Slashdot Mirror
Acetylene Based Life on Titan?
mindpixel writes "Astrobiology Magazine's Leslie Mullen has a fascinating interview with funky science dude David Grinspoon about the possibility that there may exist a whole new biology on Titan where the extreme cold slows normally explosive reactions to a biologically useful pace." From the article: "What's really new in our paper is that we go into the question of energy sources. If there's life there, what's it going to eat? What kind of food is there? And it turns out there's abundant food because of all this photochemistry in the upper atmosphere, where methane is being turned into other organic molecules. Some of those organic molecules are very energy-rich, and one that we consider in the paper is acetylene. We know it's being made in the atmosphere, we know it's raining down on the surface, and it's been detected at the surface with the Huygens probe. We calculated that, if acetylene is reacting with the hydrogen gas to turn it back into methane, quite a bit of energy is being released. So that's our basis for saying there is something to eat on Titan. We don't know if there are any customers, but there's something on the menu."
Metabolism and reproduction I do believe are the hallmarks of life. So catalysts are not alive, and plenty of catalysts exist. It has to eat something, and copy itself some how.
Garry AKA -Phoenix- Rising Above the Flames
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Life is:
1. Ability to store information.
2. Ability to process stored information to make
replicas of oneself.
3. Metabolism (to power the above).
A quick trip to dictionary.com yielded this answer:
"The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism."
There are some pretty standard requirements; the rock doesn't respond to stimuli, doesn't gorw, doesn't reproduce and doesn't evolve over time. Standard geological phenomena such as erosion don't count.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
A nice definition of life is something like "Active maintenance of self in the face of entropy". In other words, something that actively (and successfully) keeps itself functioning and stable even though the vicissitudes of existence constantly try to tear you down.
Or, shorter, if you fight entropy you're alive. If you don't, you aren't.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Studies have been performed and are continuing. I was actually recently involved in a research project focused on exhibiting types of organic compounds on Titan through Infrared spectroscopy. Acetylene (C2H2) was determined to be a likely component of Titan's atmosphere. Not to mention the Cassini mission. The work in our lab was based of the data from Voyager when it passed by Saturn many years ago. So there is obvioulsy plent of research in this field taking place both on the Earth and on Titan.
What if there is a big rock that serves as a catalyst for this conversion of acetylene and hydrogen to methane.
:)
Actually, it's not a 'what if'. Platinum powder will catalyze that reaction just fine. Well, at least as far as ethane. (not sure about the final step: ethane + H2 --> 2 methane)
Would we think of that as a life form?
Last I checked, nobody was saying platinum was alive.
Seriously though, "catalyzing a chemical reaction" is a terrible definition of 'life'.
Or would we require reproduction?
That's getting better. But what about, say, a virus? They can reproduce, but not on their own. The simplest ones are basically just a strand of DNA or RNA sitting around waiting for some cell to pick them up and reproduce them.
Most biologists I've talked to don't consider viruses as 'life' though. It needs to be self-reproduction to some extent. But that'll never be clear cut, since you then have to define how much the environment is allowed to 'help'.
No, nowadays they would stand in a stunned silence trying to decide which corporate executive is the most appropriate one to provide the most profitable answer.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Therefore, to expect the life on another planet may be complex-molecule-based instead of simple-carbon-based is feasible.
"Complex-molecule-based" versus "simple-carbon-based" ?? Did you make up those terms yourself? Could you please define them? And perhaps elaborate on how this is supposed to follow from the statement "acetylene is organic"?
Because the statement "acetylene is organic" doesn't mean anything in particular. It's saying that the acetylene molecule has a carbon-carbon bond in it.
But the other people saying 'no' are (as far as I can tell thru HISTORY) full of horse-hockey.
Who is saying 'no' to what?
Tell me exactly what in the world you know about organic compounds on another planet that will/will not produce life, please?
Since this is the first semi-intelligible statement in your post, I'll try and answer it:
1) Most scientists believe that life in all its forms, terrestrial or otherwise, follows the laws of chemistry. All life we know of appears to do so.
In the same way that we also believe that all the universe follows the same laws of physics. We have no reason to believe otherwise. (and the chemistry follows from the physics, anyway.)
2) We know that certain conditions are required to sustain life regardless of its form. For instance, life requires energy. This follows from the laws of thermodynamics being one of those things believed to be universal in 1).
3) We have labs. We don't have to go to another planet to figure out how chemistry works at extreme temperatures and pressures.
Yes, it's flamebait/trollbait. How about you editors/moderators tell me your experience on Titan, [..]
No, it's just moronic. How about you tell me about all those atoms you've seen yourself? Still believe they exist though, don't you?
Let the organic/biological scientists determine this, not the uneducated populace.
David Grinspoon is an adjunct Professor at the University of Colorado. Hardly "uneducated populace".
Even I don't dare step into this conversation, except as far as I have made my agrument.
You didn't really make one.
I note how carefully the definition does not mention "evolve" or "evolution". It simply says "adaptation to environment".
It's amazing what has happened to the US. IN this day and age we are still fighting ignorance every day.
It seems silly to fight over the definition of life when the good citizens of Pennsylvania have decided that evolution is "just a theory".
evil is as evil does
That's a nice characterization. But it fails it. Mules are alive but cannot reproduce.
After all, I am strangely colored.
Amen, brother! There are still those so ignorant and steeped in their belief in evolution that they consider "adaptation to environment" must always mean "evolution" - even when it refers to a classification that can apply to a single infertile individual. Clearly, an individual can adapt, but not evolve. We must stamp out the rampant ignorance; people have to actually know the properties of evolution.
That way, if they make a judgement about the beliefs of others, they'll be able to do so in an informed manner instead of blindly attacking what they don't understand. Can you believe that there are actually individuals who hold evolution as the end-all be-all theory of life origins and have never even heard that there are parts we haven't figured out yet? The ignorance astounds!
Am I ignorant? Am I a creationist? It's possible. Need I be either to find logic flaws in evolution and those who champion it without question?
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
I note how carefully the definition does not mention "evolve" or "evolution". It simply says "adaptation to environment".
Because "adaptation to the environment" is a term that describes what living things do every single day in order to keep living. Evolution does not happen within a single organism's lifespan. We certainly don't say that something is not alive just because we can't observe it evolving. Perhaps you should be a little less sensitive and stop looking for intelligent design conspiracies everywhere?
I'm agnostic (fallen away Catholic), and therefore no "fundi", but IMHO the notion that deities CAN'T exist is just as foolish and arrogant as asserting they NECESSARILY exist. Ultimately, neither position is likely to ever be proved or disproved.
... You shall have no other Gods besides Me" doesn't preclude the possibility of higher levels of bureaucracy. It just implies that the bureaucracy doesn't matter to us and that we should direct all requests to our designated divine civil servant for proper routing.
Why is it so important to some atheists to ram the theory of godlessness down the throats of others: a behavior identical to many of those being vilified (the "fundi's" [sic] in this case). There is a dearth of evidence for either position, so it really does come down to one's faith. Belief in nothing is, IMHO, still a matter of faith.
Overall, I personally tend to agree more with science's position: without evidence to the contrary, assume the most "basic" situation exists. In this context, without hard evidence of a God, assume no God exists. But ultimately this is still an assumption. For a long time we had no clue of the existence of gravity, radio, or that light even had a speed at all. Just because we didn't conceptualize them didn't mean they didn't exist. Conversely, just because we DO conceptualize something doesn't mean it DOES exist (Aether anyone?).
But, without "God" (in whatever form), where did we come from? Science seems to be able to track things back to the Big Bang, but before that many leading scientists simply argue it doesn't matter.
Suppose the Big Bang was a local phenomena and part of a larger universe? Before assuming THAT doesn't matter, suppose the two Big Bang-style "universes" come into contact someday -- then it definitely would matter and would nullify our assumptions about our universe. Somewhere down the line something was set into motion that allowed everything we all experience to exist. Was that God? Maybe. Even if I assume that God did create everything lends no particular credence to the specific claims made by any of the current religions.
But, back to the article. Suppose there is life found outside our planet (and I truly hope there is). Does that completely invalidate the "fundi's" position? Not really, one could easily argue that the Bible only refers to our place on Earth, not the universe as a whole and that other worlds would have different relationships with God. Of course, that slipperiness is what makes the position distasteful to me, but I still could relate and accept that reasoning as the foundation of their view of the world.
Most likely I'll never know the answers to any of these questions. Do you, the reader, know? Not just have a few purported clues and decided that Professor Plum created the universe with a chainsaw, but actually KNOW whether God exists? Can you trace everything back to the beginning of all time (not just the known universe)?
Are you really all that certain that whatever God you worship is not simply the play toy of another higher being? After all, "I am the Lord thy God
If not (and I'm certain that despite any protests the real answer is no -- I suppose that's the only real tennent of MY faith), please stow the over-righteous attitude. It's not helping anyone's quest for the answers.
ramen