Slashdot Mirror


Molecular Basis for Life Found on Extrasolar Planet

DarkProphet writes "NASA scientists have discovered the first evidence of organic molecules on an extrasolar planet. Using the Hubble Space Telescope, they detected trace amounts of methane on a swirling gas giant about 63 light-years from our own planet. Being a gas giant, there's almost no chance this discovery represents extrasolar life. A unique find, just the same. 'HD 189733b, a so-called "hot Jupiter," located 63 light years away, has proven a boon for scientists studying exoplanets. Its large size and proximity to its star mean that it dims the star's light more than any other known exoplanet. Combine that with its home star's high brightness, and scientists find that the system creates the best viewing conditions of any known extrasolar system. At different wavelengths, every atom and molecule has its own telltale footprint, so scientists can convert what are known as absorption spectra into the chemical composition of the object they're looking at.'"

89 comments

  1. I'm not surprised... by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Someone was bound to find something eventually. If the universe is as big as we seem to think it is, it was bound to happen eventually. Who knows, maybe some of those religious guys might be right. Too bad it would simply be accidental ;)

  2. Methane - Big Deal by 123abc · · Score: 0

    Take a carbon and attach 4 hydrogen. Perhaps enough of a deal for more grant money though.

  3. Well... by ch-chuck · · Score: 3, Funny

    just beam a high power radio signal that way and if your lucky in 124 years you might get a 'hello there' back.

    Actually it would be pretty cool to establish contact with an alien civilization even if there is a 250 year lag. Just ask a question and your great-great-great-grandchildren might get an answer, "No we haven't developed hyperlightspeed propulsion yet either".

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    1. Re:Well... by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 2, Funny

      or we can just use the stargate and go there.

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

      just beam a high power radio signal that way and if your lucky in 124 years you might get a 'hello there' back

      Well, we know you don't work in software. A software developer would have said "Hello world"

    3. Re:Well... by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, we know you don't work in software. A software developer would have said "Hello world"

      Well, we know you don't use email. An email user would not expect the first communication to be "Hello there" or "Hello world", an email user would expect:

      Lagos, Nigeria, Earth.

      Attention: The President/CEO

      Dear Sir,

      CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS PROPOSAL

      Having consulted with my colleagues and based on the information gathered from the nigerian chambers of commerce and industry, I have the privilege to request for your assistance to transfer the sum of ...

    4. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we know you don't use email. An email user would not expect the first communication to be "Hello there" or "Hello world", an email user would expect:

      Lagos, Nigeria, Earth.

      Attention: The President/CEO

      Dear Sir,

      CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS PROPOSAL

      Having consulted with my colleagues and based on the information gathered from the nigerian chambers of commerce and industry, I have the privilege to request for your assistance to transfer the sum of ...


      Nonsense. An e-mail user would expect the return message to say:

      (h33p \/!a9ra !!

    5. Re:Well... by MrMonroe · · Score: 1

      God, Imagine playing CS:S with them. Of course, if the answer is "yes" then they'll be landing minutes after you send the message.

    6. Re:Well... by Synthaxx · · Score: 1
      PING HD189733b (194.109.192.166) 56(84) bytes of data.

      64 bytes from 194.109.192.166: icmp_seq=1 ttl=128 time=3910464584102.499 ms

      --- 194.109.192.166 ping statistics ---

      1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 3910464584102.499ms

  4. Is this really unexpected? by nacturation · · Score: 1

    I've heard many times of the extraordinary odds against life even existing in the universe. Yet, here we are and some still try to prove that it's impossible for themselves to exist. It's unfortunate that life is likely so prevalent in the universe but really really difficult to bridge the gap and make contact, even at the speed of light.

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    1. Re:Is this really unexpected? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It is extraordinary odd that any life exists, fortunately there is lots of time and space.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Is this really unexpected? by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      I've heard many times of the extraordinary odds against life even existing in the universe. Yet, here we are and some still try to prove that it's impossible for themselves to exist. It's unfortunate that life is likely so prevalent in the universe but really really difficult to bridge the gap and make contact, even at the speed of light.

      If you believe in evolution then, yes, the odds are basically more than astronomical and applying those odds to another place in the universe and expecting something to evolve again is just ludicrous. I think my sig applies very well in this regard. If life didn't begin evolving more than once (i.e. 2+ origins of life) on Earth where, if you think like an evolutionist, the conditions are supposedly perfect then it has less of a chance (if that is even possible to be less than it already was for Earth) of happening anywhere else.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    3. Re:Is this really unexpected? by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Regarding your sig, isn't every species essentially a different evolutionary tract in a varying stage? If not, what would qualify for your criteria of being different? Silicon-based lifeforms?

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    4. Re:Is this really unexpected? by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      Regarding your sig, isn't every species essentially a different evolutionary tract in a varying stage? If not, what would qualify for your criteria of being different? Silicon-based lifeforms?

      I don't mean the basis for the life form (carbon vs silicon vs whatever) but the origin. What I mean is why aren't there multiple parallel tracts having *different* origins? The tracts that supposedly exist are all based on a single organic origin (where ever that was), not multiple, therefore evolution only kicked into gear once (with not even a sign of any failings to suggest multiple tries but with only a single success). So if evolution is possible and if we are here because it occurred once already then why hasn't it occurred more than once on this planet? With random chance occurring a 2nd time it would mean we should be able to see totally different sets of species existing on this planet originating from a totally independent source. If people say that is too far fetched then why do we keep looking elsewhere? Yeah it would be great if life somewhere else was found (I don't believe it will be) however the first thing that should be done is determining the likelihood of that being possible so as to not waste time/money searching. Evolution with multiple sources of origin obviously hasn't occurred here but yet scientists think it can (or has) occur somewhere else in the universe on planets less perfect than our own?

      Maybe I need to better word my sig to make all that more clear.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    5. Re:Is this really unexpected? by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      That ones easy, "life" (ie collections of reproducing molecules) developed once somehow and then out competed all later/other types of life for resources. I mean some little molecule thats something near alive can form in this room right now but its not gunna get enough "food" because me and my bacteria friends are going to be far better at getting, keeping, and utilizing those resources. Thats the nontechnical answer.

    6. Re:Is this really unexpected? by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      That ones easy, "life" (ie collections of reproducing molecules) developed once somehow and then out competed all later/other types of life for resources. I mean some little molecule thats something near alive can form in this room right now but its not gunna get enough "food" because me and my bacteria friends are going to be far better at getting, keeping, and utilizing those resources. Thats the nontechnical answer.

      And do you have proof of this easy answer? The problem is somewhere a little molecule that *is* alive can form somewhere and it *does* get enough food. Bacteria mutate into other types of bacteria all the time *and* they survive to wreak havoc for people who create antibiotics for reach strain so what is so different about life forms originating out of the soup multiple times many years ago? You aren't consistent.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    7. Re:Is this really unexpected? by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      No of course I don't have proof, I have a reasonable explanation for what we observe around us (life seems to have originated from one original alive thing). The event you're proposing may very well happen (or could have happened already but noone noticed), but I don't think it would be very likely due to reasons stated above. And bacteria surviving is a completely different thing, they are far more complex and efficient than anything thats going to form spontaneously, even the new life forms ancestors 1 million generations later will probably not be as adapted to whatever environment it is. Like I said though, who knows, I'm not saying it can't happen, just that it makes sense that life would form once and then the headstart would make for a situation in which its hard for other lifeforms to develop.

  5. Wasn't it already posted on Slashdot? by Boron55 · · Score: 1

    Wasn't it already posted on Slashdot a while ago?

    http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/12/1414257
    1. Re:Wasn't it already posted on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't it already posted on Slashdot a while ago?

      Yeah, but it was on Digg's front page just yesterday, hence the dupe. Just don't tell Zonk. You'll hurt his feelings.
  6. just to highlight by ionix5891 · · Score: 5, Informative

    they found methane which is quite common in our solar system, its not that they found methane being present thats is the breakthrough here, its the fact that they have fine enough instruments to measure a planet ~60 light years away, this absolutely amazing! fairplay!!

    the planet in question is bigger than Jupiter and closer to its sun than mercury, so its way too hot for any life "as we know it" to survive

    1. Re:just to highlight by markov_chain · · Score: 1

      Thank you, someone mod this up.

      --
      Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
  7. Been over this before by explosivejared · · Score: 4, Funny

    We just went over this exact occurrence just a month ago. Go ahead with the flatulence jokes all the same though, it would be a break of tradition if you didn't.

    --
    I got a catholic block.
    1. Re:Been over this before by TheLazySci-FiAuthor · · Score: 1

      We just went over this exact occurrence just a month ago. Go ahead with the flatulence jokes all the same though, it would be a break of tradition if you didn't.


      Meh, no jokes from me. Your comment has left my humor deflated.
    2. Re:Been over this before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      methane... aliens can fart...?

  8. Headline is misleading by hcg50a · · Score: 4, Informative
    The big deal, according to the article, is that they were able to detect it for the first time, not that it was discovered. It is expected to be present.

    Here's a quote from one of the workers:

    If we were able to detect [methane] on a more hospitable planet in the future, it would really be something exciting.
    --
    HCG 50a = 2MASX J11170638+5455016
    11h17m06.4s +54d55m02s
    1. Re:Headline is misleading by esocid · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The big deal with it is that they now have a proven method for using spectrum analysis to determine the presence of organic molecules. From the actual research paper:

      As these bands can overlap in wavelength, and the corresponding signatures from them are weak, decisive identification requires precision infrared spectroscopy. Here we report a near-infrared transmission spectrum of the planet HD 189733b that shows the presence of methane.

      Here is the abstract.
      --
      Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
    2. Re:Headline is misleading by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      It looks like somebody read TFA. Turn your card in at the door.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    3. Re:Headline is misleading by d3l33t · · Score: 1

      http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media/releases/ssc2007-12/release.shtml NASA's Spitzer Finds Water Vapor on Hot, Alien Planet For Release: July 11, 2007

  9. Same old hype by l2718 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The ability to resolve the spectral lines is a great advance. The hype is getting old. We know that small "organic" molecules are not hard to come by; we expect to find them everywhere we look, yet the press goes ape whenever we find them. Worse, since we have no idea what "life" is, it seems a bit odd to go crazy over molecules that are somewhat related to our kind of "life".

    1. Re:Same old hype by us7892 · · Score: 1

      Agreed, same old hype. Save it for when you can actually announce that "we discovered an alien being on a distant planet".

      Of course, the wack-jobs believe this already happened, and the government is keeping it a secret. That's for another day...

    2. Re:Same old hype by Fatalis · · Score: 1

      ... since we have no idea what "life" is ...

      please, speak for yourself, there's a myriad of biologists that'd like to disagree with this assessment. we have a pretty good idea about what exactly life is, unless you're still stuck in the days of vitalism or whatever
      --
      Deus est fatalis
  10. Now, oxygen, on the other hand... by Loke+the+Dog · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, it's cool that we can find proof of any kind of molecules on extrasolar planets, but I'm still waiting for the discovery of O2 on an extra solar planet, that will be the discovery of the century. Methane is not so cool.

    1. Re:Now, oxygen, on the other hand... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. If we found a planet that had an abundance of O2, and was even close to our temperature and light levels, I would be suprised if there wasn't life. And if there wasn't life, it would be trivial to transplant it there.

    2. Re:Now, oxygen, on the other hand... by mog007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The first lifeforms on our own planet didn't use O2 for respiration. It took a very, very, very long time for the Earth's original atmosphere to be converted to the 70% nitrogen, 20% oxygen atmosphere we're comfortable breathing now. Even today we have a very popular organism that doesn't require O2 to function, and the wonderful result of lacking O2 is ethanol.

      Liquid water is the smoking gun for life forms, and maybe some serious carbon.

    3. Re:Now, oxygen, on the other hand... by wizardforce · · Score: 3, Informative

      photosynthesis produces oxygen as a waste product. when oxygen levels in the air became sufficient, it resulted in what is called the oxygen catastrophe because oxygen is quite poisonous to many anaerobic organisms. finding oxygen in the presence of reducing chemicals like methane signals that there is an active process for making oxygen and reducing chemicals and one of the best ways to do this is with active life.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    4. Re:Now, oxygen, on the other hand... by mog007 · · Score: 1

      That sounds reasonable, but the post I was referring to didn't seem to imply that methane would have been as big a deal as molecular oxygen, and I would disagree that molecular oxygen would be completely meaningless by itself. I'd be more interested in liquid water than either oxygen or the so called "organic molecules".

    5. Re:Now, oxygen, on the other hand... by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      The first lifeforms on our own planet didn't use O2 for respiration. It took a very, very, very long time for the Earth's original atmosphere to be converted to the 70% nitrogen, 20% oxygen atmosphere we're comfortable breathing now. Even today we have a very popular organism that doesn't require O2 to function, and the wonderful result of lacking O2 is ethanol.

      I assume when you say "very, very, very long time" you mean millions or billions of years. The problem is that various geological (surface and sub-surface) formations show quick, catastrophic development (erosion specifically) measured over periods of days or months, not slow erosion measured over billions of years.

      Coal seams, which are always flat, also indicate rapid (days/months) development. In that case the rapid development prevented slow erosion over billions of years from ever taking place which would be expected if the coal seams were ever on the surface of earth during the various periods of history. Another example are river valleys which are in many cases V-shaped instead of U-shaped indicating fast erosion by rapidly moving water.

      Geologists are aware of this severe erosion problem with their theories and have no answer for what could cause such very very rapid erosion. Yet they remain stuck to the theory that Earth developed over billions of years despite visible evidence to the contrary. I guess they have blind faith.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    6. Re:Now, oxygen, on the other hand... by mog007 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I do mean billions of years. About four billion. And I wasn't aware of any such studies on coal seams that would be developed in days or months, instead of centuries or millenia. To be fair, I don't really follow geology, but the amount that I am familiar with, tectonic plates, and continental drift. From all the evidence I've read about, Pangaea is about a quarter of a billion years old, and gave way to the continents we're familiar with today, but as I stated, Geology isn't a big priority in my reading.

      Would you be kind enough to supply a source to these studies on coal seams that could be formed in such short amounts of time? I'm an atheist, I have no faith of any sort. Blind or otherwise, but I'm more than willing to put stock in well documented research which can explain the world and the universe better than a current theory. After all, science is as much about being wrong as being right. Isaac Newton's theories on gravity fall to pieces at higher speeds than we're normally familiar with, but that doesn't make them pretty good approximations. They're wrong, but still pretty close.

  11. Dup by Bob-taro · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This is a duplicate from over a month ago.

    --
    Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
  12. No chance?!? by SeePage87 · · Score: 1

    I bet the Slylandro beg to differ.

    1. Re:No chance?!? by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      Oh no, not the probes! There is nothing more unreasonable than a Slylandro probe.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    2. Re:No chance?!? by v1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Being a gas giant, there's almost no chance this discovery represents extrasolar life

      considering how regularly we find life in places our usual view of where life can survive don't work, like around geothermal vents at the bottom of the ocean, or inside solid rock 2 miles below the surface, I find this comment incredibly narrow-minded. That gas giant is about on keel with the ocean here on earth, and last I checked, life here began in the seas.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    3. Re:No chance?!? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      [Being a gas giant, there's almost no chance this discovery represents extrasolar life] Considering how regularly we find life in places our usual view of where life can survive don't work, like around geothermal vents

      Note that some of Jupiter's chemicals may be biology-produced. We just don't know at this stage. If bacteria can live in Earth's atmosphere, then it can probably live in Jupiter's. There are a variety of temperatures in Jupiter's atmosphere; the further you go down, the warmer it gets. This means there is a "Goldilocks" zone that has good temperatures for life. It's still an open question if there is enough water, though. The only probe to sample the atmosphere coincidentally passed through a dry area (based on atmospheric models).

    4. Re:No chance?!? by v1 · · Score: 1

      well again though, even limiting yourself to water, although water IS a nice, biologically-friendly element, having a neutral PH as it does, it's certainly not required. Then we just get back to the idea of trying to increase our odds of finding something by looking for a place that is more likely.

      I suppose what I'm saying comes down to just this: to say that any location is inhospitable to life, is a mistake which the dice will eventually beat you at. Just to have genesis from nothing at all to begin with is already showing you can beat the odds by a wide margin.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  13. Hydrogues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No life on gas giants eh? You just wait until the Hydrogues come and kick our arses. Effing 'drogues.

    1. Re:Hydrogues by timster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Seriously though, I'd like to know exactly what makes life on gas giants so unlikely. You've got all sorts of chemicals swirling around, different temperatures at different depths, and frequent capture of diverse debris. We've hardly explored the interiors of the gas giants right here in our own system, so what's the basis for ruling out life on gas giants 60 ly away?

      I'm sure there's good science involved, I'm just curious to know what it is.

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    2. Re:Hydrogues by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Informative

      so what's the basis for ruling out life on gas giants 60 ly away?
      the fact that it is 1300 degrees, so hot that water starts reacting with methane to produce carbon monoxide.
      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    3. Re:Hydrogues by chazbet · · Score: 1

      IANA exobiologist, but one guess would be the chaotic currents in a gas giant take away many chances of self-organization and replication. Some life-related organic chemical reactions take time, and the probabilities of those occurring diminish vanishingly as the subject molecules are disturbed by electrical/gravitational/radiation disturbances.

    4. Re:Hydrogues by Wavebreak · · Score: 1

      IANAXB, but I'd hazard a guess that it's mostly due to the lack of liquid water, and the relative inability of other solvents to substitute for it in conventional biochemistry. It's been proposed in sci-fi on quite a few occasions tho.

      --
      Nobody expects the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.
    5. Re:Hydrogues by uberphear · · Score: 1

      Just because carbon monoxide is present on another planet does not mean life could not exist there. Do aliens to whom oxygen is poisonous as carbon monoxide is to us examine an uninhabited section of Earth and conclude there is no life?

    6. Re:Hydrogues by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      carbon monoxide isn't the problem, the fact it is hot enough to react methane and water to make carbon monoxide and hydrogen *is*. it is hot enough to melt aluminum and rend any organic compounds with water into various gases, hot enough to destroy any polymer likely to exist in lifeforms.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    7. Re:Hydrogues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you're an undergrad?

    8. Re:Hydrogues by MMC+Monster · · Score: 2, Funny

      so what's the basis for ruling out life on gas giants 60 ly away?
      the fact that it is 1300 degrees, so hot that water starts reacting with methane to produce carbon monoxide. Sounds like Los Angeles.
      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    9. Re:Hydrogues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And? Who said anything about needing water?

    10. Re:Hydrogues by freefrag · · Score: 2, Informative

      More relevant here is the fact that the upper limit of stability of any carbon-based macromolecule or polymer is about 400 Celsius, even in "inert" atmospheres due to C-H bonds breaking. Though this does not rule out other chemistries, the news here is about carbon-based life.

  14. Re:Methane - Big Deal by Leftist+Troll · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was under the impression that methane was fairly common in the Universe. For example, Uranus is full of methane.

  15. nothing unusual about methane by wizardforce · · Score: 1

    There is nothing unusual about methane being detected in the atmosphere of a gas giant, what is unusual is the fact that carbon monoxide is supposed to be more abundant than methane at this temperature. Of course we knew about this over a month ago... btw, methane without water or ammonia or any number of other chemicals required for abiogenesis is utterly unremarkable, they make it sounds like they found DNA in the atmosphere or something equally amazing... sheesh

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  16. Ooops... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    Ok, it would still be hard to physically get there, but what we got there would likely grow.

  17. Re:Methane - Big Deal by Loke+the+Dog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's funny, you were modded troll even though what you said is both true and relevant. We really need to rename that planet.

  18. um, no. Methane is found in atmospheres of -stars- by Iowan41 · · Score: 1

    It isn't necessarily biologically produced. But any chemical involving carbon and hydrogen is called 'organic' even if it is inorganic in origin.

  19. Space cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Space cows.

    Sounds pretty amazing to me

  20. What's the big deal? by Hojima · · Score: 0

    Even if we found all the standard basis for life, it will still not be an accomplishment. There will be two scenarios that the planet will have. One, we simply found a O2/CO2 atmosphere enriched planet with water that sustains relatively safe weather conditions. In the one in a [insert unfeasibly large number] chance that this happens, there will not be any guarantee whatsoever that there are any forms of life there (and we couldn't detect and identify the complex organic molecules anyways) because you have to have way too many more prereqs for life to occur. Two, the planet is in the stage that earth was to match the prereqs for creation of life (an even smaller chance), in which case, there are an ungodly number of processes that must occur to form even the simplest molecules (ever taken organic chemistry?). Taking this into account, do scientists even pay attention to how small any discovery might be? Never mind that sapient beings (us) can't come anywhere near the construction of a fully functional single celled organism from "scratch" after all the knowledge we have and efforts that we've poured in, now scientists are saying that this could occur ON ITS OWN? And then there are people who contemplate the idea of OTHER SAPIENT LIFE THAT HAS SURPASSED OUR CIVILIZATION WITHOUT KILLING THEMSELVES and shoot radio waves that dissipate into noise after 2 light-years (these efforts piss me off). Now this universe is huge, and granted there is always a possibility, but it is as small as the chance of me consecutively wining every lotto that has ever been hosted. It makes you wonder if there really was divine intervention that played a hand in our creation (though I'm agnostic, and small chance doesn't mean impossible). So let me put it into perspective. By the time we discover life that is anywhere near in complexity as a cat (or a single celled organism for that matter), we'll have long passed the point where we can make a damn planet with life on it.

  21. How to polarize your scientific audience... by PRMan · · Score: 1

    "We found methane gas..." => "Molecular basis for life..."?

    Political double-speak is the cause of the polarization problem in communicating science, not the solution.

    How about just sticking with "We can detect methane gas on an extra-solar planet"? Isn't that cool enough by itself? Nobody on either side of the debate has problems with repeatable observations. But instead, every discovery is used as a club to beat the Big Bang or Evolution over the head of creationists, whether it has anything to do with it or not (note that the writeup concedes that there is zero chance of life despite the polarizing statement). This is why people are polarized and as long as it continues people will continue to be polarized.

    The repeated statements about creationist ignorance fall on deaf ears as well (except to aid polarization), since I would doubt that anyone making them has spent more than 2 minutes at a site like Answers in Genesis to see what very good science that questions the commonly-accepted notions actually exists. Ignoring people with something important (to them) to say increases polarization.

    Wishing desperately for life on other worlds isn't science. It's a dogmatic world-view. It can't be science because as of yet we don't have a single shred of evidence that such a situation exists.

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    1. Re:How to polarize your scientific audience... by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      ohes noes, teh poor lil creationists, they are the victims of the evil scientists. WTF? This has absolutely nothing to do with evolution/creation, if you think it is some covert attack on creationists, you are either paranoid or more likely just looking for yet another excuse to paint yourself as a victim.

      The motivation is simple sensationalism, molecules of life sounds cooler than methane, thats it.


      Now go home and well call you when some redneck school board bans evolution teaching, then you can come out for us to laugh at ok. oh and wishing something was true is not Dogma, stating that it is absolute and unquestionable truth is Dogma. Thankyou and goodbye.

    2. Re:How to polarize your scientific audience... by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Polarization isnt bad in your cited example. I find it fun to watch religious idiots disagree with science and get disproven every few dozen years. Then watch them all recant their views. I didn't see anything on that site about how the earth is flat and science is ignoring that. Or that the earth is the center of the universe. I guess they just forgot to mention that.

  22. Interstellar methane ?? by tobe · · Score: 1

    Can someone explain to me why this might not be simply the spectra of methane occurring anywhere in interstellar space between the star emitting the light and the measuring device. Do these guys *only* see the methane spectra when the planet transits it's star. Do we never see methane if we look in any other direction ?

    1. Re:Interstellar methane ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Do these guys *only* see the methane spectra when the planet transits it's star.

      That'd be my guess. Something like that. "Its", btw, not "it's star".

    2. Re:Interstellar methane ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The disturbing part is that they forgot to mention that they only detect the methane on Tuesdays, which happens to be the same day as the lab's weekly Chili lunch.

  23. Re:What's the big deal? - Ah! But you're assuming by Markvs · · Score: 2, Funny

    That we got the only Monolith.

    --
    46. The Hobo smiles, his eyes glaze over, and he burps. "Beware the man who has lived longer than the Wasteland."
  24. Re:Methane - Big Deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Posting anonymously because I modded you, but I really wish I could mod both funny and insightful...

  25. Re:Methane - Big Deal by Eighty7 · · Score: 1

    We really need to rename that planet.
    I have a bad feeling about this.
  26. Re:Methane - Big Deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Like they did in Futurama?

    You know, Urectum does have a nice ring to it

  27. Re:Methane - Big Deal by wickedsteve · · Score: 1

    Be careful what you call those things. For example start calling pluto an asteroid... www.shof.msrcsites.co.uk/pluto.jpg

  28. Re:Methane - Big Deal by kwub · · Score: 1

    FARNSWORTH: "I'm sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all."
    FRY: "Oh. What's it called now?"
    FARNSWORTH: "Urectum."

  29. Re:Methane - Big Deal by BotnetZombie · · Score: 1

    I blame silly english pronounciation for this joke problem. In my language (Icelandic), we say it like oor-an-ush. If you say it really fast and are lucky, it can sound like "you're an ass", which is way cooler than "your anus". And no, I'm not saying that the OPs are anii (that would be the plural form, similar to virii which I also know is wrong).

  30. Re:Methane - Big Deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard somewhere that they put an end to all those jokes in the year 2500AD by renaming Uranus....to Urrectum.

  31. Re:Methane - Big Deal by nschubach · · Score: 1

    So how are all you Icelandii doing up there in the green land next to icy Greenland? ;)

    [yes, it's a sad boring day when I post simply to use the word "Icelandii" and poke fun of the Iceland/Greenland battle for identity all in one sentence.]

    --
    Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
  32. Re:Methane - Big Deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To be fair, his nick is LeftistTroll... :P

  33. Re:Methane - Big Deal by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Or teach people to say it correctly.

    I bet you thought I was going to make a Futurama reference, didn't you?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  34. What an amazing ego...mod parent down. by Vidar+Leathershod · · Score: 1

    Congratulations. You read some articles. For a second, I thought you had invented a Time Machine and discovered this amazing fact on your own. Instead, you seem to be expelling hot methane rather than being an authority on early Earth history.

    How does this stuff get modded up in the first place?

    --
    The brains of a chicken, coupled with the claws of two eagles, may well hatch the eggs of our destruction.
  35. That's not true at all by geekoid · · Score: 1

    There is lots of evidence, just look around you.

    Clearly life in the universe exists, Us. There is no reason, religious or otherwise that life can't exist elsewhere. Only closed minded fools.

    Why that site is crap.

    Here is one example:
    "The story we have all heard from movies, television, newspapers, and most magazines and textbooks is that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. According to evolutionists, the dinosaurs 'ruled the Earth' for 140 million years, dying out about 65 million years ago. However, scientists do not dig up anything labeled with those ages. They only uncover dead dinosaurs (i.e., their bones), and their bones do not have labels attached telling how old they are. The idea of millions of years of evolution is just the evolutionists' story about the past. No scientist was there to see the dinosaurs live through this supposed dinosaur age. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. No scientist observed dinosaurs die. Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view."

    Where to begin with that piece of trash.

    "However, scientists do not dig up anything labeled with those ages."

    "The idea of millions of years of evolution is just the evolutionists' story about the past."
    Story? no it's science, and is backed with proven scientific methods.
    actually, that would be called strata.

    "In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. "
    No that's not a fact, or even partly correct. Radioactive decay, strata are very accurate and proven techniques.

    " Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view.""

    err, no.
    In fact evolution theory(they idea the small genetic changes happen) predicts finds, and it fit into the theory. They didn't move the goal post, a common technique of creationists.

    You can believe the world was created yesterday for all I care, but all the scientific evidence points to dinosaurs being 100's of million year old. The data is scientifically sound, and evolution is a fact. Bear in mind there are no laws, a theory IS the top of the chain. Just like Gravity is a theory. Both have falsifiable tests, both make predictions. Now iof some ne evidence is found, lets say particles pushing down causes gravity, then the theory changes to fit the new, testable, repeatable, falsifiable findings. In this case, you had have some really strong evidence repeatable test!

    As for why the great sky ghost would put done evidence that the world is older then it actually is is a discussion for philosophy but has no pace in science.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  36. Maybe this is too much of a leap... by JavaRob · · Score: 1

    At different wavelengths, every atom and molecule has its own telltale footprint... You mean, atom and molecule and yeti?
    They should adjust their filters to look for those telltale footprints, too.
  37. Light Years by jesse285 · · Score: 1

    Ok now that we are here let talk about the meaning of light years for the one who want to know about this. If we were to travel that far in a spaceship what would happen? How will the person or people's that may want to take the trip be, what will they ages be will be the same as on earth or do time change things in space. We know 60's some light year but do it mean the time that we have here on earth or the times that it will be when they get to the spot where the plant et will be? If some want to give some insight, please do tell.

  38. They found methene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Methene is very common in the our own outer solar system, from Juptier and beyond. It does not mean life exists. Any Jupiter sized planet is bound to have it, especially if it is hot and the hydrogen and helium are boiled off.

  39. Re:Methane - Big Deal by coretx · · Score: 1

    Anus, is Latin for " Old Women "

    What's wrong with that name ? ;)

  40. yes, no chance by sir+fer · · Score: 0

    What? Our oceans are nowhere near 1300deg. To sum up, gas giants are places of extreme violence and danger to anything living. The force of gravity alone is many times larger than here on Earth and the weather puts the Earths weather to shame in terms of violence. Then theres all the radiation from charged particles trapped by the magnetic fields that such planets produce (at least in the solar system) that would fry most things as soon as they got a start. Chances there are life on any of these types of planets is there, but it is vanishingly small. IMO there is a better chance of life forming in the near vacuum of space and we all know how likely that is and if we don't, then we need to read more.

    --
    Debian FTW ;o)
  41. Re:Methane - Big Deal by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

    I'd be content if people would just grow up. But I guess renaming it would be more likely.