Slashdot Mirror


Complex Life Found Under 600 Feet of Antarctic Ice

Chroniton writes "NASA ice scientists have found a shrimp-like creature and a possible jellyfish 'frolicking' beneath 600 feet of solid Antarctic ice, where only microbes were expected to live. The odds of finding two complex lifeforms after drilling only an 8-inch-wide hole suggests there may be much more. And if such life is possible beneath Earth's oceans, why not elsewhere, like Europa?"

47 of 237 comments (clear)

  1. Oceans too by sopssa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    60% of the Earth is filled with oceans. In some parts they go down as much as Mount Everest goes up. That means over half of our planet is still not searched. Some of the found fishes in there are really weird as well and look like aliens.

    Imagine the land amount all those oceans would free if tried up.

    1. Re:Oceans too by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sounds like an ideal place to build a secret base or lab.

      Then hold the world ransom for ONE... MILLION... DOLLARS!!!!!

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Oceans too by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Imagine the land amount all those oceans would free if dried up.

      Imagine all the land that would become uninhabitable if the oceans dried up.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    3. Re:Oceans too by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Do the fish look like aliens, or do aliens look like fish?

    4. Re:Oceans too by Arimus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Some of the found fishes in there are really weird as well and look like aliens."

      How many aliens have you seen to confirm that the fish look like them?

      --
      --- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
    5. Re:Oceans too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      In some parts they go down as much as Mount Everest goes up.

      yeah, like your girlfriend!

    6. Re:Oceans too by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 2, Funny

      One. I can verify that he looked like a fish. But he warned me of traps, so I turned back and never saw any ever again.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    7. Re:Oceans too by MrNaz · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'd provide a citation, but my source was taken away in the middle of the night by guys in a black van.

      --
      I hate printers.
    8. Re:Oceans too by pclminion · · Score: 2, Informative

      Imagine the impossibility of the oceans drying up.

      For the ocean to "dry up" the water would have to be removed from the planet. That requires two energy inputs: first, enough energy to boil all the water in all the oceans. Second, enough energy to raise the velocity of each molecule of water vapor to the escape velocity.

      I won't bother calculating the energy required to reach escape velocity, but the energy required just to boil the oceans into water vapor is around 3e27 J. Using another value I calculated earlier this morning, this is the equivalent of moving the moon's orbit outward by more than 15,000 km. Or, it would be like directing the entire energy output of the sun (not just the fraction of it which hits the Earth) into the oceans for ten seconds. It's a HUGE amount of energy.

    9. Re:Oceans too by oztiks · · Score: 2, Funny
    10. Re:Oceans too by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It will happen. The Earth will, barring some major perturbation of its orbit, become a dry, desolate world as the sun ages and expands. The water will not boil off, but will instead simply evaporate. As the water circulates to the upper atmosphere, it will be subject to reactions that break it apart into hydrogen and oxygen, and the hydrogen will simply fly off into space, too light to be held by the Earth's gravity. The oxygen will remain, but with little hydrogen to bind it, there will be less and less water over time.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    11. Re:Oceans too by FlyMysticalDJ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The water will not boil off, but will instead simply evaporate.

      Personally, I think it will neither boil off, nor evaporate. I predict it will turn into a gas.

    12. Re:Oceans too by BitZtream · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Doubtful.

      It might become uninhabitable to the existing life forms that live there, but you utterly failed to get the point of this discovery.

      Life exists in lots of places and ways that we thought weren't possible.

      Its really silly to much such an absolute statement as yours. If the oceans 'dried up' whatever that actually means then life may die out, but its more likely it would continue on in another form. Just like the life 30k under the surface of the ocean in volcanic vents, 600 feet down in ice, or high altitude lakes that would kill anything you would be able to recognize right off the start as life without a microscope.

      We know life changes, species come, evolve, and die out, but observation of the past tells us that regardless of what extreme situation happens to the planet, some life form somewhere survives and carries on to repopulate based on the new environment.

      Really, from a scientific perspective, we have as much evidence that life on earth can cease to exist as we have evidence that gravity can be turned off. We've never observed either of those situations directly, but I agree life on Earth ceasing to exist is entirely possible.

      I also think you have a lack of appreciate for life's ability to survive thanks to its diversity. We nor anything else is going to 'destroy life on Earth' at any point in time that we're going to find relevant.

      Human life or life as we know it may end, something will carry on and evolve to survive.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  2. I doubt this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    A more likely explanation is that the samples were contaminated by the instruments. If we look in the Bible there is no mention that God made this lifeform, therefore the most logical explanation is contamination.

    Sorry to burst your bubble.

  3. Europa? by madpanic · · Score: 4, Funny

    I thought we were not allowed to explore Europa?

    1. Re:Europa? by nebaz · · Score: 3, Informative

      All these worlds are yours, except Europa. Attempt no landings there.

      This year, even.

      --
      Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
  4. The real question. by mosb1000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    How does it taste?

    1. Re:The real question. by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Funny

      It tastes a lot like frozen chicken.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  5. only problem by khallow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And if such life is possible beneath Earth's oceans, why not elsewhere, like Europa?

    Because Europa is not Antarctica. We get it. Life can live in ice-covered oceans and it can even be complex. This is all idle speculation until someone actually probes Europa to see what's under there.

    1. Re:only problem by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course this is just speculation. However, this broadens the range of environments where we know that complex life, and even self sustaining ecosystems can exist. And that is the true purpose of the Drake equation. Not giving us a probability for life elsewhere, but rather defining the parameter envelope we think is able to sustain life. Every discovery of more extreme ecosystems broadens that envelope - and that is interesting in itself. Now let's get our arse to Europa and Drill, Baby, Drill!

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    2. Re:only problem by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you're going to point out that Europa is different from Antartica at least take the time to point out how it's different. Namely, the complex life in Antarctica evolved in different, more comfortable conditions. Complex life under hundreds of feet of ice on Earth says nothing about whether or not it's possible for life to begin or become complex in those conditions. It just says that once started, life is very adaptable.

    3. Re:only problem by linzeal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The question is where did life evolve first in the solar system or did it evolve somewhere else first and was transported here. If panspermia is correct and life can be transported over past the ISM between star systems it is likely any place in the galaxy that is hit by this ' stuff ' will have life.

    4. Re:only problem by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Funny

      Life can live in ice-covered oceans and it can even be complex. This is all idle speculation until someone actually probes Europa to see what's under there.

      I just had this image in my head of humans building a colony on Mars, then ET's come by and say "Whoah! This means sentient life could have evolved on barren worlds like Mars!"

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    5. Re:only problem by johncadengo · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you're going to point out that Europa is different from Antartica at least take the time to point out how it's different. Namely, the complex life in Antarctica evolved in different, more comfortable conditions. Complex life under hundreds of feet of ice on Earth says nothing about whether or not it's possible for life to begin or become complex in those conditions. It just says that once started, life is very adaptable.

      But did life really begin in such "comfortable" conditions? I don't think its too far-fetched to imagine most life beginning in even less habitable conditions than it currently thrives in.

      Natural selection seems to suggest that life must be more robust than the pressures of its environment, and that life only becomes less robust if it can afford to do so. Not the other way around.

      --
      My page.
    6. Re:only problem by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Some say that life on Earth started (and evolved) around hydrothermal vents where there is no sunlight. The get their energy through a process known as chemosynthesis. If true, life on any ocean bearing planet could become common if not expected. Going to Europa will change those odds one way or another.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  6. There is a misspelling... by Sique · · Score: 5, Informative

    The amphipod is actually a Lysianassid, not a Lyssianasid, if someone tries to google it :)

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
    1. Re:There is a misspelling... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 5, Funny

      The amphipod is actually a Lysianassid, not a Lyssianasid, if someone tries to google it :)

      You know, you'd get a lot more points in Scrabble if you'd just learn to shut your yap!

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  7. Europa is not the same by Capt.Albatross · · Score: 2, Interesting

    These creatures probably depend on free oxygen to live, which comes from plant life on the unglaciated parts of the Earth's surface. This is not an argument against the possibility of life on Europa, it is an argument against assuming that the environment under Europa's ice is as life-friendly that under Antarctica's.

    1. Re:Europa is not the same by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > These creatures probably depend on free oxygen to live, which comes from
      > plant life on the unglaciated parts of the Earth's surface.

      How did the oxygen get down there?

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  8. Life under Antarctic ice? This sounds familiar... by Tumbleweed · · Score: 3, Funny

    Get out your torches, and somebody call Kurt Russell, quick!

  9. Re:Why NASA? by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I guess they want to refine their extreme environment exploration techniques locally before they try it out somewhere out there. Weren't techniques for the moon landings rehearsed in the highland deserts of Iceland? Perfectly reasonable in my opinion.

    --
    Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  10. Plato on the moon? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We know that humans have traveled to the moon. Humans similar in biological content to the famous greek philosopher Plato. So, is it possible that Plato traveled to the Moon?

    Plato was a smart guy, but he couldn't have landed on the moon. Landing on the moon required us to adapt well enough to a very hospitable environment before we could even reach the moon's harsh landscape. I think We might discover the same is true of life. Its more likely to develop in a very hospitable environment and then over time develop the skills necissiary to thrive in harsher climates. I do think we might be able to transplant our extreme lifeforms to other planets. In the same way a lunar rover would probably do okay on the surface of mars as well.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    1. Re:Plato on the moon? by amirulbahr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you are confusing skills acquired with biological adaptations.

  11. Europa by schnitzi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >And if such life is possible beneath Earth's oceans, why not elsewhere, like Europa?

    Because saying life can survive somewhere is different than saying it can evolve somewhere.

    --



    I object to that article, and to the next reply.
  12. Geography issues? by freaker_TuC · · Score: 3, Funny

    And if such life is possible beneath Earth's oceans, why not elsewhere, like Europa?

    Yeah, we Europeans are living elsewhere but Earth. We feel more attached to our universe like that...

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  13. Re:Why NASA? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 2, Informative

    Did you read the summary? Potentially a very similar environment as Europa. You don't just fly a probe to Europa and learn how to drill a hole on the fly, you practice and rehearse beforehand. Not really a difficult to understand concept...

    --
    "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  14. Re:Why NASA? by Qzukk · · Score: 2, Funny

    An eight inch hole?

    If we fly to other planets, our probes may need to be able to accommodate any size orifice.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  15. Not likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I've looked - yes it's damn cold, but I didn't find any signs of complex life.

    (Ps: You misspelt Europe)

  16. Re:Why NASA? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration looking underneath Antartican Ice?

    Are you seriously asking why NASA would be studying life in extreme hostile environments?

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  17. Surely nuclear subs have been there? by CdBee · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I understand that Nuclear submarines have been under the North polar ice cap many times, surely someone's sent one under the Southern ice sheets by now? Obviously the continent would get in the way of going too far under but even so.....

    I wonder if the relevant governments would be willing to release confirmatory data.

    --
    I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
  18. Re:Heed HAL's warning by Nadaka · · Score: 2, Informative

    Clarke, like Asimov, was a scientist before he was a science fiction author. Hubbard was fraudulent huckster before he was a science fiction author/religious leader.

  19. Re:Why NASA? by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Why is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration looking underneath Antartican Ice?

    They're looking for the second stargate. Duh.

  20. Lots of life in the Antarctic - if you look for it by Alan+R+Light · · Score: 3, Informative

    This doesn't surprise me too much. The SCINI Project has been finding neat stuff for some time now, even while they were just testing their equipment.

    Microbes have even been found living in the ice of the polar plateau (at constant temperatures around -50C).

    And check out Anoxycalyx Joubini (Volcano Sponge), some specimens of which are thought to be 15,000 years old and still living. These are animals that make those Sequoia look like juveniles.

  21. Re:I'm just sayin... by General+Wesc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's been hotter, most likely, but we can be pretty sure that it hasn't had the same energy inputs as the Earth. Heat from the initial formation, yes (though more rapidly dissipating than it did from the much more massive Earth). Sustained, fairly consistent sunlight for billions of years? Not so much.

  22. Re:Did you mean... by ichthyoboy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Um, no....Lysianassidae is the correct term for the actual family of amphipods; lysianassid would be the correct term for a member of that family, kinda like how the name of our family is Hominidae but we are called hominids.

  23. Cthulu? by j33px0r · · Score: 2, Informative

    Great....we alerted one of his minions.

  24. Europa this, europa that. by Jazzbunny · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder why people always talk about possible life on Europa although for layman like me Ganymede seems better candidate: It's big as a planet, less radiation than Europa, molten iron core, water ocean, magnetosphere. All the good stuff and less of the bad.