicated a lot more by many more groups, and the sequence data will have to be examined very carefully.

    However, between all these findings, it seems pretty much clear that bacteria can stay dormant for a long, long time. One implication of that is panspermia, namely that life didn't evolve on earth but arrived here from space in the form of microbes, perhaps even traveling interstellar distances.

  106. bacteria rule the earth by peter303 · · Score: 1

    There is something like 100 times the mass of bacteria on/in/above the earth than eucharoyte & multicellar life combined. Bacteria have been found in the deepest rock drillhole, sandwiched in snow and ice, floating in the atmosphere. About 5-10% of human being weight may be benign bacteria.

    1. Re:bacteria rule the earth by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Another interesting statistic for you to toss out:

      There are way more baterial cells in and on a human than human cells.

      (This helps people understand just how small bacteria are)

  107. Microbes Alive After Being Frozen for 32,000 Years by BaseLineNL · · Score: 0

    Famous last words.

  108. On the subject of science fiction by sarcas · · Score: 1

    As has been noted above, this is a very Science Fiction like area (ooo..Andromeda Strain and so on). Occasionally, reading such short fiction pays off so I can say: I'm not sure this is entirely news to anyone.

    My "factual" basis for this is a spectacular novella by Dominic Green called "Send me a Mentagram" (originally published in Interzone), which was also included in Gardner Dozois' Year's Best Science Fiction 21.
    Read it..and consider.
    ---
    This has been a 'my world is informed by science fiction' announcement.

  109. planets cross-infect each other by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Dozens of Martian meteorites have been found on Earth without looking too hard. Thousands of lunar meteorites have been found on Earth. Though it may take tens of thousands of years to travel between planets, this article shows bacteria can easily survive the time. There have been thousands of opportunities over billions of years.

    If life is found elsewhere in this solar system, I expect it to resemble Earth life, because interplanetary infection is so easy. In fact, I suggest bateria probably evolved on Mars first, because of its smaller size, it stablized sooner. Then it infected earth, maybe Venus, the Jupiter atmosphere, the European oceans, and so on.

  110. Edible Fish in Kolyma Ice Lens by handy_vandal · · Score: 2, Interesting
    From the preface to The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
    "In 1949 some friends and I came upon a noteworthy news item in Nature, a magazine of the Academy of Sciences. It reported in tiny type that in the course of excavations on the Kolyma River a subterranean ice lens had been discovered which was actually a frozen stream-and in it were found frozen specimens of prehistoric fauna some tens of thousands of years old. Whether fish or salamander, these were preserved in so fresh a state, the scientific correspondent reported, that those present immediately broke open the ice encasing the specimens and devoured them with relish on the spot."
    - Source
    -kgj
    --
    -kgj
  111. Re:Fundamentalist Protestant Christianity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The religions that will have the problem are the Fundamentalist Protestant religions such as some (but not all) of the Southern Baptist churches. Mainstream Christianity and Islam will be fine with it as will many other religions that have nothing to do with the bible.

  112. Earth isn't special? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finding microbes are cool and all, but I don't think proving their existance will change anyone's opinions much on how special earth is. I'm not a fundy, but I think earth is pretty special - besides being in the extreme minority of planets in supporting life it has life which is smart enough to get off the planet and look for life on other planets (or to have discussions on the subject of god and whether or not the earth is special).

    Now if we landed on Mars and found a martian airport complete an airport bar full of odd xenomorphs... now that might change some peoples opinon on things.

    But you know, alien beings might be every much as religious as humans.

  113. Microbes CAN live in very salty water. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

    Yeah, if the likely problems of salt in the martian see [sic] can be solved for these critters, maybe.

    Well, care to explain why microbes--let alone certain types of small shrimp--that can live in salt evaporation ponds, where the salt level is many times higher than seawater? Go to the salt evaporation ponds at the south end of San Francisco Bay and see what I mean.

    1. Re:Microbes CAN live in very salty water. by Fjornir · · Score: 1
      Well, care to explain why microbes--let alone certain types of small shrimp--that can live in salt evaporation ponds, where the salt level is many times higher than seawater? Go to the salt evaporation ponds at the south end of San Francisco Bay and see what I mean.

      I am well aware that there are creatures on earth with survive in highly-salinated environments. Please note the trailing: for these critters in my post.

      My question is: can the adaptations for extreme cold for thousands and thousands of years effectively coexist with those for an ultrasalinated environment. It seems to me that both adaptations would probably require some special structures in the makeup of the cell wall...

      --
      I want a new world. I think this one is broken.
  114. Misplaced Modifier by DevCybiko · · Score: 1

    "Researchers are excited because they're the sort of microbes that might thrive in the ice sea announced on Mars yesterday"

    Was the announcement made on Mars? Hmmm...

  115. Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can see it now ... Manned mission to Mars, retrieve samples of ice, bring back samples to earth, samples unleash bacteria into population, human population is obliterated.

  116. Dating method by davidy · · Score: 1

    I RTA and could not find how they dated the ice to ~2^15 years. I am always skeptical of dating methods as they can vary so much and oftentimes depend on dates that are dubious to begin with.

    Nevertheless, for the Carnobacterium pleistocenium to survive freezing is definitely interesting for medicine. Prolonging the life of donated organs could benefit from the research of this bacterium.

  117. War of the Worlds in reverse? by fitten · · Score: 1

    [in the vein of the In Russia...]

    On Earth, invading aliens go out to bring deadly microbes back to their home planet? or something...

  118. Who's your overlord now? by RichardX · · Score: 1

    They, for many, welcome their new ape-descended unthawing scientist overlords.

    (and yes, I do know we've been around rather more than 32,000 years)

    --
    Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
  119. Question ... by zangdesign · · Score: 1

    has anyone welcomed our new microbial overlords, yet?

    --
    To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
  120. gotta disagree with you there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Think the flu brought to America by the conquistadors/missionaries/colonists/etc. Something that for the europeans was just a flu, was deadlier to the Indians than the black plague back in Europe. It killed more of them than the conquistadors, wars, and inquisition combined.

    ...thing is, diseases brought to the Americas from Europe had had kYears to practise on humans. There was a very long historical arms race to which the native Americans were not invited, during which all the really obvious epitopes got selected against. A successful disease organism learns to disguise its obvious features, while a successful immune system learns to recognize even minor differences. By contrast, Martian microorganisms would have no preparation to blend in, never having had any exposure to the organism it would need to blend into.

    It'd be like someone showing up at a Black Panthers reunion in full Klan regalia. With a blinking light on top and a sign that says "kick me".

    If you got a significant quantity of Martian microbe on you, you might have to worry about anaphylaxis or something, given the total novelty of the antigens, but going unnoticed by your immune system is not the problem.

  121. YECH! by Anonym1ty · · Score: 1

    My... live science's page is ugly... 1998 called they want their webpage back. A team of trained monkeys in html design indeed!

  122. X-Fools by Lovesquid · · Score: 0

    This already happened to Mulder and Scully back in '93.

    "We are not who we are".

  123. At what point does age become irrelevant? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

    How old does a microbe have to be before more time won't inflict more damage? I mean, at some point a spore will be as desiccated as it can get under the conditions it's stored in. If that takes 10 years, do another 500,000,000 years make a difference? Do parts of their dried-up little bodies have half-lives?

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  124. Does anyone have a journal subscription? by Anthony · · Score: 1

    To the "INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMATIC AND EVOLUTIONARY MICROBIOLOGY"? Here is what I assume is the abstract relating to the find. http://ijs.sgmjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/55 /1/473

    --
    Slashdot: Where nerds gather to pool their ignorance
  125. Still waiting... by clem9796 · · Score: 1

    Things that i haven't come across in the posts yet:

    1. In Soviet Russia, bacteria freezes YOU.

    2. Could you imagine a Beowolf cluster of these?

    3. I, for one, welcome our thawed bacterial overlords.

    4. Nazi reference in the scope of religion.

    5. Enough mod points to seriously deter people from starting a religious argument on /.

    --
    IANALOOA
  126. Thirty Million-Year Sleep: Germ Is Declared Alive! by uncoolcentral · · Score: 1
    http://www.panspermia.org/bacteria.htm

    I've had this link on my page for a L O N G time.

    pay heed

  127. At first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...i read "Microsoft"

  128. Woah, Man! by catdevnull · · Score: 1

    Jurassic Park in a Petri Dish! Be careful with reviving microbes from other planets. They've made about 2 dozen horror flicks about this sort of thing going horribly awry. It might be worth it though if they grow up to look as hot as the chick from "Species."

    --

    I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
  129. 32000 years?! by Savatte · · Score: 1

    take that, David Blaine!

  130. Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    INSIGHTFUL!!!

  131. I don't get it... by christoofar · · Score: 1

    It's a new type of bacteria, that's 32,000 years old...

  132. Re:I spit on your 32K years. Try 25M! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Note that that case refers to *spores*, not to frozen bacteria. I don't think spores are considered alive in the same way a bacteria is. Think seed versus plant. Reviving the latter is a much bigger deal.

  133. Re:I spit on your 32K years. Try 25M! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IA ! F'Tagn ! When the stars are right I shall walk again.... And I'll be bringine my bacteria back with me.

    Cthulhu

  134. star trek history by xpyr · · Score: 1

    well it looks like star trek history will come true once again. Where in there it said back in the 21st century kryogenics was developed and humans tried it out. It soon died out though as it was only a fad. This was from Star Trek TNG Season 1 Episode 25.

  135. I'd have been scared by scottking · · Score: 1

    That article reads like the opening scene to an outbreak movie. "Hey the bacteria from the ice are swi... *ack *ack... Arrrrgh!" Cut to Oval Office: "Mr. President, there's a situation."

    --
    scott king
  136. Interesting reasoning by p3d0 · · Score: 1

    I saw some birds sitting on a stop sign. That is significant, because Mars is also red. If life can thrive on a red stop sign, it is that much more likely to thrive on Mars also.

    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....