Slashdot Mirror


California Lake's Arsenic Hints At a Shadow Biosphere

MichaelSmith writes "Scientists think that there might be arsenic-based life in Mono Lake, California. If it's shown to exist, such life could have evolved independently from our own, or it could have forked from ours at a very early stage."

155 comments

  1. Arsenic life forms? by nebaz · · Score: 1

    Arsenic life forms = Super rats (resistant to rat poison). Oh boy!

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    1. Re:Arsenic life forms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but you can kill them just by spraying with a water.

    2. Re:Arsenic life forms? by daveime · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think you accidentally a word ?

    3. Re:Arsenic life forms? by rockNme2349 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Super rodents? I don't believe in them.

      --
      Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."
    4. Re:Arsenic life forms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole thing.

    5. Re:Arsenic life forms? by Kryptonian+Jor-El · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our new arsenic-laden overlords

      --
      All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
    6. Re:Arsenic life forms? by tqk · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I, for one, welcome our new ...

      Damn, if that (so to speak) joke wasn't old last century, it sure is now. Please shoot yourself. Thanks.

      Ya know, gun controls limit fools from their most effective path to a Darwin Award. Why'd anyone want to do that?!?

      NRA, I'll licence the idea to you for a cut.

      Sometimes on a /. post, you never know where you'll end up. I'll go replay Gladiator now, bye.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    7. Re:Arsenic life forms? by skine · · Score: 1

      I've heard there's one Super Rat who is a master of ninjutsu.

    8. Re:Arsenic life forms? by nebaz · · Score: 1

      No I not!

      --
      Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    9. Re:Arsenic life forms? by TheJokeExplainer · · Score: 2, Informative

      To those who didn't get it, parent is referring to the "I accidentally X", a 4chan meme. The verb is intentionally left out.

      It's based on the following post:

      hey /g/ I need your help
      I accidentally 93MB of .rar files
      what should I do...is this dangerous ?

      Read more about it here: http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/I_accidentally_X

      --
      visit my pal the xkcd explainer!
    10. Re:Arsenic life forms? by biryokumaru · · Score: 1

      Don't worry! If you're attacked by one, I'll fend it off by poking it gently in the nose with a stick while you struggle for your life!

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    11. Re:Arsenic life forms? by mysidia · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The good news is said super rats have no appetite for our carbon-based non-arsenic containing foods.

      The bad news is the super rats' excrement will fill the soil with the poison, eventually getting into the water and plants, and killing us all

    12. Re:Arsenic life forms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      licence? you a limey?

    13. Re:Arsenic life forms? by nospam007 · · Score: 2, Funny

      ALF

    14. Re:Arsenic life forms? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      [picard_facepalm.jpg] Stop posting!

      --

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

    15. Re:Arsenic life forms? by jonadab · · Score: 1

      Actually, the old "I think you accidentally a word" joke is significantly older than 4chan. I personally first encountered it in the late eighties, which easily makes it older than the web.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    16. Re:Arsenic life forms? by TheJokeExplainer · · Score: 1

      I'll see your [picard_facepalm.jpg] and raise you a [picard_double-facepalm.jpg]!

      --
      visit my pal the xkcd explainer!
    17. Re:Arsenic life forms? by JokeExplainerXplainr · · Score: 1
    18. Re:Arsenic life forms? by Silicon+Jedi · · Score: 1

      Someone set up us the bomb.

    19. Re:Arsenic life forms? by Rebelgecko · · Score: 1

      Is the word with spelled wrong intentionally to create an opening for some sort of TRIPLE FACEPALM? [feel free to imagine a 3armed picard link here]

      --
      CATS/Diebold '08- All your vote are belong to us!
    20. Re:Arsenic life forms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the word with spelled wrong intentionally to create an opening for some sort of TRIPLE FACEPALM? [feel free to imagine a 3armed picard link here]

      Uh-oh. I think you just accidentally Rule 34.

    21. Re:Arsenic life forms? by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      I bet it will turn out the only way to kill them is to feed them cheddar.

    22. Re:Arsenic life forms? by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      I for one mourn the passing of our dearly departed overlord.

    23. Re:Arsenic life forms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone set up us the bomb.

      In former Societ Russia bomb up sets YOU.

    24. Re:Arsenic life forms? by tqk · · Score: 1

      Modded flamebait. It's a fair cop. My intent was humour (and yes, I'm a Canuck), and I was on scotch atm. Sue me.

      Flamebait?!? You can't handle a little controversy? A pope killed or incarcerated a couple of my heroes over "controversy". Suck it up, thin skinned mostly bag of water! :-)

      I'm just saying that "I, for one, welcome our new ..." has had its day. It's cliche beyond belief. It has to be said.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    25. Re:Arsenic life forms? by Duggeek · · Score: 1

      Rodents of unusual size? I don't think they even exist.

      Fixed.

      --
      This post © Copyrite Duggeek, all rights reversed.
    26. Re:Arsenic life forms? by cmdr_klarg · · Score: 1

      Bah... I trump you all with the Infinite Double Facepalm!

      http://cox-supergroups.com/IDFP.jpg

      --
      THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
  2. Hmm.. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Any organism with an Adenosine triarsenate based energy transport structure would be a serious badass.

    Arsenic and Phosphorus are quite similar, chemically; but I'm not nearly chemist enough to know if there are messy details preventing a suitably evolved biological system from substituting one for the other.

    Though, this being the internet, I'm obliged to note that Chuck Norris already does.

    1. Re:Hmm.. by wizardforce · · Score: 5, Informative

      but I'm not nearly chemist enough to know if there are messy details preventing a suitably evolved biological system from substituting one for the other.

      Well for one, a great deal of biochemistry involves ATP in normal life forms that has little to do with energy transport. Proteins can be activated through phosphorylation by ATP. DNA is constructed using ATP and its base analogues. Glucose must be phosphorylated twice before it is done being biochemically broken down to reducing equivalents and CO2. These processes especially phosphorylation of proteins and DNA structure, all work because PO4 is the right size. A system based on AsO4 would have proteins and genetic structure much different than our own structurally speaking. Also, the triarsenate analogues could very well be markedly unstable.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    2. Re:Hmm.. by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 1

      SO BASICALLY IT'S THE WORK OF THE DEVIL, YA?

      Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
      Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

    3. Re:Hmm.. by kabdib · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Markedly unstable" = /exploding/ poison super rats ?

      That'd be fantastic.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is insufficiently documented.
    4. Re:Hmm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      but I'm not nearly chemist enough to know if there are messy details preventing a suitably evolved biological system from substituting one for the other.

      Well for one, a great deal of biochemistry involves ATP in normal life forms that has little to do with energy transport. Proteins can be activated through phosphorylation by ATP. DNA is constructed using ATP and its base analogues. Glucose must be phosphorylated twice before it is done being biochemically broken down to reducing equivalents and CO2. These processes especially phosphorylation of proteins and DNA structure, all work because PO4 is the right size. A system based on AsO4 would have proteins and genetic structure much different than our own structurally speaking. Also, the triarsenate analogues could very well be markedly unstable.

      The Times article is dreadful.
      Ronald S. Oremland of the USGS has been researching this for years. He is a fascinating speaker on the subject.
      He has shown that there are microbes in Mono Lake that have an arsenic based metabolism.He and his team have elucidated a good part of the metabolic pathways involved Similar microbes are found in soil as well.

      For a brief over view of the metabolism see http://microbiology.usgs.gov/geomicrobiology_arsenic.html

    5. Re:Hmm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was too insightful a post to have needed to post anonymously.

    6. Re:Hmm.. by bar-agent · · Score: 2, Funny

      That was too insightful a post to have needed to post anonymously.

      From which we deduce that the poster just doesn't want to bother with a login, or already used a mod point on this story.

      From the lack of dust on the monitor, we can further deduce that the poster keeps too busy to gather dust; and based on the IP address, packet history, and the traces of clay particles detectible on the third line of the post — a rare form of clay used only by coroners, biologists, and the Puppet Master — we know the poster is a biologist employed by UCLA and posting from the shores of Mono Lake itself. Though wholly unnecessary, further proof of the last deduction is furnished by the dirt on the reverse side of the post, dirt which is clearly the residue of a mud splatter, and which contains lethal levels of arsenic.

      Now, no modded post contains any trace of arsenic, nor any other indication that this poster has used a mod point on it, from which we can deduce that the poster does not have a Slashdot login at all, and is too busy to create one. But the amount of arsenic found on the post opens an appalling possibility — one that even I never considered! What if the poster was the murderer?

      You see, he (or she, but women do not typically use Axe body spray, nor are they to be found on the Internets) does not even try to deny it! I have already taken the liberty of calling the gendarmes around Mono Lake, and given them a precise description of the individual. Soon, our deceased butler friend will have his justice.

      For great justice!

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  3. The important questions... by acehole · · Score: 4, Funny

    Can we eat them and are they tasty?

    --
    Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
    1. Re:The important questions... by olsmeister · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Eating arsenic-based life forms? I'll leave that for you. I know you're just joking, but If by some inconceivable chance they do exist, one pretty good guess at why they're still here is that arsenic is extremely toxic, which as far as biological defenses go is a pretty good one.

    2. Re:The important questions... by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Makes me wonder if we would be as toxic to them as they would be to us...

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    3. Re:The important questions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IN Great Motherland of Arsenical Union, arsenic doesnt poison you, you poison arsenic. tip of the hat to yakoff smirnoff, and why cant i type this in all caps, i meant it as a shout...

    4. Re:The important questions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Etched into the sides of one of the many tufa protuberances rising from the lake were three enigmatic words:

      "NO EAT I"

      Not sure if it is meant as a warning that I shouldn't eat it, or that it is trying to reassure me that whatever wrote that isn't going to eat me...

    5. Re:The important questions... by Xtravar · · Score: 1

      Maybe they're from Butter Dimension like Topato!. "I AM MADE OF POISON!"

      Best link I can find with the text. http://www.wigu.com/overcompensating/2005/09/i-am-made-of-poison-and-xml.html My favorite web comic ever. http://wigu.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigu

      Karma be damned! If any story is worth a Topato plug, it's this one.

      --
      Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
    6. Re:The important questions... by skine · · Score: 1

      They taste just like almond-flavored chicken.

    7. Re:The important questions... by gooman · · Score: 1

      Poplers? Mmmm.

      --
      "Kittens give Morbo gas!"
    8. Re:The important questions... by TheJokeExplainer · · Score: 5, Informative

      Confused parent made a mistake and is actually referring to Cyanide which is said to smell and taste like bitter almonds, not Arsenic.

      --
      visit my pal the xkcd explainer!
    9. Re:The important questions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's Cyanide, not arsenic.

    10. Re:The important questions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone actually lived to say what it tastes like? Or is it just an educated guess?

    11. Re:The important questions... by SEE · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Probably. Arsenic is toxic to us because of its chemical similarity to phosphorous. It reacts enough like phosphorous to get pulled into various reactions in our cells, and then enough differently to make the processes fail. In an organism that used arsenic instead of phosphorous, phosphorous would cause the same trouble.

      Computer analogy -- In the old Eastern Bloc, clones of Western chips were reportedly made using "metric inches" of 25 millimeters instead of American inches of 25.4 mm. This worked fine electrically and mechanically when all the gear you were using was made to the same spec, but if you unknowingly tried to put a Western-made chip on 1/10th inch spacing into an Eastern Bloc socket on 2.5 mm spacing, or vice-versa, the incompatibility could cause failures. Similarly, it might be possible to build a cellular chemistry using arsenic instead of phosphorous. But if you put arsenic into a creature built with phosphorous or vice-versa, you're likely going to have failures as the cell unknowingly plugs the wrong element in.

    12. Re:The important questions... by M8e · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yes. no.

      You only need a very small amount to be able to taste it (and bitter is a taste, almond is an smell).

    13. Re:The important questions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, I don't know these computers you speak of. Can you put that in a car analogy?

    14. Re:The important questions... by JokeExplainerXplainr · · Score: 2, Informative

      He's referring to the kind of almond, not the taste. A bitter almond is one of two types of almonds, the other type being the sweet almond.

    15. Re:The important questions... by macklin01 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm sorry, I don't know these computers you speak of. Can you put that in a car analogy?

      Don't put unleaded in a diesel.

      --
      OpenSource.MathCancer.org: open source comp bio
    16. Re:The important questions... by oneeyedman · · Score: 1

      Arsenic smells (hence tastes) like garlic when heated in air and oxidized. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenic#Chemical.

      --
      *** "Freiheit ist immer die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden". -- Rosa Luxemburg ***
    17. Re:The important questions... by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I don't know these computers you speak of. Can you put that in a car analogy?

      Don't put unleaded in a diesel.

      Yeah, but where can you even get leaded gas these days?

    18. Re:The important questions... by jimbobborg · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I don't know these computers you speak of. Can you put that in a car analogy?

      Don't put unleaded in a diesel.

      Yeah, but where can you even get leaded gas these days?

      Airports. Single engine propeller planes still use leaded gasoline.

    19. Re:The important questions... by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      I thought about putting in something about $10/gallon 100 octane leaded aviation gasoline, but decided it weakened the joke.

  4. Made Robert Henke lose his hair by mmkkbb · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    -mkb
    1. Re:Made Robert Henke lose his hair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fail. Not funny.

  5. On an arsenic-based life form world by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The highly intelligent life would find it bizarre that some organisms would actually thrive in an atmosphere with such a dangerous and corrosive gas like oxygen.

    1. Re:On an arsenic-based life form world by daveime · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or even worse, Carbon Dioxide, the Antichrist of the 21st century.

    2. Re:On an arsenic-based life form world by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      it's the fact that O2 is so reactive is what makes it useful in the first place.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    3. Re:On an arsenic-based life form world by adonoman · · Score: 1

      Well, then maybe there's hope of finding some fluorine based life yet.

  6. Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scientists suspect the new life forms communicate via something called "S L A S H D O T"

    1. Re:Meanwhile by skine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is that with no life still a lifeform?

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

      You mean, like a fossil? oh wait...

  7. Paper by Wolfe-Simon et al. by Group+XVII · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Paper by Wolfe-Simon et al. by Hurricane78 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, the answer is still: No.

      I just read TFA. (Yeah, I know, shame on me. ;)

      And actually, she is just taking buckets of the water, diluting them so they contain more arsenic and less phosphorus, and adding sugar etc, to see if she finds organisms who then thrive.
      But the point is: She still found nothing at all. She’s just taking water and playing with it.

      Now of course I’m not saying that the theory isn’t true. Since we simply don’t know it yet.
      So her work is good and I’m happy she does it.

      Just... saying that there is arsenic life there... is just disingenuous. If you know what I mean.
      But I bet she did not intent to be disingenuous. Instead I bet, that the media hype machine is to blame.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    2. Re:Paper by Wolfe-Simon et al. by ascari · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The other thing that struck me about TFA is that maybe she is a bit limited in her approach: Sugars and vitamins are all fine, but just beacuse they're mostly beneficial to "actual" life doesn't mean that they are to (hypothetical) "alternate" life. Maybe she's inadvertently killing whatever stuff there is in her water buckets? She should try mixing in other stuff as well.

      Come to think of it, small humans often react "Vitamins!?! Aarrrrgh!". They do seem to tolerate sugar pretty well though.

    3. Re:Paper by Wolfe-Simon et al. by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 1

      I agree we're probably dealing with some media hype and also a scientist who's (probably justifiably) being tight lipped. What the author of the news article wants to lead us to is pretty obvious: holy shit arsenic-eating bacteria that evolved completely independently from everything else, a second genesis!!!1!!!!one!!! To which Dr. Wolfe-Simon does the double-facepalm mentioned up at the top of the comments.

      In the article, Dr. Wolfe-Simon is not saying what she's found at all. The only thing she's volunteering in the article is that “We have some very exciting data,” and that the article describes her as being pleased. TFA's not clear on what exactly she's doing. She's taken the lake water (high arsenic), performs multiple dilutions with it, and by doing so knocks phosphorus levels to ~0 and increases the arsenic levels. Ok, what's she diluting it with? An arsenic solution? Then she adds a collection of other compounds known to support other bacteria. Fine, although it should be mentioned that the vast (>99%) majority of bacteria out there we have no idea how to grow in a lab; many just die on traditionally used media. To venture a guess, I'd say she managed to culture some bacteria from this lake that can survive on very low levels of phosphorus and make up for the phosphorus deficiency by utilizing some arsenic. That'd be pretty cool if true and would garner interest from biochemists to understand how exactly it was using arsenic. Specifically getting around the instability would be a neat trick. Polyarsenates hydrolyze much faster than polyphosphates which are already pretty unstable; polyphosphates are also essential for life as we know it. It might even eventually lead to practical applications like arsenic cleanup. But we don't know until the actual research is published "by the end of this year."

  8. Amazing by blaster151 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I had just read about this possibility today in this book, a fascinating compendium of mini-essays by leading thinkers about scientific or social developments that may be around the corner. Existing tests for biological organisms are geared towards a working asssumption that life forms will be part of the basic, familiar biological tree that we are based on. A "shadow biosphere" was discussed as something that could potentially be an alternative hierarchy of life, so unfamiliar that we haven't understood how to look for it even though it could be relatively populous in certain niche areas of the earth.

    Finding an alternative pathway to the evolution of complex life forms could affect our perception of how common life is in the universe and could be a stunning treasure trove of discovery and insight for biologists.

  9. This is sheer speculation so far! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why should this merit our attention? All she does is speculate about it. I just read the paper she wrote about it in January of last year, and that was almost pure speculation too.

    Tell you what: call us back when there is something to actually show us in this area. So far there is next to nothing but somebody's wild idea.

    In the meantime, I have a theory of my own: all dinosaurs were thin at one end, much much thicker in the middle, then thin again at the other end.

    Can I get a research grant please?

    1. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by wizardforce · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why should this merit our attention?

      For the same reason archea do: a fundamentally new form of life is of interest to us scientifically. Right now it's mostly speculation but that is why experiments are being done; to test hypotheses and support or discredit speculation on the subject. It is certainly worth looking into at the least.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    2. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anne Elk beat you to it.

    3. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well okay but from the article:

      But she hopes that her research may help scientists to reconsider what alien or “weird” life might look like: “It may prove that there are other possibilities that are beyond our imagination. It opens the door for us to think about biology in ways we have never thought. We are going to look for life on other planets and we only know to look for that which we know. This may help us to develop tools to look for something we have never seen.”

      I think this is a good point because we are starting to get spectra from planets around other stars. If we find a planet with composition and other parameters similar to our own we may assume that life as we know it exists there. But life on these planets may not be as we know it, and we need to understand how it might work.

      So yeah this is speculation, but I think it is worthwhile doing now.

    4. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly,

      Quote Bill Clinton, on the speculation about life on mars (1997):
        “It speaks of the *possibility* of life. *If* this discovery is confirmed, it *will* surely be one of the most stunning insights into our Universe that science has ever uncovered. Its implications are as far-reaching and awe-inspiring as can be imagined.”

    5. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have completely missed my point (as did, no doubt, those who modded it "troll"):

      There is as yet -- even according to the recent paper she wrote -- virtually no evidence that a lifeform such as this exists. Sure, I am interested in new scientific findings. But this isn't a finding! It isn't news. It's just speculation. I submit that until there is some kind of evidence, her theory is worth just as much as the one I mentioned above. I.e., nothing.

      This article is not worthy of Slashdot. If I want to read speculations about unusual life forms, I can just go pick up a science fiction book at the local store, which in many cases will contain at least as much science as presented here.

      And I guess, in a nutshell, that is my point: We are shown no science here. And until there is some, this article was worth no more to me than the science fiction book I mentioned before. Less, in fact. Novels at least tend to be entertaining.

    6. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps it is a good point, but the very same point was made in books of fiction no less than 100 years ago. So I ask again: what merits its mention now?

      Despite the mods, my comment was not intended as trolling. There is nothing new here. This is an old idea she is re-hashing. Sure, it's (very) mildly interesting that she thinks she has an experimental way to verify the presence of something. But until there is some actual data, I'm simply not interested in rehashing such ancient ideas.

    7. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Anne Elk beat you to it.

      Yes, of course. :0) I was wondering if anyone would notice.

    8. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by tpstigers · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Jane - Here's your problem - you mistook Slashdot for a place where you can engage in intelligent conversation. This is not the case. I was similarly modded into trolldom a short while ago for having the audacity to point to the fact that there is no direct evidence of evolution (I do, however, believe in evolution, just the same). Because Slashdot is the stomping grounds of adolescents (of any age), comments that APPEAR to be trollish are immediately assumed to be so. No one actually thinks about the actual words written before they mod them. My point here is that you have chosen the wrong venue for this discussion. Nobody here wants to hear you making sense. They just want you to say something funny (and by funny, I mean something that refers to at least one body part and/or geek pop culture reference). If you actually want to have an intelligent conversation, though, you came to the wrong place.

    9. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by Group+XVII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's well informed speculation. It seems like a methodical approach to developing a research agenda, and indeed we are told actual experiments are being conducted. I don't have any reason to doubt that. Probably more that a few people will find the topic fascinating. I'm sympathetic to your objection but it might be overstated.

    10. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by deander2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      developing a methodology to search for something is usually considered publishable research in and of itself. (if said methodology is genuinely unique) the results (be they positive or negative) are often presented in a follow-up paper.

    11. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Her experiments are not yet over but she is quietly pleased with the progress she is making. 'We have some very exciting data,' she says. The results should be published by the end of this year."

      It's not science fiction speculation, it's real life speculation being experimentally tested which does merit attention and should count as 'science here'.

    12. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

      I have a theory of my own: all dinosaurs were thin at one end, much much thicker in the middle, then thin again at the other end.

      Middle age will do that to ya
           

    13. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by Lije+Baley · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not worthy of Slashdot? ROFL. You must be have been asleep for the last 10 years.

      --
      Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
    14. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The rock in question and others like it are indeed producing some really curious and stunning science. "Proof"? No, not yet.

    15. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by Toonol · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I was similarly modded into trolldom a short while ago for having the audacity to point to the fact that there is no direct evidence of evolution (I do, however, believe in evolution, just the same).

      You're now causing Jane to question herself. I think people that find you agreeing with them probably do that a lot.

    16. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You a) never worked in a scientific field and b) have no clue where scientific breakthroughs come from. Here's a clue: every single scientific breakthrough started in the same way: this is strange... I wonder if.... The big "proofs", the big shiny toys, the Nobel prizes are all the culmination of a long process that started with someone, somewhere going down a road that is based on sheer speculation. Many fail, a few succeed, but it all starts the same.

      Yes, this is early. Yes, this is largely speculation. However, she does have a protocol, experiments that can produce data that can support her theory and a place where to start.

      I'm glad science isn't done by bores like you, because we'd never get anything new.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    17. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      I was similarly modded into trolldom a short while ago for having the audacity to point to the fact that there is no direct evidence of evolution (I do, however, believe in evolution, just the same).

      It couldn't possibly have been that you were merely ignorant, right? I mean, any questioning of your superior intellect and knowledge has to come from rubes who don't have a clue.

      Wow, I wish I could be such a narcissist.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    18. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by tsa · · Score: 0

      I guess in the early 20th century a lot of people said the same about this weird thing called quantum physics that some people suddenly came up with.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    19. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by kevinadi · · Score: 1

      What's new in this is the possibility of a life form to live in a highly poisonous condition, and breathe poison like us breathe air. This is very exciting indeed if she got some preliminary data (which she said she does) and publish it. Science fiction authors, on the other hand, do not bother to perform experiments and write papers. They just speculate. She is doing something with that speculation, with methods that are responsible and repeatable.

      We have science and progress because of speculations like this. You can't expect every research to succeed, because if you worked in a research area, you know that is not the case. 90% of research simply fails, but the 10% that do succeed add many things to our knowledge (but then again, I just pulled that number out from my own experience, so YMMV).

      Every time you read a scientific experiment that may seem useless, remember that in the 19th century, people thought that "all things worth inventing are invented already". Please do not fall into that mindset, because if that mindset takes hold, we'll be in the 19th century forever.

    20. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by kevinadi · · Score: 1

      That is very true, as a new methodology if tested workable, can pave the way for future research in itself.

      Another reason to split the methodology/result in two papers is that usually (in my area) a paper is very limited in page count, so you usually have no space to present a method, prove that it's workable, present result, and analyze the result. You can either do two papers with decent explanations, or one paper that is unreadable and makes no sense because everything is horribly compressed. People usually opt for the first choice :)

      Or, you can opt for a journal which usually has a pretty liberal page count, but the burden of proving everything in one go is a daunting task that's best left in two publications.

    21. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which translates to 'please fund my study'.

    22. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I said nothing against her science. I mentioned myself that she seemed to have a protocol. So what's your point? I would like to see the results (positive or negative) of her research, too. But like a number of others here, you have missed the point. Here idea is anything but new. It is ancient. What I want to read about is something new.

      Okay, so she has a protocol. Let's call that something new (it may be). So then why isn't the article about the protocol -- the new thing -- rather than about the old tired idea of life based on different chemistry?

      My point was that so far, there is nothing new to see here, folks. Move along now.

    23. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      And by that I mean, I am the one who is bored. I knew of the possibility of life based on different chemistry when I was 10 years old. I am quite a bit older than that now. So show me something new already. Until you do, YOU are being boring.

    24. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      No, that's not new at all. Obviously you are not a fan of science fiction. The idea (and I mean the idea that it could be reality) of life based on different chemistry has been hashed around for many decades. Arsenic instead of phosphorus, silicon instead of carbon, liquid methane instead of water, you name it. It's been done. As an idea, that is.

      That is my whole point here, which so many have seemed to have missed. This is NOT new. I come to Slashdot to learn about NEW things. I eagerly await the results of this research, but until there is any, this is just a very old story.

      I read a paper she authored about a year ago on this subject, and most of the paper was speculation, too. I kind of wondered about the point of the paper, because the experimental data only obliquely even affected the point she was trying to make. The paper itself was as speculative as TFA.

      Show me the results of the science. Until then, there is nothing new here and I rather object to it being presented as though it were.

    25. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      It happens to me fairly regularly... especially when I point out the literal facts as opposed to the popular view. And most especially when I do not stress beforehand that I am about to do so. For some reason, some people seem to take that personally.

      But you know what? It's kind of fun to kick up a little bit of debae and try to get people to think a bit for themselves now and then, even at the risk of a few Karma points.

    26. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally 100% agree with you.

    27. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by ozbird · · Score: 1

      For the same reason archea do: a fundamentally new form of life is of interest to us scientifically.

      Archaea, by definition, are a fundamentally old form of life that has done very nicely for a few billion years.

      Humans are ignorant; film at 11.

    28. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by migla · · Score: 1

      Well, your theory is plagiarism! That's a Monty Python sketch. ... google google... seems the sketch I'm thinking of was about brontosaur... ii(?).

      So, you posit that the theory on the brontosaurus could be generalized to all dinosaurs?

      Interesting development...

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    29. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Is this Sci-Fi-Same-as-Reality troll a new kind of Slashdot lifeform or has it existed for Eons beneath my notice?

    30. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by drinkypoo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You have completely missed my point (as did, no doubt, those who modded it "troll"):

      The point is that it's not news. It's filler. Now it has been reported on slashdot where it can serve as a point for discussion and provide some entertainment, which is why it's at least worthy filler. And since troll apparently covers a lot of ground here... Anyway, science is alluded to. And we're talking about a paper['s web site], not a journal.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    31. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by tpstigers · · Score: 0

      It couldn't possibly have been that you were merely ignorant, right? I mean, any questioning of your superior intellect and knowledge has to come from rubes who don't have a clue.

      Wow. What an original thought. Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule of posting snarky comments so that I can bask in the glory of your superior sarcastic might.

    32. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      It's be known for years that there are bacteria and archaea in Mono Lake that integrate arsenic into their biochemistry. Nothing new here, except a Johnny-cum-lately researcher looking for a bit of hype, which dumb-ass science journalists are always ready to give.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    33. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by kevinadi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you're missing the point of the article.

      It is NOT about poison-breathing animal found in science fiction. Its main point is the possibility that a SECOND BIOSPHERE, one that we are unfamiliar with and thus undiscovered, may exist on earth. IF we can detect the existence of the second biosphere, we have a greater chance of finding alien life, simply because all life-detection techniques that are being used today rely on the premise that ALL LIFE is oxygen-breathing, carbon-based like us.

      The impact of these speculations are tremendous. If a second biosphere exists, then a third may also exist, etc. This paper paves the way for us to seriously rethink our definition of life itself, and how to detect it. I think this is very exciting news, and most definitely newsworthy.

    34. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by laddiebuck · · Score: 1

      And what of it? All he was saying is that it's not news-worthy until there are results. Then we'll get tremendously excited about them. Right now it's her business, and that of anyone else she can get enthusiastic about it, to actually do some science. Once there's a result it becomes the business of other scientists and reporters and laypeople to get interested.

    35. Re:This is sheer speculation so far! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Archaea, by definition, are a fundamentally old form of life that has done very nicely for a few billion years.

      I think that you'll find that the Archaea are, by definition, a group of prokaryotes that have certain specific wall structures, biochemical oddities, and environmental preferences. Things that can be readily measured. "old" is not something that can be readily measured (unless you've got a time machine with a built in Automatic Paradox Resolution Wombat).
      It is proposed (though by no means universally accepted, even amongst biochemists and evolutionary scientists) that the Archaea are possibly the closest extant organisms to the first lifeforms. It is also proposed (and equally not universally accepted) that they're the only organisms that survived a Hadean (time period) major impact that killed off all the other lineages of organisms at that (unspecified) time, which explains their unusual set of environmental preferences and biochemical peculiarities. It is thirdly proposed (same caveat) that they're extremely deviant descendants of the organisms that generated the first eukaryotes (IIRC, this is on the basis of wall chemistry, their DNA processing machinery, and some peculiarities of the cytoskeletons).
      Carl Woese was careful when he first started to publish his "Tree of Life" work to indicate that ALL of Archaea, Eukaryotes and Eubacteria diverge in different directions from the "root" (mathematical sense) of the Tree of Life. And the designation of the Archaea predates Woese's work.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  10. I hate when that happens by SEWilco · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't you hate when someone forks a project and then forgets about it, leaving an odd little version buried in an obscure corner?

    1. Re:I hate when that happens by rockNme2349 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, as geobiologists it only seemed natural to host their projects on geocities.

      --
      Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."
    2. Re:I hate when that happens by alexandre_ganso · · Score: 1

      Only in slashdot you see news that some a new lifeform "FORKS"

  11. Sounds like they're making beer from the water... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really sounds like they're home brewing from the lake water. Yummy.

  12. Forked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did they change the license on carbon-based life forms a couple billion years ago?

    1. Re:Forked? by JWSmythe · · Score: 3, Funny

          Damned open source projects. They didn't like the carbon license, so they made their own.

          Next thing they'll be telling us, humans are a fork of monkeys.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    2. Re:Forked? by LamboAlpha · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, there was no issue with the carbon license. It was a tax issue, the carbon tax.

  13. A bit of a stretch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    There's zero evidence it's pure speculation. Also there's nothing saying a traditional life form can't adapt to arsenic. Unless it has a radically different biology it's likely just adapted to the environment. Other lifeforms here have adapted to use toxic agents. Silicone based life would be alien but simply using arsenic doesn't mean alien. One massive problem is the age of the lake. It would have had to have evolved in relatively recent times. It's kind of the Loch Ness Monster problem, it's just not that old. If it lacks DNA or has some other form than a double helix then they may have something but if it has traditional DNA odds are it's a local boy and just adapted.

    1. Re:A bit of a stretch by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      there's nothing saying a traditional life form can't adapt to arsenic.

      Thats true. The article points out that early life may have had the flexibility to adapt to wildly different environments.

      Silicone based life

      I know: women with breast implants!

      It would have had to have evolved in relatively recent times.

      Maybe it came out of a volcano?

      Volcanic activity persisted past 5 million years BP east of the current park borders in the Mono Lake and Long Valley areas.

      Yeah its speculation, but interesting all the same.

    2. Re:A bit of a stretch by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just FYI, Mono Lake lies in an area that's still quite volcanically active, with many hot springs and fumaroles including a couple that can be seen right from U.S. Route 395, the main highway that runs through the region. In fact, the Long Valley area you mentioned is the caldera of a potential super volcano.

      The whole area is also very beautiful in an almost other-worldly way. It looks sort of like one of the better Star Trek (TOS) sets.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
  14. Are we talking BSD ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Goes and hide under a unixified rock now ...

    1. Re:Are we talking BSD ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Goes and hide under a unixified rock now ...

      unfunny

  15. I'll wait for the paper by esocid · · Score: 1

    I'll wait to read the paper to see what the findings are, but I'm not casting a doubt that it's a possibility that life could incorporate arsenic or phosphorus. There are bacteria out there that reduce nitrogen and sulfur for energy, Life is pretty resilient when it comes down to it, and will find a way to exist.

    --
    Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
  16. Re:Shameless sensationalism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your slashdot.

    Says the guy with a uid above 1.4m.

  17. Word up! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Arsenic? Mono? Shadow? Fork? Somebody has a sick sense of humor.
     

    1. Re:Word up! by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      <offtopic>
      I try to avoid commenting on sigs, but shouldn't that be "gigue-ling"?
      </offtopic>

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    2. Re:Word up! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      perhaps :-) but that may exceed the obscurity threshold of most readers.

  18. Lol, arsenic genesis by Hojima · · Score: 5, Funny

    God: let there be man!
    Secretary: god, R&D's on the other line, they're saying they made a new breakthrough.
    God: what kind of breakthrough?
    Secretary: apparently, phosphorus is better than arsenic and it's less polluting. They're saying that the efficiency of ATP alone is worth the transition.
    God: medamnit, why didn't they get this to me sooner, I just finished breathing life into this guy. Now what am I supposed to do with poor Adamus?
    Secretary: well, our lawyers did some digging and found that the name infringes on some obscure company that caught wind of the project and are already demanding royalties. That, and the EPA is starting to regulate arsenic more vigorously.
    God: *sigh* time to make some cutbacks *pumps shotgun*

    1. Re:Lol, arsenic genesis by jesset77 · · Score: 1

      Nuuuuuuuuuuu!

      It's a trap, Felisa Wolfe-Simon just wants to sell you Head and Shoulders!

      --
      People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.
    2. Re:Lol, arsenic genesis by rahunzi · · Score: 1

      jeez, I swam in Mono once - sure felt creepy - not only the tiny shrimp, now this!

      --
      ...that's the beauty of time travel...bye
  19. Surprised by Neuticle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is Arsenic in a lake, in California, that might support a unique form of life.

    To me, the most surprising thing is that California has not already declared it a disaster zone and spent $45 million trying to "clean" it up.

    --
    "Cheeze it!" - Bender
    1. Re:Surprised by Belial6 · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, here in California, we are smart enough to recognize that the Arsenic in the lake is naturally occurring, and is therefor healthy. No doubt one of our enterprising vegans will be bottling it and selling it with a big 'organic' label strung across the front.

    2. Re:Surprised by adonoman · · Score: 1

      Yea, I hate those Easterners who package up that synthetic arsenic and try and pass is off as "natural". Meat-loving jerks.

    3. Re:Surprised by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      No doubt one of our enterprising vegans will be bottling it and selling it with a big 'organic' label strung across the front.

      Oh, that would be hi-larious. Any of you guys live near Mono Lake? Do it. Dooo eeeeet!

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  20. Jealous much, bitch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MEOOOWW, HISS!!!!

    1. Re:Jealous much, bitch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I hope you realize that technically a bitch is a female dog, therefore your onomatopoeiae do not fit the metaphor.

  21. Re:Shameless sensationalism? by logjon · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I meant to check the anonymous box so I could pretend to be a surly neckbearded oldfag. Also, how did I get modded redundant?

    --
    The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
    Only fools would take it as fact.
  22. Exciting by tsa · · Score: 1

    That would be the coolest thing biologists ever discovered. Way cooler than the Sulfur-based life forms in the deep sea.

    --

    -- Cheers!

  23. Yeah but she's calling the ball by tjstork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    She's being a scientist of the most famous type - she's calling the play before hand. She's putting her reputation on the line, making a prediction, describing a means to test it, and then going to check it herself. She's arguing in the oldest of sense that her insight is right, and in doing so if she gets the job done and is actually right, she's going to be pretty darned famous.

    This is far removed from a scientist making a droll statement based on a computer model. She's saying, there is another radically different kind of life on earth and that she is going to show us how to find it. It's worlds beyond cool. She's trying to be like Babe Ruth calling the home run before he does it, and the world just loves that sort of a thing. In a world where people live around the edges and fritter away at them, she's trying to kick open an entirely door. She gets it, and in a very intuitive and natural way, what a scientist is supposed to be - a leader, because their education gives them intuition born out by test, that shows us how to see new things. Life in a dead lake, alien to our own, how much more of a prediction do you need?

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Yeah but she's calling the ball by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      You have made the only point so far that (IMO) is worth any points. Okay, she had the ovaries to make a judgment call, and she is staking reputation on it. Good point. And if I were a betting person, I would give her just about 50-50 odds. Personally, I hope she does finding something. But until she does, I am going to snore through articles like this one.

  24. So much for the building blocks of life... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    And we expect life on other planets to require oxygen, water, and carbon... when we don’t even know what life is here on earth...

    According to Wikipedia, there are titan breathers, and even uranium breathers, who thrive in hot sulfuric acid.

    So I fear that we will not even look at where we would find the first life. Or dismiss it as impossible to live.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    1. Re:So much for the building blocks of life... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      According to Wikipedia, there are titan breathers, and even uranium breathers, who thrive in hot sulfuric acid.

      Citation please. So I can go and drag that article, kicking and screaming, (back) into some sort of contact with reality.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  25. Shadow blogosphere? by carcosa30 · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who reads "blogosphere" every time he sees biosphere?

    Are there arsenic-based bloggers out there talking about politics and trading arsenic-based biscotti recipes?

    --
    Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
    1. Re:Shadow blogosphere? by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one who reads "blogosphere" every time he sees biosphere?

      Sadly, no. I was expecting the article to be a conspiracy theory on some sort of blogosphere cabal that's been plotting to do something with arsenic.

  26. So much potential, what is going on? by w0mprat · · Score: 1

    "ARSEnic based life form" has so much potential for /. humour,where is it?

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
  27. Re:How did I get modded ? by conureman · · Score: 1

    You must be new here.

    --
    The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
  28. Mono is poisonous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... but you can live there with a proper M$ license.

    (do we really want to live there?)

  29. Si, Li, S, P, As, and Se. by jonadab · · Score: 1

    Yeah, the basic building blocks of so-called "heavy life" are Silicon, Lithium, Sulfur, Phosphorus, Arsenic, and Selenium. Everything is one row further down the table. So they use Si6Li12S6 as their primary fuel, breathe in S2, drink lithium sulfide, and exhale silicon sulfide, and need Strontium for healthy bones.

    I'll leave calculating their theoretical room-temperature "comfort range" as an exercise for the aspiring sci-fi writer.

    --
    Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  30. Shadow BIOS by edbob · · Score: 2, Funny

    Did anyone else click on this thinking it was a story about a "shadow BIOS"? I thought that "California Lake" must be some sort of software company and "Arsenic" was the name of the program they developed to detect a "shadow BIOS".

  31. Re: Not worthy of Slashdot??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've gotta be kidding.

    It's described as "arsenolife" in the article.

    Based on the number of Friday night posts on this article, "arse-no-life" is most applicable to Slashdot.

  32. w00t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    posting in epic thread!

  33. They Are Made Of Meat! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    From Terry Bisson - I think this short story sums it up nicely

    http://www.terrybisson.com/page6/page6.html

    "I thought you just told me they used radio."

    "They do, but what do you think is on the radio? Meat sounds. You know how when you slap or flap meat, it makes a noise? They talk by flapping their meat at each other. They can even sing by squirting air through their meat."

    "Omigod. Singing meat. This is altogether too much. So what do you advise?"

    ----------
    You will love the ending.

  34. still carbon based life though by tfrab · · Score: 1

    arsenic can substitute phosphorous, but you still need carbon atoms in order to have long carbon chains that builds up proteins, fats, and so on.

  35. Silicon vs Carbon and other possibilities by dbet · · Score: 1

    Here's an interesting, if short, discussion on various ways life on Earth could have been structured.

  36. hugely increasing ? by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

    "Dr Wolfe-Simon has taken samples from the mud and the waters of the lake and is performing a series of multiple dilutions — hugely increasing the levels of arsenic and reducing residual phosphorous to zero." [emphasis mine]

    Shouldn't that read "greatly reducing"?

    I'm not usually a linguistic pedant, lest I find myself hoist by my own pedantetry, but reading that sentence almost made my brain segfault: wait: diluting, causing an increase in something, toward zero? Arghhhh!

    --
    In Liberty, Rene
  37. MONO + Arsenic = .NET hit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought people on ./ were supposed to be bashing Microsoft. Am I the only one to make the connection with the .NET team @ MS and the secretly dumping, under the cover of darkness, of large amounts of arsenic in MONO Lake?