Slashdot Mirror


Life May Have Evolved In Ice

Philip Bailey writes "An article in this month's Discover Magazine claims that some of the fundamental organic molecules required for the development of life could have spontaneously arisen within ice. Scientist Stanley Miller was responsible for seminal experiments in the 1950s in this area. He used sparks and a mixture of inorganic chemicals to test his theories, but turned to low temperature experiments in later years. He was able to create the constituents of RNA and proteins from a mixture of cyanide, ammonia and ice in trials lasting up to 25 years. A process known as eutectic freezing is thought to be the basis of these results: small pockets of liquid water, in which foreign molecules are concentrated enormously, increases the reaction rates, and more than compensates for temperature-related slowing."

159 comments

  1. Star Trek by Nerdfest · · Score: 2, Funny

    He should probably avoid Q if he wants to push up his success rate.

    1. Re:Star Trek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No tampering with the primordial soup, such as pouring in a tall steaming mug of the frosty piss!

    2. Re:Star Trek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like primordial gazpacho.

    3. Re:Star Trek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect that Australian or American beer was poured in; how else to explain the degraded nature of humanity?

    4. Re:Star Trek by ozmanjusri · · Score: 0, Redundant
      No tampering with the primordial soup

      Soup?

      I have imbibed entire nascent civilsations with a single swig of my primordial G&T.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    5. Re:Star Trek by MindKata · · Score: 1

      "I suspect that Australian or American beer was poured in"

      I don't think beer is required for reproduction of life (other than at times human reproduction), but from tests carried out in my fridge, I can confirm life can spontaneously arisen within ice.

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
    6. Re:Star Trek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . . . But if you've tread in primal soup
      Please wipe it from your shoes . . .

      . . . In summing up, the moral seems
      A little bit obscure...

      Give the director a serpent deflector
      a mudrat detector, a ribbon reflector
      a cushion convector, a picture of nectar
      a virile dissector, a hormone collector

      (Whatever you do take care of your shoes)

  2. Ice... by icegreentea · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Was the earth even cold enough back then to have that much ice? My understanding is that life began about 3 billion years ago, and that Hadean Earth pretty much lasted until then.

    1. Re:Ice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      comets could have brought ice and life to earth

    2. Re:Ice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That depends on which theory you subscribe to... There is one which says that Earth may have been a giant snowball at some point in the past.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth

    3. Re:Ice... by osu-neko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Closer to four billion years ago (at least 3.7 billion in any case). And the conclusion here is not that life evolved in ice, but that it may have. It's possible. That has less significance for history on Earth as it does on other worlds...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    4. Re:Ice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hm, ice would evaporate quickly and never survive a trip through the atmosphere, and in space it would have been much too cold to form temporary pockets of water. Also, where would the lightning come from which generated the first more complex molecules which later formed RNA etc.?

    5. Re:Ice... by rssrss · · Score: 1

      "Was the earth even cold enough back then to have that much ice?"

      Sure. The Hummer hadn't been invented back then.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
    6. Re:Ice... by radtea · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Was the earth even cold enough back then to have that much ice?

      Possibly.

      One of the ongoing problems in paleobiology is the "early quiet sun". Solar models, which we now know to be extremely accurate based on solar neutrino measurements, show that the sun was considerably dimmer in the distant past. So dim that by any reasonable standard we would expect the Earth to be substantially covered with... ice.

      A mechanism that would cause life to form in an icy environment would give a lot of answers to open questions.

      Google "standard solar model", "early quiet sun" and "Sudbury Neutrino Observatory" for some of the background on this.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    7. Re:Ice... by Skreems · · Score: 4, Funny

      The only result for "early quiet sun" is a hit on some site talking about early Brian Eno recordings...

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    8. Re:Ice... by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Yes, "Hadean Earth pretty much lasted until then", give or take a billion years or so, pretty much.

      Keep in mind that multicellular life has only existed for the past 200 million years, so these aren't exactly coffee breaks we're talking about. We already knew that ice can cover most of the earth within a few millenia, and as we are quickly finding out, it can disappear even faster than that if you put in a little effort. Ice reflects light, cooling off the earth, and water absorbs light, warming it, so both extremes are stable. This pleasant assortment of varied climates isn't necessarily inevitable or stable at all. According to the iceball-earth theory, the thing that eventually stopped it was volcanic activity, which put greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

      The Earth probably has about another billion years of useful life left before the sun has its midlife crisis, so this party is "almost over" so to speak. But we're talking about time scales that render irrelevant little things like global warming and human-triggered melting of the poles- minor events that have consequences for only a few million years. We're releasing carbon that was buried during the swampy Carboniferous era, which was only a few hundred million years ago- practically last week. Once we're gone, the carbon is going to condense on the ground in the form of plant matter, get buried again over millions of years as before, and someone will dig it up again, and burn it in one of the great cycles of life.

      With a billion years left, the Earth probably has time for about three or four more infestations of technological species like us, species that communicate, make tools, and burn things. We probably will just happen to have been the first in a series. Not much of our crap will remain, but just imagine what the impact on human culture would have been if we kept digging up stuff previously buried by a former technological species. I wish I could be around when it eventually happens, to see whether we'll be reviled, worshiped, or ignored.

    9. Re:Ice... by Konstanze_Boa · · Score: 0

      Indeed: Ice, and we have a 'framework' a basic structure that would concentrate these molecules and over many, many years lead to a condition or more complex composition that would make life possible OR would it make these molecules more useful for the/an animating force??! I am suspicious of any non-animate material infusing itself with the property of 'living' while and where no evident life process would or was already in place.(what was the template these chemicals and molecules used that said,"...hey, get ready to support or become living..." That is, the definition of life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life "Life is a condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects, i.e. non-life, and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. A physical characteristic of life is that it feeds on negative entropy.[1][2] In more detail, according to physicists such as John Bernal, Erwin Schrödinger, Wigner, and John Avery, life is a member of the class of phenomena which are open or continuous systems able to decrease their internal entropy at the expense of substances or free energy taken in from the environment and subsequently rejected in a degraded form (see: entropy and life)" Is life an assortment of 'life' sustaining chemical elements in a peculiar environment, or, is it an animating force that seeks to function universally and succeeds only in those environments and conditions that exist in a very narrow range of temperature and nutritional requirements in our universe?!?? Clearly, since the earth has life and as yet, no other planet in our solar system appears to have or have had life at anytime, the earth could have sustained a DIFFERENT kind of life once or a PRE-LIFE matrix could have been here that rendered the earth useful for that life-animating force or chemical-electrical condition that represents life or pre-life. SO if it were evolution-why evolve here and not elsewhere? Life on mars ran into catastrophic environmental change caused by adaptively evolving life? Venus, had life that ran up the greenhouse gas bill too fast and far for its own good-or are they still there? We really need to put this persons experiment to the test not only on this planet but on Mars and Venus and see what we get. Objective: Do we get run away greenhouse and martian environments in 20 or 30 years out there?

    10. Re:Ice... by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 4, Informative

      I believe what you should be searching for is "faint young sun", and I learned about it in my introductory astronomy class so it's not just made up. The sun had about 70% of its current output back then.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    11. Re:Ice... by pokerdad · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that multicellular life has only existed for the past 200 million years

      You might want to check your facts.

      And nothing I have ever read has indicated that "Earth probably has about another billion years of useful life left before the sun has its midlife crisis"; everything has always said 3 to 5 billion years.

    12. Re:Ice... by repapetilto · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't think you're getting the beauty of this. There is no need for the involvement of a special animating force, all thats required are the "forces" we already see as behind everything else thats going on at a molecular level (ie electrostatic). Under certain conditions (adsorbing to the ice surface and being in high concentrations in a cold environment) the would-be collection of random atoms assume a more stable state by reacting with each other and eventually forming compounds like adenine.

    13. Re:Ice... by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One of the ongoing problems in paleobiology is the "early quiet sun". Solar models, which we now know to be extremely accurate based on solar neutrino measurements, show that the sun was considerably dimmer in the distant past. So dim that by any reasonable standard we would expect the Earth to be substantially covered with... ice.

      Yes, but the atmosphere makeup has a big effect also, and the nature of the early atmosphere is still up in the air (pun). The planet itself was also warmer back then due to active volcanism from a closer moon and heat left over from formation.

    14. Re:Ice... by Daengbo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      and in space it would have been much too cold to form temporary pockets of water.

      No. No. In space, no one can hear you scream. Geez.

    15. Re:Ice... by Spookticus · · Score: 1

      why is it important that comets brought ice to earth...thats like saying you took a cup of water to the ocean.

    16. Re:Ice... by pabrown85 · · Score: 1

      It's just another day on Google.

    17. Re:Ice... by G-funk · · Score: 1

      Are we burning fossil fuels from a few hundred million years ago, or is multicelluar life only 200 million years old?

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    18. Re:Ice... by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1, Redundant

      You might want to check your facts.

      Yeah, a few hundred million years here, a few hundred million there, and soon you're talking about a seriously long time. But if you look at that timeline, an animal with the brains required for technology would have been wildly improbable more than 200 million years ago ago. The Cambrian explosion was 500 million years ago, but for a long time after that there weren't really any good brains to work with yet- just reptilian and amphibian structures. The neocortex evolved very recently, and here we are. I don't think we'll be the last animals to have conversations like this one. Animals have been getting smarter and smarter in general.

      everything has always said 3 to 5 billion years.

      That's from the Sun's point of view. While it's true that we do have 3 billion years until the oceans are completely boiled away, and 5 billion before the actual red giant phase, in only 1 billion years the solar output will be 10% greater than today's and the Earth will experience a runaway greenhouse effect that will raise its temperature by 50-100 degrees, making it resemble Venus.

    19. Re:Ice... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      I though it was pretty well excepted that there was enough methane in the atmosphere to of created enough of a greenhouse effect that the Earth wasn't unduly cold.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    20. Re:Ice... by Darwin's+Knat · · Score: 1

      "behind every double standard lies a single hidden agenda" Must scientific origins theories limit themselves to materialistic causes? Theories that gain acceptance in artificially constrained competitions can claim to be neither 'most probably true' nor 'most empirically adequate' but rather such theories can only be considered 'most probably or adequate among an artificially limited set of options.'

    21. Re:Ice... by Skreems · · Score: 1

      Yep, "faint young sun" got some hits. Thanks! This looks interesting...

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    22. Re:Ice... by xmod2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      The comet was struck by lightning as it fell to Earth, duh.

    23. Re:Ice... by VoidCrow · · Score: 1

      It looks as there there are multiple paths to this kind of phenomenon, the first potential path having been discovered by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey. So, yes, it's beautiful, but it may also be rather more probable than you might imagine.

      Google for abiogenesis and amino acids.

    24. Re:Ice... by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

      nothing I have ever read has indicated that "Earth probably has about another billion years of useful life left before the sun has its midlife crisis"; everything has always said 3 to 5 billion years.
      Phew, I was worried for a moment there!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    25. Re:Ice... by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Key words: could have. The fact is that nobody has the faintest idea how life started. Evolution doesn't explain the beginning of life, only how it has changed.

      Before there was life, everything was dead. How did a randome mixture of dead chemicals become alive? Nobody has the slightest clue; or if they have, they haven't communicated it to me.

      Here's a thought: Was there life on the planet that became earth before the object that slammed into it creating the earth and its moon existed?

      -mcgrew

      no muse, no journal

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    26. Re:Ice... by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but the earth could have been seeded by masses of ice laced with organic materials that impacted it. Also, from studying ancient zircon crystals found in cratons there is evidence pointing at the earth having cooled much faster than originally supposed.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    27. Re:Ice... by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      I'm aware of the miller-urey experiment, I was just responding to the parent so used the theory proposed in the article at hand as an example. Actually the two phenomenon could have worked together to create early life. Simple overview: Functional RNA forms in ice then when the ice melted it attained a membrane then proteins formed in via the miller-urey method entered the "cell" and any that facilitated its survival were selectively absorbed/let in, etc. However, how the ribosomal complex developed I have no idea.

    28. Re:Ice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you're getting the beauty of this. There is no need for the involvement of a special animating force,

      I don't think you're getting the beauty of this. There is no need for the involvement of a special animating force,


      why would that be "beautiful?" oh, that's right, you have an emotionally driven agenda to your version of "science." ;-)

      i assure you, the law of biogenesis is still wholly intact - even with these findings. while this is reality up until the present time, i suspect you don't view this as "beautiful."

      you probably don't think the big bang (the universe didn't exist, then it existed at some later point) is "beautiful," either, as it doesn't support your emotionally driven desires. it is, apparently, real, though. true scientists live in reality. it is a bit ironic that the author of the first verses in the modern bible had more insight into the beginning so fthe universe than did albert einstein, who died believing the physical univers to be eternal. when faced with such evidence, though, einstein surely would've changed his view and consider the "beauty" in the new knowledge to be valuable.

      emotionally driven agendas, which afflict all sides of almost every "hot spot" issue, hurt the pursuit of truth more than almost anything. perhaps more than financially driven agendas.
    29. Re:Ice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In space, no one can hear you scream.

      So I guess Neil Armstrong screamed the word "a" when he delivered his now-famous line:

      That's one small step for A!!!!!! man, one giant leap for mankind.

      Ahhhhhhh, now I see.
    30. Re:Ice... by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      Actually, he did: you just can't hear it. ;)

    31. Re:Ice... by Copid · · Score: 1

      Must scientific origins theories limit themselves to materialistic causes?
      Can you propose a non-materialistic cause that can be tested in the real world? Let's apply this to a different subject: Should economists consider the possibility of divine intervention when discussing what causes inflation?
      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    32. Re:Ice... by gr8scot · · Score: 1

      Google hit #4 for "early quiet sun": http://www.esa.int/esaCP/Pr_7_1996_i_EN.html

      --
      All 19 hijackers were known terrorists 09-10-2001. Lack of FBI intelligence does not justify warrantless wiretaps..
    33. Re:Ice... by Darwin's+Knat · · Score: 1

      The non-materialistic cause you are looking for is the 'mind' a.k.a. intelligence. In several other fields of science (forensics comes to mind) it is assumed that you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt (in a court of law for instance) certain historical causes for acts (e.g. murder). If intelligence can be detected in such cases, then so can it be detected in the complexity of life itself. Also, the entire SETI project seems to be considered 'valid' science by most Darwinists, however, it would most surely be a violation of the exact same demarcation criteria used to exclude ID. This leaves aside the issue of demarcation for a moment. Most philosophers of science have moved beyond the issue of demarcation as no such criteria can stand up to reasonable intellectual challenge. It's quite possible in each case to expose that a given criterion is either too restrictive or inconsistent with known empirical data. And, this is not about divine intervention. No one is saying that the intelligence has to exist outside time and space (it is entirely possible that it could have been intelligent 'aliens'-- see panspermia.

    34. Re:Ice... by Copid · · Score: 1

      If intelligence can be detected in such cases, then so can it be detected in the complexity of life itself.
      In all of those cases, there's a mechanism. The ID folks don't seem to have a mechanism, probably because if they actually described the scenario they were thinking of, it would look a whole lot like biblical creationism, which wouldn't fly in public schools. If they can come up with a testable mechanism and actually describe what they're looking for, then I'll gladly call it science. Until then, it's just hand waving.

      Also, the entire SETI project seems to be considered 'valid' science by most Darwinists, however, it would most surely be a violation of the exact same demarcation criteria used to exclude ID.
      Not really. SETI is a classification exercise. They know the set of known natural signals and they know what artificially produced signals generally look like because we create signals ourselves. There is no such analogous information with ID. What does a designed organism look like vs an undesigned one? You need some sort of known data set to figure out whether your classifier works, and biological ID doesn't have one without begging the question.

      What's interesting to me is that, for all their mathematical bluster about the "science of design" and "specified complexity" they've never been able to calculate the amount of "specified complexity" in a string or even outline methods to determine whether something is actually designed. If you actually have some sort of mathematical filter that detects design, we should be able to test it by having a set of patterns generated, some by design and some by chance, and running them through the filter. That's how you'd normally test your classification algorithm. For some reason, the ID camp hasn't bothered to do this. At all.

      No one is saying that the intelligence has to exist outside time and space (it is entirely possible that it could have been intelligent 'aliens'-- see panspermia.
      That's fine. Propose something. Who are the aliens, and how did they do it? What kind of objectively measurable test would you use to determine whether your hypothesis makes sense? I'll be the first one to admit that you have a scientifically valid question when you can say, "I hypothesize that life's complexity was introduced by X. If that's true, we would expect to see Y. I'll go look for Y and test my hypothesis." So far, ID has been nothing more than a rehash of old creationist canards against evolution combined with some mathematical bluster that hasn't actually amounted to anything testable. There's no theory or even any framework for forming a theory. Right now, all ID consists of is, "Somehow, at some undefined point in time, an undefined and undescribed entity inserted unmeasurable amounts of undescribable 'information' to life via some undescribed method." That's not exactly an auspicious start for a "theory" that has been bandied about for years in the popular press and is being pushed as the next big thing for for our public schools.
      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    35. Re:Ice... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that life began about 3 billion years ago, and that Hadean Earth pretty much lasted until then.

      The fossil record of stromatolites extends to at least 3.2 billion (10^9) years ago ; claims have been made (and disputed!) for finding microfossils of bacteria-like forms (cocci and bacilli) from a 3.56 billion-year-old chert from Australia. Some isotope specialists working on graphite inclusions in apatite crystals from 3.7 billion-year-old claim to see isotope ratios suggestive of (but not proof of) the carbon having been through a metabolic process, but that is pretty esoteric. Recent work on diamond inclusions in 4.2 billion-year-old zircons from Jack hills (also Australia) suggests that there may have been a weathering cycle on the Earth (and by extension, probably an ocean) as far back as 4.2 billion-years-ago.
      While the precise numbers are unclear, the evidence is strong that life evolved on Earth very early in it's development.

      "Hadean" is an informal term used by some for the early part of the Archean. At different times, different people have used the term in different ways. The general effect implied is of a period of great surface heat, lots of vulcanism etc. One useful dividing line which could be used to distinguish "Hadean" from "post-Hadean" would be the end of the "late heavy bombardment", which is when meteorite impact ceased to be a major geological influence. From lunar evidence this is put at about 3.7 billion-years-ago.
      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    36. Re:Ice... by Darwin's+Knat · · Score: 1

      If intelligence can be detected in such cases, then so can it be detected in the complexity of life itself.

      In all of those cases, there's a mechanism. The ID folks don't seem to have a mechanism, probably because if they actually described the scenario they were thinking of, it would look a whole lot like biblical creationism, which wouldn't fly in public schools. If they can come up with a testable mechanism and actually describe what they're looking for, then I'll gladly call it science. Until then, it's just hand waving.

      Well, I have to differ there. At the point of determining the perpetrator in a murder case, the act has already been committed. The mechanism (whatever it were) existed and acted in the past. Both Darwinism and ID make historical inferences and they both either live or die by the same requirements you place on what is valid historical science.

      Also, the entire SETI project seems to be considered 'valid' science by most Darwinists, however, it would most surely be a violation of the exact same demarcation criteria used to exclude ID.

      Not really. SETI is a classification exercise. They know the set of known natural signals and they know what artificially produced signals generally look like because we create signals ourselves. There is no such analogous information with ID. What does a designed organism look like vs an undesigned one? You need some sort of known data set to figure out whether your classifier works, and biological ID doesn't have one without begging the question.

      What's interesting to me is that, for all their mathematical bluster about the "science of design" and "specified complexity" they've never been able to calculate the amount of "specified complexity" in a string or even outline methods to determine whether something is actually designed. If you actually have some sort of mathematical filter that detects design, we should be able to test it by having a set of patterns generated, some by design and some by chance, and running them through the filter. That's how you'd normally test your classification algorithm. For some reason, the ID camp hasn't bothered to do this. At all.

      For the proponents of ID, this is more of a philosophical or theoretical debate at this point than anything. I agree that it would be nice for them to do such things and I totally expect that those will come forth (even if I am the one to do so). But, this is all very much in the 'theoretical' realm at this point. And, that isn't entirely fruitless either because theories can be supported or disproved in the abstract sense. I think though, if you study information science in more detail, you'd see that these sorts of things already exist (in for instance cryptography). How does the NSA know when it has intercepted a communication and not just random garbage? Also, the ID group has done some work with the anthropic design principle that shows the probability of the universe coming into existence by random chance to be so low that it is for all intents an purposes--impossible.

      No one is saying that the intelligence has to exist outside time and space (it is entirely possible that it could have been intelligent 'aliens'-- see panspermia.

      That's fine. Propose something. Who are the aliens, and how did they do it? What kind of objectively measurable test would you use to determine whether your hypothesis makes sense? I'll be the first one to admit that you have a scientifically valid question when you can say, "I hypothesize that life's complexity was introduced by X. If that's true, we would expect to see Y. I'll go look for Y and test my hypothesis." So far, ID has been nothing more than a rehash of old creationist canards against evolution combined with some mathematical bluster that hasn't actually amounted to anything testable. There's no theory or even any fr

    37. Re:Ice... by Copid · · Score: 1
      Sorry I didn't notice your post until just now.

      Well, I have to differ there. At the point of determining the perpetrator in a murder case, the act has already been committed. The mechanism (whatever it were) existed and acted in the past. Both Darwinism and ID make historical inferences and they both either live or die by the same requirements you place on what is valid historical science.

      My point is that in a murder case, we realize that it's murder because it looks like murders we've seen before. On top of that, we have so much information about murders that have been committed before (mechanisms, motivations, etc.), that a good investigator has a lot of knowledge about what to look for. We don't know what "designed" life or "undesigned" life looks like. That's pure speculation. Evolutionary theory makes historical inferences, but those inferences are testable in a meaningful way. The same does not yet hold true for anything in the world of ID because ID's inferences are nonspecific enough as to be useless.

      For the proponents of ID, this is more of a philosophical or theoretical debate at this point than anything. I agree that it would be nice for them to do such things and I totally expect that those will come forth (even if I am the one to do so). But, this is all very much in the 'theoretical' realm at this point.

      That's fine as long as they leave it there. When we see "The END of DARWINISM!" in print and people knocking at the doors of school board meetings trying to sell it as established science, you're going to get some push-back, though. A lot of it.

      And, that isn't entirely fruitless either because theories can be supported or disproved in the abstract sense.

      Well, to a certain extent, but I don't think that ID has stepped far enough out onto any limb to be disproved or supported in any concrete way.

      I think though, if you study information science in more detail, you'd see that these sorts of things already exist (in for instance cryptography). How does the NSA know when it has intercepted a communication and not just random garbage?

      Well, I'm in the signal processing / statistical pattern recognition business. I'm a bit of a crypto geek on the side as well--at least enough of one to understand how one usually figures out the difference between encrypted and unencrypted files, etc. That's actually why I'm so thoroughly annoyed at the ID people. They're trying to wrap themselves up in the legitimacy of the mathematics used by those fields, and they clearly don't know the first thing about them. They're claiming to be hot on the trail of a classification algorithm, but they haven't described the classes.

      The theories they're invoking lend themselves extremely well to experimentation, proofs, and testing of all sorts. The fact that they don't appear to have done any of the work and then say things like, "If you study information science in more detail..." does not ingratiate them in my book.

      Also, the ID group has done some work with the anthropic design principle that shows the probability of the universe coming into existence by random chance to be so low that it is for all intents an purposes--impossible.

      I'd love to see the work, because every time I have looked at one of those "proofs" it has suffered from three major flaws:

      1) GIGO. Without fail.
      2) Calculating big numbers after the fact without considering the difference between that and an a priori probability (e.g. the probability of a given order of a shuffled deck is less than 1 in 10^67, but some order has to come out every time).
      3) Assuming the "creation of the universe" has anything to do with evolutionary theory.

      You are asking for the same proof that Creationists have often demanded of Darwinists (e.g., missing link anyone??).

      Time out

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  3. Thank You! by owlnation · · Score: 1

    So, the layout change was just for that one article? Please say yes...

    I'm so happy to see things back to normal for this article -- you've no idea.

    1. Re:Thank You! by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 1

      Not quite, although it only seems to be accessable through the "idle" section, from there you can access any other section and article summary, similar in fashion to the firehose. Once you click "read more," however, the articles are presented in the good old fashion, save for 'idle' articles.

      --
      Demented But Determined.
    2. Re:Thank You! by Wingnut64 · · Score: 1

      You can change it back to the original format under 'Comments' in your user preferences.

      --
      echo 'Header append X-HD-DVD "0x09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0"' >> /etc/apache2/httpd.conf
  4. Reminds me of a classic Robert Frost poem by sweet_petunias_full_ · · Score: 4, Funny


    Some say the world evolved in fire,
    Some say in ice.
    From what I've tasted of desire
    I hold with those who favor fire.
    But if it had to perish twice,
    I think I know enough of hate
    To know that for destruction ice
    Is also great
    And would suffice.

    To be sure, some sparks were still needed for the ice theory but there you have it.

    --
    You can't send a takedown notice to an already printed newspaper.
    1. Re:Reminds me of a classic Robert Frost poem by virgil_disgr4ce · · Score: 1

      Yay! I'd mod you if I had 'em :)

  5. oblig. by owlnation · · Score: 4, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our new penguin overlords.

    All hail Tux!

    1. Re:oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A meme joke is only obligatory when it's actually funny...

    2. Re:oblig. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      In Korea, only old people think wishfully.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  6. Why so few cryophiles? by G4from128k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Although I can certainly see how the physics of freezing would help concentrate biological precursors, I would expect an icy-origin to have left more evidence in the form of cryophilic biodiversity. With an icy origin, ice-tolerant organisms should have arisen quite early. Indeed they would have probably been the first life forms and ice-adapted life would have been quite common. Unless the Earth experienced a 100% ice-free period, descendants of those original cryophiles would be with us to this day. Moreover, many "normal" species would still arbor a shared genetic basis for evolving ice-tolerance or cryophilic lifestyles.

    Instead, we seem to see limited scattering species that have independently evolved various forms of ice-tolerance. I could be wrong. If so, I'd love to hear if biologists have found evidence for a widely shared mechanism for ice-tolerance that speaks to a frozen beginning.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:Why so few cryophiles? by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's a very good point - given that the simplest life forms we have found so far (in terms of the length of the dna) are ones that are evolved for normal (ie-non icy) conditions. However its interesting to note that for most bacteria being frozen is not lethal (although I'm not 100% sure on this), rather it just stops doing anything until it thaws and then continues on.

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    2. Re:Why so few cryophiles? by Epistax · · Score: 3, Funny

      I thought everyone knew this. Cryophiles taste awesome.

    3. Re:Why so few cryophiles? by Spaseboy · · Score: 1

      I think it's more interesting to show that on planets with no liquid water but with ice, there is a chance of life.

      --
      "I don't want more choice, I just want nicer things!"
      -Jennifer Saunders as Edina Monsoon
    4. Re:Why so few cryophiles? by OzRoy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Unless the Earth experienced a 100% ice-free period, descendants of those original cryophiles would be with us to this day. I believe that is the case. A few very large volcanic eruptions increased the CO2 and caused high temperatures and no polar ice caps. I think this is one of the theories as to why we have such large oil deposits. Without the polar ice caps the ocean currents stopped flowing, and the CO2 in the atmosphere was removed very slowly by algea that died and sank to the ocean floor and in the right areas were trapped and converted into an oil deposit.

      Of course it is a little bit more involved than that and this is only my vague layman understanding. Someone else can fill in all the details.
    5. Re:Why so few cryophiles? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Well they think this rock has been completely frozen over and completely thawed out a couple times and we still here so that should count for some cryophilae. The other thing is the research detected RNA chains and most life (on Earth anyways) is DNA based.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    6. Re:Why so few cryophiles? by Skreems · · Score: 1

      Actually, most of the world outside the US has come to the conclusion that oil deposits are inorganic in nature. It explains a lot, including why some old dry wells are spontaneously refilling from some deeper source.

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    7. Re:Why so few cryophiles? by OzRoy · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is completely off-topic, but the event I mentioned is called an Anoxic Event ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event ) and how this relates to oil production is talked about in this fascinating documentary
      http://abc.net.au/science/crude/

    8. Re:Why so few cryophiles? by Zebraheaded · · Score: 3, Interesting

      From what I remember, there's been a fair amount of species found that have developed a tolerance for cold temperatures; but there's been very limited results of research into obligate psychrophiles, which would have more likely evolved in a cold environment. I think this field is one of those areas of bacterial research that is going to be very slow in developing due to the incredible difficulty of culturing these kinds of organisms in vitro. One of my old professors published a very interesting paper on finding ways to isolate these difficult organisms: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/296/5570/1127?ijkey=2zqckfPCzt9z2&keytype=ref&siteid=sci

    9. Re:Why so few cryophiles? by repapetilto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My impression from the article is that a cold, ice environment facilitates the creation of single nucleotides (and obviously other molecules) from "scratch' due to 1) the ice surface acting as a catalyst, and 2) water tending to form into crystals (a more stable arrangement in cold temperatures) which requires the exclusion of other molecules to elsewhere and hence small pockets with high concentrations of molecules with similar polarity. Basically the first phenomenon is a lowering of the Activation energy (here an addition reaction of cyanide to itself and then to ammonia; actually if anyone knows the proposed mechanism for the formation of adenine I would be really interested in seeing it)and the second is just raising the concentrations of the reagents. Now that creates an environment more conducive to the formation of adenine than a "primal soup", but relative to the use of enzymes and selective uptake of precursor molecules (as done by cells) this is not an advantageous process. So basically the original cryophiles would be outcompeted by their descendants. I hope that was clear enough

    10. Re:Why so few cryophiles? by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      no, the theory that oil has a non-biological origin is still a minority opinion, and for good reason.

    11. Re:Why so few cryophiles? by jd · · Score: 1

      Although "Ice Worms" are a product of a mutation, it was a single mutation and therefore may well be a throwback to an earlier form.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    12. Re:Why so few cryophiles? by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

      This is an excellent point - what you describe is the most natural/parsimonious expectation from the theory. However, I think there is enough wiggle room to evade this objection. Perhaps the ancestoral cyrophiles relied on cyanide snowing from the sky. Or perhaps once life evolved sufficient complexity, it benefited greatly from escaping the icy womb. Then temperate life quickly evolves and eventually reinvades the cryophile niches and drives the ancestoral forms to extinction. (E.g. imagine cetacians driving fish to extinction.) Another possibility (a remote but exciting one) is that the ancestoral cryophiles are still there, but we didn't know how to look for them.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    13. Re:Why so few cryophiles? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Actually, the idea is just some oil companies wet dream to counter the inevitable economic reality of peak oil. It adds nothing in the way of explaination.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    14. Re:Why so few cryophiles? by Skreems · · Score: 1

      It's majority enough that it's taught as the leading theory in all of Europe, and possibly further. I'm not saying I believe it, but the organic origin doesn't seem to be completely nailed down.

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    15. Re:Why so few cryophiles? by Skreems · · Score: 1

      How does an inorganic origin counter peak oil? No matter where it comes from, there's going to be a point where we've exhausted the deposits we can reasonably get access to.

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    16. Re:Why so few cryophiles? by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Informative

      So why did you claim that it explains "dry wells refilling", and where is your source for the "everyone is taught this in Europe" claim you made in reply to the other poster?

      It's FUD just like the anti-global warming FUD they have been peddling for the last 20yrs. Here is a random site that debunks the abiotic oil theory, there are many more out there.

      And yes, a "-1 wrong" mod would come in handy, but for this kind of thing a "-1 bullshit" is more appropriate.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    17. Re:Why so few cryophiles? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Oh and to answer your question - it doesn't, but since old wells magically refill when left fallow it moves the peak far enough into the future that it is no longer a concern. It was an interesting idea in the 80's and tens of millions of dollars were spent investigating it. However flogging a dead oil well is no more productive than flogging a dead horse or a dead theory.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    18. Re:Why so few cryophiles? by laura20 · · Score: 1

      Still, you'd expect that the cryophile descendents would find it easy to reinvade the ice; nature tends to be very parsimonious with genes, so you'd expect much of the cryophile suite to be available for reuse/reactivation when the environmental pressures started going the other way.

    19. Re:Why so few cryophiles? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      It doesn't necessarily counter the reality of peak oil.

      No matter what the origin of the oil is whether biogenic or not, if the rate of creation is a lot lower than the rate of consumption, you will have "peak oil". The wells definitely aren't being filled up at the same rate they are being emptied.

      Which oil companies are saying that we will never run out of oil? They'll just raise prices as it gets scarce, and if there's a good alternative energy source, you can be sure they'd try to get into that business.

      The people more likely to fabricate stuff are the OPEC - their position (economic, political etc) in OPEC is linked to the size of their reserves.

      --
    20. Re:Why so few cryophiles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the important part is that organic compounds were made in the ice. Not necessarily organisms. From my glimpse at the article it looks like RNA is actually forming in the ice. Which is an amazing finding. After the ice thaws not only do you have nucleotides, you have preformed RNA. This is a major step towards creating life.

    21. Re: Why so few cryophiles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I am assuming that this theory only really applies to biological precursors; perhaps embedded within the icy crust of comets or asteroids. Although the Sun at this time was likely only putting out 70% as much energy as it does now, Earth at the time was likely still very hot from the near constant bombardment from large chunks of rock falling from the sky, and the larger amount of radioactive materials sinking into the planets core. I would also imagine that large amounts of whatever chemicals they were carrying would survive, effectively seeding the Earth with some of the materials needed for life to evolve.

      I seem to recall that nucleic acids were unlikely to form in the conditions some think were present on the early Earth (A dense CO2/N2 atmosphere with little in the way of liquid water), so if these processes occured in comet ice that could be a nice way to get around the problem of suboptimal conditions on the Earth itself. It would also be a nice fit with what you've said about the lack of evidence of cryophilic from ages past if life evolved on a hellish Earth with some of the ingredients coming from icy mountains thrown from the heavens.

      -TJT

    22. Re:Why so few cryophiles? by nguy · · Score: 1

      How does an inorganic origin counter peak oil?

      Because there would likely be a lot more oil in very deep deposits that haven't even been looked at.

      No matter where it comes from, there's going to be a point where we've exhausted the deposits we can reasonably get access to.

      Not necessarily. In fact, one problem with inorganic oil is that we can probably keep burning it until we run out of oxygen entirely.

    23. Re:Why so few cryophiles? by nguy · · Score: 1

      It's FUD just like the anti-global warming FUD they have been peddling for the last 20yrs.

      How does claiming that global warming is not occurring spread "fear, uncertainty, and doubt"? FUD isn't even necessarily false. You really need to watch your terminology for corporate marketing misdeeds. Abiotic oil and anti-global warming are marketing lies, not FUD. (Actually, deep abiotic oil seems plausible to me, but may not be of any economic relevance.)

    24. Re:Why so few cryophiles? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      You are probably right about OPEC, they have a strong motive to keep the idea alive.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    25. Re:Why so few cryophiles? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      With appologies to Meatloaf - two out of three ain't bad.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    26. Re:Why so few cryophiles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Source? I am european, thank you very much. The first I ever heard of abiogenetic petroleum was on slashdot, and wikipedia seems to think it's a crackpot russian theory.

    27. Re:Why so few cryophiles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, you might want to check what FUD means. The people advancing anthrogenic global warming are the ones peddling Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, not the people who are rightfully skeptical of our shallow understanding of what drives and shapes climate.

    28. Re:Why so few cryophiles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's zero out of three. The "uncertainty and doubt" in "FUD" doesn't refer to generalized uncertainty about the veracity of something, it refers to uncertainty about whether a product is viable in the market.

    29. Re:Why so few cryophiles? by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      Same here, I'm in a British university right now, and I don't think I've heard anyone support the idea of an biological origin for oil, from either chemistry, biology or geology departments.

  7. clue on IDDLE thing by netdur · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    it is a take on DIGG, read Slashdot Founder Questions Crowd's Wisdom

    --
    "Steve Jobs invented the world" -- Bill W. GATES
  8. That's just cold dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Zonk, I always suspected you had ice running through your veins.

  9. Some say that life evolved in fire... by lennier · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Some say in ice
    From what I've tasted of desire
    I hold with those who favor fire
    But if it had to bootstrap twice
    I think I know enough of genes
    To say that for mutation ice
    Is also keen
    And would suffice

    --
    You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    1. Re:Some say that life evolved in fire... by jerryasher · · Score: 1

      Very nice adaptation of Robert Frost.

    2. Re:Some say that life evolved in fire... by Cybrex · · Score: 1

      Oh damn. Now I wish I hadn't commented so I could mod you up. Well done!

      --
      Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
  10. Re:xxx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ?

    I don't get it.

    Is this some new meme?

    perforce

  11. Re:Ice ... & full Greenhouse Effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Indeed, especially since that was of course before cyanbacteria & friends turned off the enormous greenhouse effect by converting nearly all the CO2 to Oxygen - which then caused Snowball Earth and nearly killed life again (a chain of events the first intelligent form of life on this planet might want to keep in mind). I guess sol was much dimmer back then so that balanced out, or the intense vulcanism in on the young earth prevented much of the sunlight from reaching earth...

  12. EXTREME DANGER READ NOW!!! by Plazmid · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sir, do you realize what you are doing is illegal in nerddom? Having ESPN and Slashdot in the same window could result in a nerd-jock cancellation reaction resulting in the destruction of the universe as we know it? Your nerd license has been officially revoked for participating in this dangerous behaviour.

    1. Re:EXTREME DANGER READ NOW!!! by oldhack · · Score: 1

      Hm... this "universe"... feels different somehow...

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    2. Re:EXTREME DANGER READ NOW!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I need help. I am suffocating. Repeat. I need help. I am suffocating.

  13. Watermelon snow by Plazmid · · Score: 1

    Ever heard of watermelon snow? Or algae that lives on ice(and has a nice watermelon scent)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_algae/ But, I definitely agree, why aren't cryophiles so much more common?

    1. Re:Watermelon snow by Magada · · Score: 1

      (Nearly) wiped out in the subsequent global warming phase? This is a long time we're talking about and the life that may have arisen then may not have conformed too closely to the modern definition. Even if everything from that first flourishing got killed, the accumulations of organic compounds left behind may have made the (re-)appearance of life on Earth that much more probable.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
  14. Re:And it might have evolved in a Chicken McNugget by teh+moges · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Knowing where something came from allows more insight into where it is going...

  15. Re:And it might have evolved in a Chicken McNugget by leenks · · Score: 1

    Please open your mind a little. This has, potentially, implications for possibilities of life elsewhere than on Earth...

  16. Re:And it might have evolved in a Chicken McNugget by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Answering these questions do nothing to change the important issues of today and the future.
    Knowing how life began is a very important part of understanding life in general. This is relevant to the important issue of making me a cyborg body before my current one wears out.
  17. Give yourself a pat on the back, and -10 modpoints by Nursie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes.

    If we want to look for life on other planets then this research may help us, if it can be shown life is possible or even likely on frozen planets.

    "We're here so let's make the most of it."

    Yeah, let's not study ourselves, our origins, or science at all. Why bother with history? We're here, lets make the most of it.

    Genius.

  18. Re:And it might have evolved in a Chicken McNugget by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, it does really matter. Knowing how life evolved gives us insights into how life works here and now. Answering these questions most certainly WILL change issues of today. And, even if they don't, who cares? It's knowledge. Humans have this insatiable urge to know everything they can, leading to today's technologically and medically advanced world. However, occasionally we get people who decry the process without understanding it.

  19. what does it mean ? by Tsiangkun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think they are saying that the molecular precursors to life on earth, can be created in ice. We see large chunks of flying ice in the universe. Our planet may have been implanted with the required precursors for life from ice flying into the planet.

    I don't know so much that they are intending to say that the earliest life forms were created in ice.

    But I don't know, I didn't read the article. Just taking a break from the superbowl.

    1. Re:what does it mean ? by Idiot+with+a+gun · · Score: 1

      I believe what they're saying is that in ice, any pockets of water that form will concentrate all of the ingredients for life (that won't freeze, and will percolate to any liquid). The issue is that frozen comets and such, are far too cold for even these tiny pockets of concentrated ingredients to form, but I could be wrong.

  20. you'd better believe it by Plazmid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does it matter, yes it does. In fact, there is big big money in finding simple very primitive organisms. Primitive organisms are easy to engineer organisms, which means that it is easy to turn them into oil making machines, which means big bucks.

  21. Re:And it might have evolved in a Chicken McNugget by Musrum · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If we all had that sort of attitude, we would still be banging rocks together...

    --
    In Soviet Amerika the ballot boxes YOU!
  22. Discover Magazine by mfender9 · · Score: 1

    ...not Discovery.

    Pedantic, yes, but errors in the summary irritate me no end.

  23. Oxygen Catastrophe? by Cybrex · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm in no way qualified to even speak on this subject, but could it be that the Oxygen Catastrophe, in wiping out the great majority of life on Earth, provided sufficient selective pressure that any previous bias toward cryophilic life was effectively erased? I'm just speculating wildly here.

    --
    Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
    1. Re:Oxygen Catastrophe? by OzRoy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except the Oxygen Catastrophe caused the first ice age.

      With ice in abundance the ice tolerant creatures have just as much, maybe a greater chance of surviving.

    2. Re:Oxygen Catastrophe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:Oxygen Catastrophe? by guywcole · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Didn't the Oxygen Catastrophe create a "snowball earth" as it removed the vast majority of CO2 from the atmosphere and lowered global temperatures by something like 25 deg. C?

      I would think that the Oxygen Catastrophe would have selected more towards the cryophiles, not away. This, also, is wild speculation.

  24. Ice Ice Baby... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Funny
    He was able to create the constituents of RNA and proteins from a mixture of cyanide, ammonia and ice in trials lasting up to 25 years.

    Another early experiment, in which he added Vanilla to the mix still haunts Professor Miller to this day.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  25. that's the answer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The missing ingredient! Life evolved out of penguin poop!

  26. Chuck Norris answered this recently. by doomy · · Score: 2

    According to him:

    "It's funny. It's cute. But here's what I really think about the theory of evolution: It's not real. It is not the way we got here. In fact, the life you see on this planet is really just a list of creatures God has allowed to live. We are not creations of random chance. We are not accidents. There is a God, a Creator, who made you and me. We were made in His image, which separates us from all other creatures."

    http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52567

    --
    ...free your source and the rest would follow...
  27. Question: Does bacteria grow faster in ice now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have noticed when I freeze tap water or bottled water when I defrost it now its full of bacteria which just started happening since this summer. Are new cold/ice bacterias being released from the polar caps melting? Or are plastic bottles now cheaper and disintegrating when frozen?

  28. The Norse had it right!!! by belligerent0001 · · Score: 1, Informative

    I always knew that the ancient Nordic legends made infinitely more sense.... In the beginning, Ginnungagap yawned across the great void between the realms of fire and cold. When the warm air from the south met the cold air from the north, the ice of Ginnungagap began to melt. Drop by drop fell forming Ymir, the Frost Giant and first living thing of all. And from Ymir sprang the race of Frost Giants. The drops of melting ice from Ginnungagap also formed Audhumla, the primal cow. Her milk nourished Ymir at the start of creation. As Audhumla licked and licked at the ice of Ginnungagap, she revealed something frozen in the ice. She licked for days and finally Buri, the first man, was freed from his frozen prison. Buri, had a son, Bor, who married Bestla, the daughter of a Frost Giant. They in turn had three sons, Odin, Vili, and Ve. These were the first gods. Stick that in your frankincense burner and...well burn it...

    --
    "...a civilian some of the time, a soldier part of the time and a patriot all of the time." -Brig. Gen. James Drain
  29. Life May Have Evolved In Ice? by Melbourne+Pete · · Score: 1

    I take it they have met my ex.

    1. Re:Life May Have Evolved In Ice? by splashbot · · Score: 1

      Life may have evolved in (insert sentient/intelligent substance here)?

  30. The history tells the future argument by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    Therefore all computer science students should spend a few months hammering out code on punch cards and paper tape. That will give them great insight into what computers will be like in ten years time.

    To paraphrase: bullshit.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  31. Damn it. by naturalog · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now all the crazy evangelicals will be saying that scientists think we all came from ice cubes.

  32. ashes to ashes..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's ?safe? & easy to conclude, if we were derived from (frozen) muck. &, as in the randoidian 'school' of lazy-is-fair, every man for himself, there's just no responsibility for any illegal/immoral behaviors. let yOUR conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071229/ap_on_sc/ye_climate_records;_ylt=A0WTcVgednZHP2gB9wms0NUE
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080108/ts_alt_afp/ushealthfrancemortality;_ylt=A9G_RngbRIVHsYAAfCas0NUE
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/01/military.suicides/index.html

    is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

    http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

    dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html

    the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

    corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
    (Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
    by ourselves on everyday 24/7

    as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any

    1. Re:ashes to ashes..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you have to be the worst troll ever.

      eat it shitfucker.

  33. Re:And it might have evolved in a Chicken McNugget by oldhack · · Score: 1

    Probably a Patriot fan - calm down man, it ain't the end of life. ;-)

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  34. Re:The history tells the future argument by jcnnghm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'd argue that a good hardware design (digital logic, verilog, gate construction, basic circuit design) course and an assembly language course would be invaluable to the modern computer science major.

    --
    You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
  35. I'd believe it started in the YELLOW ice... by csoto · · Score: 2, Funny

    but that would be kind of a chicken-and-egg thing, now wouldn't it?

    --
    There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
  36. Re:And it might have evolved in a Chicken McNugget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nigga you slow!

  37. Re:The history tells the future argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yours is bullshit. All computer science students should know about punch cards and paper tape, and know how/why we ended up where we are now. Since we are not creators of life [yet], the only feasible way to know such things about life is to perform experiments. Other way is to travel around galaxies looking for similar conditions and observing them.

  38. Re:The history tells the future argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the other hand, it helps to know the initial conditions of the system when one is trying to fit experimental data to a mathematical model.

    Besides, what does computer programming have to do with computer science? It's like a comparison between an accountant and a mathematician. They can both add numbers together, but only one of them is a scientist.

  39. Irony by mwillems · · Score: 1

    The sad irony is that Himmler and other leading Nazis believed something somewhat similar, namely that Aryans were created in cosmic ice (which then rained down on earth and spawned Germanic tribes).

    Seriously.

    --

    ---
    BDOS ERR ON A:>
    1. Re:Irony by mwillems · · Score: 1
      --

      ---
      BDOS ERR ON A:>
    2. Re:Irony by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      How could they believe such a thing when Hitler believed the earth to be hollow and we lived on the inside part?

  40. Life May Have Evolved In Ice? by madbawa · · Score: 1

    Definitely. I knew that the first time I took ice. Oh its a magical thing...

  41. Earth's Temp by bendodge · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So will global warming stop evolution?

    --
    The government can't save you.
    1. Re:Earth's Temp by thepotoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So will global warming stop evolution?

      Is that a serious question? The answer is no, because the only way to stop evolution is to extinguish all life as we know it.

      As long as any organism is alive and has the ability to reproduce with genetic drift, life will continue to evolve. Besides, our predictions of global temperature increase by the end of the century are all below increases of 15C. Species which are adapted to higher temperatures, like Thermus aquaticus, will certainly not be wiped out by global warming, they will continue to evolve.

      Where's the -1 Misinformed mod when you need it?

      --
      Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
    2. Re:Earth's Temp by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 1

      This is not that simple.

      Of course, even the bad scenarii are not doomsday ones, life will not disapear, neither will mankind.
      However, the worst scenarii mean that the changes will happen in a very short duration, far too short for an evolutionary adaptation. Some species could move to more suited areas, but there is a risk many other would face the fate of the mamooth and suffer extinction. Of course, people could move around crops to match the new climate, but there will still be a risk of losing a lot of biodiversity.

    3. Re:Earth's Temp by bendodge · · Score: 1

      Is that a serious question? No, it wasn't. I have a very low opinion of life-from-rocks and global warming. Shoot my karma if it makes you feel any better.
      --
      The government can't save you.
  42. Re:xxx by killmofasta · · Score: 1

    Someone do me a favor, and get this posters IP. I will personally strangle him, with my bare hands until dead.

  43. Utmost respect for Dr Millers work. by killmofasta · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have read Dr. Stanley Miller's work sine the 80s, He is a meticulous and persistant with his experiments. His conjectures run all over the map. I saw a lecture given by him in the early 90s, when he was progressing away from primordial soup. What is interesting is that He is moving towards the theories of Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe that life evolved on comets. Of all the 'science' and 'scientists' its after reading their work, and discussing it with post-docs from MIT, that I have a great respect for their work.

    The problem about the origin of life, (which has a direct impact on the evaluation of Drake's equation) is how hard is it to make a molecule, by 'chance' that is selectively self-replicating. Molecular biology is a very young field.

    1. Re:Utmost respect for Dr Millers work. by mspohr · · Score: 1

      The problem about the origin of life, (which has a direct impact on the evaluation of Drake's equation) is how hard is it to make a molecule, by 'chance' that is selectively self-replicating.
      It doesn't really matter how hard it is to make a molecule that will be self-replicating. Just make lots of molecules. Eventually, the self-replicating ones will self-replicate and take over the world. You only need one. The ones that don't replicate won't be heard from again. The whole random mutation and natural selection thing works nicely.
      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    2. Re:Utmost respect for Dr Millers work. by killmofasta · · Score: 1

      That one damn pesky molecule. It evolves until it can recreate the big bang, sets it off by accident, and then its 5 more million until it comes back. Or, what if a there are 3 to five configurations, and we only rank 1 or 2. A superior molecule is on its way to reproduce itself over us.

        - Must send subsidies to the brain slug planet...

  44. With just by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With just a layman's knowledge (and some high school science) I have a plausible answer after thinking about it for just a few seconds. I was taught that cold temperatures slow down chemical reactions. I was also taught that advantageous traits work evolution through breeding pressures. Well I would hope the life that is able to undergo the biochemical reactions at many times the speed would be the life that evolved to fill every ecological niche. Think about it, by the time the cryophiles have made one viable mutation, the other little critters could have been through 10 to 20 variations - any of which might actually be better suited for the cold environment than the original cryophiles.

  45. Re:The history tells the future argument by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    I'd argue that you're completely right, not because those are historical but because they are current and very important to the OS designers aned computer designers of today. All CPUs(well except for some funky Forth/Java processors) still use some sort of assembler. I'd teach ARM or x86 but I would not teach PDP11 assembler. I'd teach about hard disks and flash memory, not magnetic drum drives and punch cards.

    My point is that the idea that you should learn history because that tells you where you are going is bullshit contrived by historians to try pump up their value in society.

    Learn how life is constructed (DNA, cells, proteins...) is valuable, finding out whether it first happened in a volcano, comet or icecube is largely irrelevant.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  46. Re:xxx by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Funny

    127.0.0.1

    --
    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;
  47. Ginnungagap by KiloByte · · Score: 1

    To be sure, some sparks were still needed for the ice theory but there you have it. Of course. The life couldn't start anywhere but at the border between the fires of Muspelheim and the ices of Niflheim.

    And the article claims it's a new theory. Bah! Bah, I say!
    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  48. Re:The history tells the future argument by Nursie · · Score: 1

    They should. It teaches them the foundations of things.

    On our course we used a turing machine simulator for a couple of weeks. You can't get much more historical/fundamental than that. It was useful to look at the nucleus of the science and the mathematical foundations. It gave us insight into the basis of all computers, and how/where things were likely not to change in future.

    Same can be said of life. Looking at our origins and our species' history helps us explain things like the coccyx.

  49. bacterial evolution by nguy · · Score: 1

    I'd love to hear if biologists have found evidence for a widely shared mechanism for ice-tolerance that speaks to a frozen beginning.

    Bacteria have pretty efficient genomes; any such mechanisms would have been long lost in descendants that don't live in the ice.

    Unless the Earth experienced a 100% ice-free period,

    It probably did, but not even that is necessary: even if there had always been polar ice caps, there is no region where ice has survived permanently. Therefore, any of the original ice dwelling organisms would have had to pass through a soup of warm-adapted organisms. Any ancient ice adapted organisms probably just either died or got eaten.

  50. Fire and Ice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some say that Life evolved in Fire
    Some say in Ice
    From what I've tasted of Desire,
    I hold with those who favor Fire.
    Yet if it had to evolve twice,
    I think I know enough of Hate
    To say that for Creation Ice
    Is also great
    And would suffice.

  51. Frost Giants by infonography · · Score: 1
    I always thought it's funny that there nine worlds in the Norse Mythology and there are nine planets. And that the 'gods' and by everything else was descended from rime frost. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ymir

    Opposite of Niflheim was the southern region known as Muspelheim, which contained bright sparks and glowing embers. Ymir was conceived in Ginnungagap when the ice of Niflheim met with Muspelheim's heat and melted, releasing "eliwaves" and drops of eitr. The eitr drops stuck together and formed a giant of rime frost (a hrimthurs) between the two worlds and the sparks from Muspelheim gave him life. While Ymir slept, he fell into a sweat and conceived the race of giants. Under his left arm grew a man and a woman, and his legs begot his six-headed son rúðgelmir. I have always suspected that we as a species have been pretty lazy for having been around so long in this form. If you consider that we have been around since before the last ice age then what knowledge from before then and in areas untouched by ice, civilizations could have flourished. Only to be drowned in the melted ice. Atlantis anyone, and who is to say that Hy-Brasil isn't true as well?

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  52. Re:Ice... Time by YetAnotherBob · · Score: 1

    The grandparent post got it wrong. Dinosaurs lasted for about 180 Million years, and died off about 65 Million years ago. Before that, there was a time when most plants were ferns, animals were mostly insects and amphibians, with a few reptiles. That was when the first protomammals appeard. That period lasted for 50 to 100 million years on most timelines. Before that, life was mostly in the oceans. (fish and such). before that, there were shelled organisms and worms. That takes us back almost 500 million years. Before that, there were sponge like things, and maybe jellyfish like things. Fossils aren't very good for animals that are basicly a smear of goo. Before that, you hit the snowball earth period, maybe 200 Million years. Maybe longer. Only life forms were single cells. Possibly a little lichen on land. Maybe not. Mostly bacteria. Before that, we just don't know. This is the earliest period with evidence of an oxygen containing atmosphere. (O2, not CO2)The geologists can tell by the kind of minerals that form.

    If you add this all up, you get roughly a Billion years, Plus or minus maybe 200 Million. Earth is just a little younger than the Sun, maybe 4.5 to 5 billion years. That's the period, after Earth formed and before the first animal fossils, that is mostly unknown. It's gennerally believed that for the first 2 to 2 1/2 Billion years, asteroid bombardment kept the surface melted. There was a gigantic colision that resulted in the Moon, about 2 1/2 Billion years ago. All our atmosphere and oceans are younger than that. (any atmosphere from before that would have been blasted off into space by the colision with a planet close to the size of Mars. Earth and Moon are what is left.)

    I hope this lets you understand the time lines they are talking about.

    --
    Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
  53. Significant because life evolved *here* by billstewart · · Score: 1
    Nobody was around to write it down, so I guess it doesn't count as "history", but if that's how life evolved here it certainly *was* significant, and I'm not only glad it happened, but I wouldn't be here to say so if it hadn't, and neither would history.


    On the other hand, if that's *not* how life evolved here, then it wasn't significant for history here, and the Ice Planet can have it if they want.


    You can adjust those theories as needed if you think Panspermia was part of the process; it seems far less likely to me, but it's possible that some of the chemicals needed for life to evolve came from interstellar dust, or that some of Terrence McKenna's mushroom-spores-from-outer-space theories could be true (oh, wow, man!), but either of those cases could include some evolution in ice, whether that's Martian polar caps or moons of Europa or whatever.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  54. Re:Ice... Time by G-funk · · Score: 1

    Man that's cool =D

    Science rocks.

    --
    Send lawyers, guns, and money!
  55. Life May Have Evolved From Ice? by GentlemanRogue · · Score: 1

    So, instead of arising from the primordial soup, we arose from the primordial slushie? Damn, that must explain my taste for Sno-Cones....

    --
    you really expect me to be able to express my opinion of what's so fucked up in this world in 120 characters or less?
  56. Re:xxx by killmofasta · · Score: 1

    I got him.... eeccchhhhh

    NO CARRIER