Slashdot Mirror


Earth May Harbor a Shadow Biosphere of Alien Life

An anonymous reader sends us to Cosmos Magazine for a speculative article arguing that a 'shadow biosphere' may exist on Earth, unrelated to life as we know it. If such non-carbon-based life were found here at home, it would alter the odds for how common life is elsewhere in the universe, astrobiologists say. "The tools and experiments researchers use to look for new forms of life — such as those on missions to Mars — would not detect biochemistries different from our own, making it easy for scientists to miss alien life, even if [it] was under their noses. ... Scientists are looking in places where life isn't expected — for example, in areas of extreme heat, cold, salt, radiation, dryness, or contaminated streams and rivers. [One researcher] is particularly interested in places that are heavily contaminated with arsenic, which, he suggests, might support forms of life that use arsenic the way life as we know it uses phosphorus."

36 of 267 comments (clear)

  1. Obligatory by Xamedes · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's life, Jim. But not as we know it.

  2. Motives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    [One researcher] is particularly interested in places that are heavily contaminated with arsenic, which, he suggests, might support forms of life that use arsenic the way life as we know it uses phosphorus."

    Or the researcher is secretly needing arsenic to do his more brilliant colleague in the old Victorian-era way, having learnt from too many Agatha Christie novels.

  3. So something which we can't define... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...may exist on Earth but we won't be able to look for it until we define it.

    Sounds pretty clear to me. Maybe rocks are intelligent. How would we know? Has anybody thought to ask?

    1. Re:So something which we can't define... by Gabrill · · Score: 5, Funny

      After a lengthy, one-sided dialogue with the nearest rock, I conclude that your theory is false.

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    2. Re:So something which we can't define... by CarpetShark · · Score: 5, Funny

      After a lengthy, one-sided dialogue with the nearest rock, I conclude that your theory is false.

      After many zen practitioners' lengthy, two-way dialogues with rocks near and far, your test criteria seem to be flawed.

    3. Re:So something which we can't define... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You both have a point. The question is, where do you draw the line at what is life? Rocks may not have DNA or intelligence, but they do form, change, multiply and there's a recognisable process for destroying them. In a sense, rocks are a lot like the most basic forms of life that ever formed.

      Let's be a little more serious now. Rocks around here probably won't ever advance beyond mimicking some very shaky comparisons to the most basic forms of life. But that doesn't stop us wondering if we're just seeing it on too small a scale to make that judgment. Perhaps it's safer to treat rocks as a failed attempt at life, one that happens too slowly to ever get beyond basic chemical reactions and simple molecular structures.

      If it weren't for carbon-based life, who knows?

    4. Re:So something which we can't define... by Gabrill · · Score: 4, Funny

      As the Zen practicioners are indistinguishable from day-dreamers such as my 9 year old son, your refutiation is meaningless.

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    5. Re:So something which we can't define... by dotancohen · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You both have a point. The question is, where do you draw the line at what is life? Rocks may not have DNA or intelligence, but they do form, change, multiply and there's a recognisable process for destroying them.

      Rocks do not have gaseous exchange (breathing) nor reproduce (cracking a rock to make two is _not_ reprodction). However, there is no definition of life that fire cannot meet, which the mule can. In other words, any non-contrived definition of life that includes the mule must also include fire. Here is a very basic explanation: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    6. Re:So something which we can't define... by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Funny

      It could've possibly gone another way, if we hadn't gotten there first?

      We would have just given the non-carbon lifeforms some blankets and hoped that they hadn't discovered gunpowder yet ;)

      *ba-dum pssssh*

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    7. Re:So something which we can't define... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As the Zen practicioners are indistinguishable from day-dreamers such as my 9 year old son, your refutiation is meaningless.

      Not really. They've studied the brains of Zen practitioners in meditation and have determined that Zen meditation actually increases brainwave significantly -- more so than even normal daydreaming.

    8. Re:So something which we can't define... by tyroneking · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm pretty sure Spock talked to rocks - and Kirk may have made love to one

    9. Re:So something which we can't define... by kulnor · · Score: 3, Funny

      "For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from, and (d) rocks."
      Terry Pratchett, Equal Rites

    10. Re:So something which we can't define... by Shrike82 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I have to question the standards of a Wikipedia article entitled "Life" that ends with a section on life insurance that makes up 1/8th of the article.

      --
      You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
    11. Re:So something which we can't define... by ultranova · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The difference is that the cell splits into two that are of typical size for its species (or at least grow to typical size). The rock doesn't.

      Actually, a rock does grow, given the right conditions. Specifically, a rock exposed to supercooled rock vapour will have said vapour condense and freeze on its surface, resulting in a bigger rock.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  4. Carbon-based for a reason by Shrike82 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Interesting theory, but I seem to remember my biology teacher discussing silicon-based life, and how it was much less likely to develop as carbon atoms produced much more stable molecules, especially on planets like Earth with water and nitrogen/oxygen atmospheres. Carbon-based life just "works" better on Earth.

    On planets with radcially different environments there's probably a lot of potential for life that's totally different from ours, but I think it's fairly unlikely for us to discover it here.

    --
    You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
    1. Re:Carbon-based for a reason by gilleain · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Exactly right. Carbon rich molecules are more diverse and larger than any other sort.

      You can form chains or rings of around 6 sulphurs (with oxygen), but carbon can be found in chains of 30+ atoms and in multiple ring systems.

      It's very difficult to grasp how large the isomer spaces are - and how quickly they grow, but a recent guestimate I made was that if a program (molgen) can enumerate all possible C10H16 molecules in 2 seconds, and all C13H22 in 2 minutes, then it would take 2 days for C18H36 and 1 billion years for C36H72...

      Also, there are 25,000 C10s and 9 million C15s. So the sheer number of possible carbon compounds argues that carbon is the only likely candidate.

    2. Re:Carbon-based for a reason by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Informative

      "nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere"

      Without carbon-based life, such an atmosphere would not exist on Earth.

      Of course the whole problem with all this is we do not have a good definition for "life" or "intelligence". For example an ants nest can be considered as a single intelligent organisim or a swarm of mindless individuals. The same concept applied on a global scale is what Lovelock's much maligned Gaia hypothesis was all about.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  5. Alternative biochemistries and definition of life by tucuxi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not an expert in biology, but unless these contaminated areas have been contaminated for a very long time (read tens of thousands of years), and are quite large, the chances for life to have sprung up seem very, very slim. Current life needed millions of years to gain a firm foothold and start building up complexity. Lucky meteorites aside, starting from zero is bound to be hard.

    If the experiment succeeds (here or elsewhere), and something "life-ish" is found, the results will still be tricky to classify. Can a given chemistry lead to increasing complexity, or is it just a dead end? Without hindsight, this seems like a very difficult question.

  6. Re:You know... by wisty · · Score: 3, Funny

    Or Red Dwarf, "The End".

    Captain Hollister: Just one thing before the disco. Holly tells me that he has sensed a non-human life form aboard.

    Lister: Sir, it's Rimmer

  7. ..use arsenic the way we know it uses phosphorus by MancunianMaskMan · · Score: 4, Informative
  8. not buying it. by timmarhy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    some of these arguments often sound plausible until you examine the mechanics for life. water for instance, has unique properties not shared by any other compound - the ability to be neutral, liquid at reasonable temps and be able to transport other elements. the same goes for carbon. nothing else is going to be able to put together a tangible life form.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:not buying it. by deimtee · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Neutral is what doesn't dissolve you.:) It is not neccessarily aqueous pH7 for everything.
      The most likely alternate chemistry for life though, is carbon based, but using ammonia instead of water. At above about 70 psi, and somewhere below zero celsius it has a liquid range and chemistry similar to water. Given a larger, colder planet than earth with a thick atmosphere, life in liquid ammonia is the most probable option.

      --
      I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
  9. Perhaps they should read this by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 5, Interesting

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826533.600-early-life-could-have-relied-on-arsenic-dna.html tried looking up some examples of non carbon based life on earth that I'd heard of but couldn't find any however the ecology of undersea volcanic vents pretty much threw most ideas about heat tolerance and toxins being a problem out of the window.

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    1. Re:Perhaps they should read this by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just look up Extremophiles....

      They live practically everywhere including in boiling acid, semi liquid rocks, extreme cold, and on black smokers as above ... it seems that everytime discounts an environment for carbon/DNA based life someone else finds life there ...

      I doubt there are many niches for non-carbon based life around for them to exploit on Earth.... other planets may have different forms of life ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
  10. Re:You know... by VShael · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh yeah...

  11. Silicon-based life of a sort... by Richard+Kirk · · Score: 5, Informative

    You can't swap silicon for carbon in DNA. Silicon doesn't have the same talent for directionally bonding to itself. You can get get multiple bonds if you stick an oxygen in between, but the oxygen always has electron pairs that make it open to attack. There is no equivalent of the stable and inert paraffin chain.

    If you were to have silicon-based life, then it would probably not use chain molecules. Suppose you had a planar silicate structure that catalysed the formation of a similar layer on top of it. The layers might then separate or exfoliate and then catalyse other copies of themselves. Some formations would be more stable, or would come out of solution at lower concentrations, and thereby 'predating' on less successful conformations by lowering the conentration of valuable components, and causing the other to go back into solution.

    This is pretty dull sort of life - it isn't really much more than crystallization. No antennae, no ray-guns, no 'greetings earthlings, we come in peace'. However, carbon-based life was probably a pretty dull affair before the cell wall. It would have relied on random variations in ambient chemistry and temperature to do anything, and a lot of time must have been spent waiting for the right conditions for the next move. The simpler viruses are more like big chemicals than small creatures.

    I remember a Scientific American article from about 1983 where it was argued that some of the lamellar structures that you can get in pre-cambrian clays may have been just such a system. No easy way of telling now, of course, because carbon based life would probably have killed it off. If it could be said to have been alive in the first place.

    1. Re:Silicon-based life of a sort... by jmbjr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You can't swap silicon for carbon in DNA. Silicon doesn't have the same talent for directionally bonding to itself.

      I'm not a chemist and I'm not really sure where to look, but does carbon only have this unique talent for directionally bonding to itself at ANY temperature and pressure? Is it conceivable for another element to develop this property at radically different environments?

  12. They're Made of Meat by moshez · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "They're made of meat."

    "Meat?"

    http://home.earthlink.net/~paulrack/id82.html

    1. Re:They're Made of Meat by pavon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My favorite thing about that story is thinking about what sort of world these creatures came from. The fact that they know what meat is means that they have seen it (or something close to what we call meat), and obviously anything that is similar enough to be recognizable as meat, would be living tissue of sort. But the fact that they are repulsed by the fact that a sentient life form is made of this stuff, would make me think that they have never seen it in any sort of animate life whatsoever

      So on their world muscle tissue must be some sort of inanimate life form like plants, or coral. This is somewhat weird as the whole purpose of muscle tissue is to move. Most of the inanimate life forms that we know on earth are designed to (more or less) passively absorb what they need to survive from the environment through photosynthesis and mineral absorption, whereas meat-based animals can rarely passively absorb what they need and rely on hunting to survive. Furthermore, meat required more nutrients and energy to support than the tissues needed for passive energy collection. But apparently the meat they have seen in the past has been "dumb" or passive enough that they were surprised when they saw it in something that they recognized as life.

      So what would this alien meat be moving? Maybe it is more like heart or lung muscle than limb muscle and was pumping surrounding liquid into itself so it could absorb all the nutrients and then spit it back out - might be more efficient than passively collecting whatever liquid happened to flow near it. What would be controlling the meat - most of the muscle-bound creatures I can think of have a central nervous system to control them, but these must be more like a simple pacemaker or very simple chemical sensor/response mechanism.

      And more importantly where can I get this amorphous meat to put into my garden/aquarium/floating gas clouds :)

  13. have they checked... by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 3, Funny

    dark basements below older human habitation? im sure theyll find a new asexual species resembling man...

  14. Deep Ocean by CustomDesigned · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I didn't find it on Google, but about 30 years ago I read an account of a creature like a giant sand dollar that was dislodged from the deep ocean by an undersea earthquake. I can't verify it until I find a reference, but I recall that the scientist examining it found that it was largely silicon, hydrogen, and sulphur (and decayed rapidly giving off H2S). His theory was that it was silicon based life - and that its chemistry required deep ocean temperature and pressure to remain stable. (Note that there are carbon based ocean creatures able to process silicon to create SiO2 structures.)

  15. "Alien"? by PriceIke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Alien" means "not from here." If our planet harbors a resident life form which we're not aware of, that doesn't make them alien. It just makes us ignorant.

    --
    It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
  16. The full version of the alien life story by pmanx · · Score: 4, Informative

    Note that Carl Zimmer wrote about this exact research in greater detail about a year and a half ago in Discover magazine. Take a look: http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/aliens-among-us/ The story even includes the line about "life as we don't know it"!

  17. Scientific American Nov '07 by jbeaupre · · Score: 3, Informative

    Now where have I heard this before? Oh yeah! http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=are-aliens-among-us

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  18. Carbon is like Lego blocks by mangu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think you are absolutely right. It seems that many people cannot understand how special the carbon atom is. They assume that our life being based on carbon wouldn't exclude life based on other atoms somewhere else.

    Not true. There's a special, unique property in the carbon atom orbital structure that allows very complex structures. No other atom has that quality, unless some basic constants of the universe were changed. It's like comparing a set of Lego blocks with a box of marbles.

    The same goes for temperature, to get life one needs a liquid solution that lets molecules interact. With a solid there's no interaction, with a gas the molecules don't stick together, so one needs a liquid for transporting the elements of life. If a planet is too cold or too hot life will not appear. These are some basic limits on the physics and chemistry that will allow for complex chemistry to gradually evolve.

    And the funny thing is that we have both theory and experiment telling us that life isn't very common in the universe. We haven't found any sign of life in either Mars or Venus, which a hundred years ago many people thought would certainly have life. If planets like Venus and Mars, that are very close to the Earth in their characteristics, didn't create life, then one should assume that our position is very special.

  19. How about H2 feeders? by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You can find a brief description here.

    The article suggests that the hydrogen was produced only when rocks crack, meaning that the microbes' food supply was meager and sporadic. Now Freund has discovered a chemical process in Earth's crust that may produce enough hydrogen to feed a mass of underground life larger than the mass of all living things at the surface. "[T]he rocks around them will replenish the hydrogen supplyÃÂ--indefinitely, over eons of time," said Freund.

    Talk about a shadow life form.

    --
    The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.