Slashdot Mirror


An Animal That Lives Without Oxygen

Julie188 writes "Scientists have found the first multicellular animals that apparently live entirely without oxygen. The creatures reside deep in one of the harshest environments on earth: the Mediterranean Ocean's L'Atalante basin, which contains salt brine so dense that it doesn't mix with the oxygen-containing waters above."

166 comments

  1. Strange by Pojut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I find it odd that the article mentions absolutely NOTHING about the implications of this discovery as it pertains to life on other planets.

    1. Re:Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I find it odd that TFA is only about twice as long as the summary.

      If it is under 300 words, it's not a real article and I can admit I read it right?

    2. Re:Strange by CorporateSuit · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or how a bucket of these might taste! They live in brine, are from the sea... Imagine these on french fries and potato chips!

      --
      I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    3. Re:Strange by tiedyejeremy · · Score: 2

      Wasn't oxygenic life a relative latecomer anyway?

      --
      Anything you say will be held against you. ... "tits"
    4. Re:Strange by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I find it odd that the article mentions absolutely NOTHING about the implications of this discovery as it pertains to life on other planets.

      Maybe because terrestrial biologists aren't always thinking in terms of extra-terrestrial biology? It's just not everyone's field of study.

      Of course, the exo-biologists (and geeks here on Slashdot) will make the connection, but I'm hardly surprised TFA didn't. Me, I'm no longer surprised to hear that there are such organisms -- the longer we have known about "extremophiles" the more it makes it fairly obvious that critters adapt to all sorts of condition, and quite likely originated in them. For me, it makes it fairly obvious that in the big-honking galaxy (let alone universe) that at least *some* form of life ha evolved elsewhere.

      Now, knowing this doesn't make it any easier to look for life on other planets. It broadens the search parameters, but I don't think it gives us a tool to say "there could be life there". But, who knows, astronomy has grown quite a lot in my lifetime.

      Cheers

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Strange by Adustust · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree that this article is very lacking on details. I would like to know more about how the hydrogenosomes affect the creature's mobility and whether or not a larger animal could be sustained with these organelles.

    6. Re:Strange by Pojut · · Score: 1

      If there isn't any Old Bay on there, it's a waste of time.

      I mean, french fries without Old Bay...why don't you just cut my nuts off while you're at it? :)

    7. Re:Strange by Kirin+Fenrir · · Score: 1

      I thought oxygen wasn't actually a requirement (except when bonded to hydrogen to form water, of course.)

      --
      Caffeine is my anti-drug!

      Duranin - A NWN2 Roleplaying Persistent World
    8. Re:Strange by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We already knew of anaerobic monocellular life, so hypothetically life could arise on a planet without oxygen. The only thing this changes is that it means we could hypothetically also find multicellular life on such a planet. I don't think existing theory said such life was impossible, meaning it was already a hypothetical possibility, so now it's no longer hypothetical on earth, and somewhat less hypothetical for alien worlds.

      Which is still pretty cool. I myself previously assumed that we'd find multicellular life only on planets with oxygen from either geologic sources or as a result of microorganisms producing it. Still I'm hardly surprised that a short article on oceanic biology doesn't cover every tangentially related field of science that I'm interested in. :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    9. Re:Strange by srmalloy · · Score: 5, Informative

      There are other articles with more coverage -- Live Science, BMC Biology (PDF of 20-page article with pictures available), New Scientist, Nature, and others. The provisional PDF available at BMC Biology is the full article as it was accepted, and details the experimental procedure that confirmed that these were completely anaerobic organisms.

    10. Re:Strange by AndGodSed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also, the rule of "Pictures or it didn't happen" should apply... right?

    11. Re:Strange by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or how a bucket of these might taste! They live in brine, are from the sea... Imagine these on french fries and potato chips!

      Why were Futurama, Fry and anchovies the first things that immediately came to my mind when reading this?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    12. Re:Strange by madsenj37 · · Score: 1

      Although it might seem strange, these are not the first organisms on earth currently living that do not breath oxygen. The implications for life on other planets have already been discussed based on that fact. They live in extreme climates without light and seem to exist off of the rocks they live on. There is also anaerobic bacteria. However, the articles mentions the first multi-cellular organisms that do not require oxygen on earth. There are implications however, they are a different set.

      --
      Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.
    13. Re:Strange by Enderandrew · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Aerobic life was fairly early in the phylogenic tree. It isn't uncommon to find anerobic life even today, it is uncommon to find multicellular anaerobic life.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    14. Re:Strange by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Although it might seem strange, these are not the first organisms on earth currently living that do not breath oxygen.

      No one is claiming they are.

    15. Re:Strange by theguyfromsaturn · · Score: 4, Informative

      This probably does not answer your questions, but it covers a bit more details than the original post. Also, if you click on the title, you will link to the source article.

      http://thedragonstales.blogspot.com/2010/04/anaerobic-metazoans.html

      --
      I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
    16. Re:Strange by publiclurker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Great, now I can't read this article without doing it in Zoidberg's voice.

    17. Re:Strange by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      I find it odd that the article mentions absolutely NOTHING about the implications of this discovery as it pertains to life on other planets.

      That's because there are no practical implications about the discovery of life on other planets. Life on a very diverse world found time to comfortably evolve into a hostile environment. That doesn't at all mean that, for example, the moon could have life.

      Frankly, until we actually discover some life elsewhere, the possibilities of what we'll find are wide open. Invent a creature and it could exist somewhere simply because we don't know otherwise. We may even find that nine times out of ten a species won't reach the age of space travel without being nearly identical to a human in shape. Maybe 4-armed aliens always go to war and wipe each other out before they get into space. We don't know so what we find here doesn't help us that much when trying to work out a percentage of habitable planets in our galaxy.

      --

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

    18. Re:Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although it might seem strange, these are not the first organisms on earth currently living that do not breath oxygen.

      Although it might seem strange, you are not the first poster on slashdot that does not spell "breathe" correctly.

    19. Re:Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or popplers.

    20. Re:Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because real science doesn't make wild speculations. Real science is boring--though not neccessarily to the scientists that perform it. Scientists leave the fun stuff to the bloggers and the rest of the media.

    21. Re:Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > the longer we have known about "extremophiles" the more it makes it fairly obvious that critters adapt to all sorts of condition, and quite likely originated in them.

      Actually, it's more like critters originate in the most hospitable conditions around. The extremophiles just show us that once life exists, it's very good at adapting and growing into harsher regions.

    22. Re:Strange by toriver · · Score: 1

      "MORE! I WANT MORE!"

    23. Re:Strange by maxume · · Score: 1

      That's sort of a bad way to frame it; mostly, for a long time after life arose there wasn't any free oxygen.

      Once there was free oxygen, it didn't take life very long to start using it.

      So it was more of a come-after than it was a latecomer.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    24. Re:Strange by Jello+B. · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ha ha ha, the phrase "french fries" was at one point replaced with the phrase "freedom fries" and you referenced this in your comment. Your wit astounds me.

    25. Re:Strange by Shinmizu · · Score: 1

      The explanation's pretty simple: the Mediterranean is only on Earth, so it would be pretty silly to look for Mediterranean-dwelling sea creatures on any other planet, wouldn't it?

    26. Re:Strange by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Yup, O2 life is the gray goo run amok!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    27. Re:Strange by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      There is a picture. RTFA.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    28. Re:Strange by noidentity · · Score: 3, Funny

      Of course, the exo-biologists (and geeks here on Slashdot) will make the connection, but I'm hardly surprised TFA didn't. Me, I'm no longer surprised to hear that there are such organisms -- the longer we have known about "extremophiles" the more it makes it fairly obvious that critters adapt to all sorts of condition, and quite likely originated in them.

      Yes, I've learned about a life form that can live without sunlight, members of the opposite sex, and surive entirely on pizza and soda pop. There's even a website devoted to this life form, but I forget the name right now.

    29. Re:Strange by dov_0 · · Score: 1

      I find it odd that it doesn't mention this 'discovery' being over ten years old either!

      --
      sudo mount --milk --sugar /cup/tea /mouth /etc/init.d/relax start
    30. Re:Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. They've been looking for life with the same old parameters. Must have oxygen in the atmosphere. Plan must possess liquid water. Now, finally, maybe this will have them actually think outside of the box for a change. You'd think NASA would already know how to do that.

    31. Re:Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha ha, the phrase "french fries" was at one point replaced with the phrase "freedom fries" and you referenced this in your comment. Your wit astounds me.

      And you felt the need to write out the punchline why? Because the only good troll is a successful troll.

    32. Re:Strange by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's more like critters originate in the most hospitable conditions around. The extremophiles just show us that once life exists, it's very good at adapting and growing into harsher regions.

      Yeah, but "most hospitable around" can change over time, and "hospitable to what" is the key question.

      I don't know that we conclusively know if life first emerged in the happy-fun conditions we think of on planet Earth now, or the Long Time Ago when life was first forming and conditions were entirely different.

      From TFA:

      The find could help scientists understand what life might have looked like in the earth's early oceans, which also had very little oxygen.

      For all we know, it developed in the harsher regions, and moved on from there once that happened.

      Cheers

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    33. Re:Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who knows.. they live in such salty places these things might just be LIVING Old Bay

    34. Re:Strange by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Yes, I've learned about a life form that can live without sunlight, members of the opposite sex, and surive entirely on pizza and soda pop.

      Girl geeks don't survive entirely on pizza and soda pop, they like chocolate as well.

      Oh, wait, you meant ...

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    35. Re:Strange by Sulphur · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Global oxygenation killed it.

    36. Re:Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sheeeit, that article ain't nothin', I go without oxygen for an hour at a time tonguein' Maybells stinkin' love button. That beotch need ta scrub her monkey, but that's the only way I can get my pole in her hole.

    37. Re:Strange by CrashandDie · · Score: 1

      Aerobic life was fairly early in the phylogenic tree.

      So that's how you call those stupid shows at 6AM.

    38. Re:Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh, yes! I remember, "Freedom Fries" - a term coined by people like Rush Limbaugh.

    39. Re:Strange by reverseengineer · · Score: 1, Informative

      These creatures apparently are essentially immobile, attaching firmly to marine sediments. This applies to their aerobic relatives as well, so it seems that lack of motility likely has little to do with their anerobic respiration. A more active organism would probably struggle to survive using hydrogenosomes, however since the hydrogenosome reaction only makes ATP for energy via substrate-level phosphorylation. In aerobic respiration, most of the ATP ultimately produced is from oxidative phosphorylation, where a series of reduction-oxidation reactions are used to create a proton gradient that powers an ATP synthase to make ATP. For all known aerobic eukaryotes, this process uses diatomic oxygen as the final electron acceptor.

      There are (single-celled) prokaryotes that use alternatives- nitrates, sulfates, iron ions, etc., but it would appear that this organism has not adopted anything of the sort. That would have required many fundamental changes in its biochemistry, whereas a hydrogenosome seems to be an adaptation from a mitochondrion (and specifically, an adaptation largely by subtraction, where most of the sophisticated electron carriers of a mitochondrion are absent)

      The hydrogenosome basically gives this organism a pathway to convert one molecule of pyruvate to acetate and produce 1 molecule of ATP. Combined with the net of 2 ATP from susbtrate-level phosphorylation in glycolysis, that would suggest the creature can make 3 ATP per molecule of glucose. Depending on specifics, aerobic eukaryotes can produce 36-38 ATP per molecule of glucose. So an animal relying on hydrogenosomes instead of mitochondria could very roughly be expected to subsist on about 1/12 the energy for the same amount of food.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    40. Re:Strange by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      Well, it may also be a but premature to lay claim that it doesn't use/require Oxygen too. The article is too short to know for sure. After some study, it might be so, but just because of the environment wouldn't necessarily mean it wouldn't need oxygen. There could be a number of process inside the animal that could generate Oxygen from the chemicals in the brine within it's living environment much like Photosynthesis does in plants. If the creature is really efficient, he would only convert what it needs hiding that aspect until further study could discover it.

    41. Re:Strange by Power_Pentode · · Score: 1

      Or how a bucket of these might taste! They live in brine, are from the sea... Imagine these on french fries and potato chips!

      Why were Futurama, Fry and anchovies the first things that immediately came to my mind when reading this?

      Why were Futurama, Leela and Poppers(TM) the first things that immediately came to my mind when reading this? Better not try them -- Lrrr might be hanging around this star system.

    42. Re:Strange by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1

      That should be "Popplers".

    43. Re:Strange by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Yes, I've learned about a life form that can live without sunlight, members of the opposite sex, and surive entirely on pizza and soda pop. There's even a website devoted to this life form, but I forget the name right now.

      http://chubby-gay-goth.com?

    44. Re:Strange by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      Also, the rule of "Pictures or it didn't happen" should apply... right?

      Right.

      http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/assets/2010/04/07/sn-anoxic.jpg

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    45. Re:Strange by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is a link to the PDF of the whole article if you click on the word "published" in the mini-article.

    46. Re:Strange by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      Where is "gibberish" mod when you need it?

    47. Re:Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean "Angry Norwegian" brand anchovies.

    48. Re:Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evolution in original conditions or adaption to those conditions are very different things. Your obvious answer may not be so obvious.

    49. Re:Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because they aren't fucking nerds.

    50. Re:Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strange?
      That'd probably result in an ecological fallacy.

    51. Re:Strange by mpe · · Score: 1

      We already knew of anaerobic monocellular life, so hypothetically life could arise on a planet without oxygen.

      Including Earth a long time ago, before there were organisms producing free oxygen through photosynthesis.

      The only thing this changes is that it means we could hypothetically also find multicellular life on such a planet.

      Quite possibly multicellular anerobic organisms have been around for a long time.

    52. Re:Strange by reverseengineer · · Score: 1

      All right, I may have gone a little overboard with the jargon there. All I was trying to say is that by using hydrogenosomes rather than mitochondria, this organism misses out on a lot of the available chemical energy in its food. In most enviroments on earth, a multicellular organism that tried to live like this would be strongly outcompeted by its oxygen-gulping rivals. However, living attached to anoxic sediments at the seafloor, this organism has little need for mobility, food is abundant from things dying above (the journal article uses the charming term "rain of cadavers"), and anything that competes with it must also cope with the lack of oxygen.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    53. Re:Strange by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      Global oxygenation killed it.

      Damn oxygen, destroying the environment like that.

    54. Re:Strange by Ignatius+D'Lusional · · Score: 1

      Funny, I was thinking about Futurama as well, but the Popplers episode instead.

  2. Or its just holding its breath... by thbigr · · Score: 1

    Sorry, couldn't help me self.

    --
    Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
    1. Re:Or its just holding its breath... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Has been holding its breath for hundreds of generations now...

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Or its just holding its breath... by thbigr · · Score: 1

      Father: "Now son, we have a long tradition of holding our breaths."
      Son: "But father I want to know what breathing is really like"...

      I need to work on some other jokes.

      --
      Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
  3. Not new by beakerMeep · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    CmdrTaco replaced oxygen with tacos years ago.

    --
    meep
  4. so thats what is fixing the mars rovers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so thats what is fixing the mars rovers?

  5. Far more impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Since these animals live underwater, this means they must also have found water without oxygen!

  6. There is no Mediterranean Ocean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is no Mediterranean Ocean. There is however a Mediterranean Sea.

    1. Re:There is no Mediterranean Ocean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while you are it, can you point out the difference between a ocean and a sea?

    2. Re:There is no Mediterranean Ocean by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      Thar Be Dragons in Oceans

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    3. Re:There is no Mediterranean Ocean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      And I believe you're not allowed to have more than seven seas.

    4. Re:There is no Mediterranean Ocean by toriver · · Score: 1

      If you want to be formal. Some languages however use their word for "ocean" when talking about the Mediterranean: Norwegian and Swedish for instance. Same goes for the Caspian Sea.

      Then again we have lakes that we call fjords, and vice versa.

    5. Re:There is no Mediterranean Ocean by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      There are seven seas but only 1,3, 4, or 5 oceans.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    6. Re:There is no Mediterranean Ocean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to be formal. Some languages however use their word for "ocean" when talking about the Mediterranean: Norwegian and Swedish for instance. Same goes for the Caspian Sea.

      Then again we have lakes that we call fjords, and vice versa.

      What does this have to do with the wrong usage of the word ocean in this enlgish language article?

    7. Re:There is no Mediterranean Ocean by toriver · · Score: 1

      Did you get a burr under your saddle, mis-spelling AC?

    8. Re:There is no Mediterranean Ocean by oldhack · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh the Mediterranean Ocean, where the Jumbo Shrimps frolic happily.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    9. Re:There is no Mediterranean Ocean by ari_j · · Score: 1

      There are also Lakes which are not lakes, such as Lake Maracaibo, a bay. We also have the Aral Sea, a lake. The point is that there are proper nouns that are the correct names for bodies of water, and in English the name of the body of water known to the Romans as mare nostrum is the Mediterranean Sea. Translations from other languages in which it is known as something equivalent to "middle of the Earth ocean" should use the correct English name for the body. If they do not, then they are mistranslations.

    10. Re:There is no Mediterranean Ocean by khallow · · Score: 1

      It used to be an ocean.

    11. Re:There is no Mediterranean Ocean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually 7 Seas/Oceans:
      1) North Atlantic;
      2) South Atlantic;
      3) North Pacific;
      4) South Pacific;
      5) Arctic;
      6) Antarctic; and
      7) Indian

      They are sometimes called the Seven Seas, Sometimes Seven Oceans (Depending on which part of the world you're sailing...).

    12. Re:There is no Mediterranean Ocean by idji · · Score: 2, Informative

      A sea is effectively landlocked and hence has no real tides or surfing waves. Of course, things like "Sargasso Sea" don't fit. Oceans are not landlocked - they have 1000's of kilometers of "borders" to other oceans. You could even say "An ocean touches Antarctica, a sea does not". If you like the concept of "Arctic Ocean" then say "An Ocean reaches to a Pole". Or an ocean has an average depth of more than 3000m.

    13. Re:There is no Mediterranean Ocean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but beeing wrong for a long time doesn't make you right.
      Or, at least, it shouldn't.

  7. Unsurprising by thepike · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Given that there are plenty of bacteria that can do this (including those that find oxygen toxic) it's not surprising that multicellular creatures have evolved to take advantage of low oxygen environments. There are probably numerous, people just haven't been looking hard enough. Plus, when you store your samples in places with air, you get serious sampling bias for things that like air.

    1. Re:Unsurprising by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This has interesting implications for biosphere models during and before the Oxygen Catastrophe of the Siderian period. It also reveals an alternative evolutionary path which with these exceptions was otherwise prevented by those events. It fundamentally changes the possibilities of pre-Siderian life.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    2. Re:Unsurprising by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

      Given that there are plenty of bacteria that can do this (including those that find oxygen toxic) it's not surprising that multicellular creatures have evolved to take advantage of low oxygen environments.

      Do you mean that some multicellular aerobic organisms evolved into multicellular anaerobes, or that some monocellular anaerobes evolved into multicellular anaerobes? The article seems to suggest the latter, with the no-mitochondria claim.

    3. Re:Unsurprising by geekoid · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you're a genius. What other great an unfounded obvious things are there?

      Stop trying to imply your smart, it only backfires.

      "Plus, when you store your samples in places with air, you get serious sampling bias for things that like air."
      You don't say?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop trying to imply your smart, it only backfires.

      ...

    5. Re:Unsurprising by hallucinogen · · Score: 2, Informative

      The thing is that multicellular organisms require a lot more energy than unicellular organisms and for that there's the citric acid cycle. However there's no citric acid cycle without oxygen. This is the reason we haven't found any multicellular anoxiphiles (?) so far. I think. BTW there's a horrible mistake on the second sentence of the original article and they say it went thru peer-review. WTF! Hint: google "anoxia tolerance"

    6. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop trying to imply your [sic] smart, it only backfires.

      I see you've learned from experience.

    7. Re:Unsurprising by hrimhari · · Score: 1

      Jealous, are we?

      --
      http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
    8. Re:Unsurprising by Lunar_Lamp · · Score: 2, Informative
      The second sentence is:

      "Although a few metazoans can survive temporarily in the absence of oxygen, it is believed that multi-cellular organisms cannot spend their entire life cycle without free oxygen."

      I did Google for a bit, and couldn't find anything to disagree with this, except the word 'temporarily'. While I'm not particularly familiar with anoxia tolerance, my quick searching suggests that certain species of turtle can have up to 3months without oxygen in cold water. There may be others out there, but this is the largest number I found. This is clearly a temporary phase in the life cycle of the organism. Are you trying to argue that they are implying that this is more than merely 'temporary' but a major chunk of the life cycle? Personally, were I reviewing the paper, I'd not have had a problem with allowing that phrase to be used (with the caveat that there is no information that I am not privy to currently, and there is no controversy in this area currently).

    9. Re:Unsurprising by losfromla · · Score: 0, Troll

      That's two postings (that have been pointed out) with bad spelling from a Dad In Portland, maybe the kids got on his computer? Kids? Stop posting on Daddy's forum, you're making him look bad.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    10. Re:Unsurprising by hallucinogen · · Score: 1

      Saying "a few animals can survive temporarily in the absence of oxygen" is sort of like saying "a few animals can swim" or "a few animals eat meat". There are countless animals that survive temporarily in anoxic environments. For example a vast number of insects begin their life in the oxygen depleted (often anoxic) environments of lake sediments.

    11. Re:Unsurprising by reverseengineer · · Score: 1

      It actually points to the former- a multicellular aerobe adapting to an anoxic niche. The particular evidence is in its use of hydrogenosomes. Hydrogenosomes are believed to be a degenerate form of the aerobic mitochondrion. They have the same double membrane structure, import pyruvate from glycolysis, and include various other components like coenzyme A and ferredoxin. They however lack most of the electron carriers and enzymes of the citric acid cycle and oxidative phosphorylation. The metazoans discovered are known to have close obligate aerobe relatives; it is likely that having hydrogenosomes- broken mitochondria- allowed this species to exploit hypoxic and eventually anoxic conditions, at the expense of reduced energy production.

      Contrast the alternative scenario- descent from unicellular anaerobic eukaryotes. Those organisms primarily look to forms of fermentation to provide energy from pyruvate- and it would be about the same energy this thing gets from breaking down pyruvate via the reduction of protons in a far more complicated process. Given the evidence, it seems more likely that this organism descends from multicellular aerobic organisms.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
  8. Been there...done that! by bogaboga · · Score: 1

    Anaerobic respiration does precisely that and has been doing so for generations.

    1. Re:Been there...done that! by milgram · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think this might be more in line with an organism that doesn't use O2, rather than one that does but can exist for periods of time without it.

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

    2. Re:Been there...done that! by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're ignoring the huge, huge chasm between unicellular and multicellular organisms, one which was not bridged by evolutionary processes for over 3 billion years by most estimates. It was previously thought that multicellular life without an oxygen-based metabolism was impossible, because previous models of microorganism evolution pegged multicellular development to a point after the Oxygen Catastrophe of the Siderian period. This discovery may lead to wholesale revision of models of microorganism evolution over geologic time.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    3. Re:Been there...done that! by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

      The key part is multicellular. As in what your brain isn't.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:Been there...done that! by khallow · · Score: 1

      You're ignoring the huge, huge chasm between unicellular and multicellular organisms, one which was not bridged by evolutionary processes for over 3 billion years by most estimates. It was previously thought that multicellular life without an oxygen-based metabolism was impossible, because previous models of microorganism evolution pegged multicellular development to a point after the Oxygen Catastrophe of the Siderian period. This discovery may lead to wholesale revision of models of microorganism evolution over geologic time.

      There's another possibility here. That these multicellular organisms obtained their hydrogenosome (anaerobic equivalent to mitochondria) from some symbiotic or parasitic unicellular life. I don't understand the taxonomy of these animals, but they seem very complex and from a branch of animals far removed from unicellular life. A jump to an anaerobic biology seems pretty tough to do, unless they borrowed the metabolism wholesale from another organism. It'll be interesting to see if their hydrogenosome is related to any current anaerobic unicellular life.

  9. The naivety of mankind by assemblerex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To think that all life needs oxygen or even a sun to exist goes back to our belief that the earth is the center of the universe.In reality we are a blip on the map.

    1. Re:The naivety of mankind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's not, it's that without empirical evidence of other life you don't make assumptions about it. Life dependent on oxygen is teeming on Earth, so it's not about excluding other life, it's about giving precedence to a working model over one that's otherwise a bunch of unknowns.

    2. Re:The naivety of mankind by Locke2005 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually, plant life needs carbon dioxide, not oxygen. when the planet first formed, it didn't have an oxygen-rich atmosphere. The oxygen in our atmosphere had to be generated by plants. Life existed for hundreds of millions of years before any life that required oxygen evolved.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:The naivety of mankind by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Of course, if we were to truly understand that we were nothing but an invisible dot on an invisible dot, infinitely small, our souls would be destroyed.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    4. Re:The naivety of mankind by tgd · · Score: 1

      Unicellular life -- the branch of life we consider "plants" after the point the atmosphere changed over to an oxygen/nitrogen one.

    5. Re:The naivety of mankind by postglock · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ultimately, these animals are still dependent on a source of energy such as a sun. These animals are not capable of capturing such energy themselves, but rely on photosynthetic organisms such as plants or algae at the bottom of the food chain. As another poster pointed out, carbon dioxide is necessary for this photosynthesis, not oxygen. This is converted into sugar, which animals subsequently consume. Hydrogenosomes function similarly to mitochondria in converting sugar into ATP (more accessible energy), but differ in that they produce (surprise, surprise) hydrogen as a byproduct.

    6. Re:The naivety of mankind by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Plants need oxygen as well as carbon dioxide. When they're not photosynthesizing they take in oxygen and emit carbon dioxide.
       

    7. Re:The naivety of mankind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, plant life needs oxygen. Plants respire just like most other multicellular organisms. They just also happen to produce oxygen through photosynthesis as a byproduct of their food production.

    8. Re:The naivety of mankind by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      Plant life needs Carbon Dioxide and Oxygen ....

      The oxygen in the atmosphere is and was generated mostly by unicellular life (not plant or animal)

      Unicellular life existed hundreds of millions of years before the atmosphere was pumped full of oxygen, and it was toxic to the majority of that life ... this is why multicellular anoxic life is interesting and unexpected

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    9. Re:The naivety of mankind by mpe · · Score: 1

      The oxygen in our atmosphere had to be generated by plants.

      Or more likely something similar to cyanobacteria. Especially given that chloroplasts appear to be derived from such organisms.

    10. Re:The naivety of mankind by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      But there are entire ecosystems in the ocean which derive no energy from the sun in any way.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    11. Re:The naivety of mankind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One should wonder if the GP was reasonably referring to atomic oxygen (which also obviously exists in CO2) whereas the parent seems to be thinking of only molecular O2.

      To further clarify: the oxygen (atomic) was here all along, it simply needed to be freed as O2 in sufficient amounts before the existing oxygen sinks of the planet were full and it became a plentiful atmospheric substance.

      A previous post mentioned the Siderian Period. An absolutely fascinating read. Follow up with the Oxygen Catastrophe.

    12. Re:The naivety of mankind by postglock · · Score: 1

      Good point! I'm not sure if you are talking about black smokers? If so, I'm pretty sure that these ecosystems still rely on oxygen (along with carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide) to fix carbon. Again, this oxygen originally derived from photosynthesis, requiring sunlight. Nevertheless, I seem to recall some underwater ecosystems that rely on the weak geothermal light for photosynthesis, which may be more relevant.

    13. Re:The naivety of mankind by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Yup. But look at it this way. There are organisims which do not require oxygen. There are organisims that do not require sunlight. So why not the possibility of organisims that do not require both?

      The history of Science! can basically be boiled down to "That's impossible," followed by "oh, wait, there it is," followed by "Ok, that's kind of cool, but this new thing, that's impossible." Repeat.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  10. This isn't new... by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 0

    There's a joke in this somewhere about somebody's mom breathing through her ears, but I'm just way too busy to figure it out now.

  11. A lot of comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of the comments so far seem to be missing the point. Sure various bacteria and such don't need oxygen to live but until now, animals did. I assume they are using the term "animal" in the taxonomic sense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal).

  12. Core Paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The summary discusses an article which is talking about an abstract of the provisional paper available at http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1741-7007-8-30.pdf .

  13. It is an entrenched thought by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1, Informative

    Even David Attenborough who himself narrated the Blue Planet were animals were shown that lived independent of the sun, narrated happily on Planet Earth that all lives needs the sun... It is just that for us it is so true that we forget that it isn't.

    Fact: Hetero males have more anal sex then homosexual men. See how that fits in your little hetero world. Thinking the universe revolves around you is more common then you think.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:It is an entrenched thought by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1
      As they say, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

      Fact: Hetero males have more anal sex then homosexual men. See how that fits in your little hetero world. Thinking the universe revolves around you is more common then you think.

      This is true, but only if you think in absolute terms instead of per capita terms. There are simply more heterosexual people, therefore even if only a fraction of them have anal relations frequently, the shear number overcomes the number of homosexuals who have such intercourse all the time. As with most 'number of people' issues, only a per capita model has any relevance, and therein things are exactly as you expect.

      And for the record, I'm bi.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    2. Re:It is an entrenched thought by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm bi. Does that have any effect on the frequency that you spend the night alone in your mom's basement? If it does, I know some slashdotters that may be willing to give it the old college try...

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:It is an entrenched thought by geekoid · · Score: 1

      NO they don't. That which they get energy from depend on the sun.

      Just sayin.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:It is an entrenched thought by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      I'm starting to cease being surprised when this joke gets trotted out every time I reference my sexuality.

      (Read as: you're not original.)

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    5. Re:It is an entrenched thought by tgd · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between a script, which sounds good and is just fine for its target audience, and what scientists know or believe.

      You neither know he happily narrated that, nor that he was under the impression it was true.

      And considering there is vast amounts of life that has no relation to the sun (chemeosynthesis), and its not a grand secret, its not all that entrenched of a thought.

      However, relative to the discussion at hand, there's a HUGE difference between not assuming a particular form of life CAN'T happen, and showing that it, in fact, HAS.

    6. Re:It is an entrenched thought by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Don't take it as an affront to your sexual orientation. It's pretty much an unwritten rule that whenever anyone mentions sex in any context, they are accused of not getting any.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    7. Re:It is an entrenched thought by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Oh, and though it's been alluded to, it has not been explicitly stated by others that all known life does depend on the sun in some way, if for nothing else than providing the energy to keep the earth at a temperature above 2.7 Kelvin of deep space. So, stick that in your pipe and nuclear fusion it.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    8. Re:It is an entrenched thought by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Oh believe me, my UID does not do me any credit, since I lurked for ten years before registering, and that only for the /. anniversary parties. (Seattle's was freakin' awesome BTW.) I've seen every variation of the 'basement slashdotter virgin' joke.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    9. Re:It is an entrenched thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fact: Hetero males have more anal sex then homosexual men.

      Cite? That sounds like one of those completely baseless claims that everybody repeats because they wish and hope it was true.

    10. Re:It is an entrenched thought by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, Beowulf clusters running Linux are virgins and...um...hot grits. And stuff. Never mind.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    11. Re:It is an entrenched thought by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

      Glad you took that well. Yes, that was yet another lame attempt at humor based on the cliche of slashdotter as nerd living in mom's basement. On the one hand, nobody really needs to know your orientation unless they are planning on dating you. On the other hand, one of my pet peeves is people like Anne Heche that claim "I'm a lesbian!" when they are dating women, and "No, really, I'm straight!" when they are dating men, when they should just STFU and admit to themselves they are bi. So in that respect, I commend you. Prior to Prop 8 I used to say that nobody needed to know, but now it seems imperative that everyone voluntarily out themselves to increase acceptance of these minority sexual preferences. (For the record... I'm straight, but don't regard those who are not any differently than I regard those that are left-handed. I just don't want to hear the details of anybody else's sexuality. Even if they are ambidextrous.)

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    12. Re:It is an entrenched thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think porn is the answer here. porn destroys every probability curve it is applied to.

    13. Re:It is an entrenched thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      /literal reply to joke
       
      You might think this is the case, that being bisexual 'automatically' doubled ones dating pool, but thats really not the case. As a bi male myself, I have found a significant number of heterosexual females and a notable number of homosexual males to be less than open to a bisexual partner, at least in terms of a serious relationship. Most of what I HAVE found has been more interested in open relationships or the possibility of a threesome, or something to that effect... and threesomes really aren't all they're cracked up to be, for the record.
       
      As far as the serious relationship bit, I've never really gotten a clear answer why. Being bisexual has its own stigmas; a surprising number of people believe someone who is bisexual is actually homosexual but in denial- but really, if I was denying my interest in other guys, why would I still pursue said interest? Straight girls, in particular, seem to be somewhat averse to a serious relationship with a bi guy. I imagine it has to do with a general lack of trust, and the idea that I'd be twice as likely to cheat given twice as many potential partners, but as I mentioned that really isn't the case.
       
      I'd say, all in all, being bisexual gives you better chances of hooking up, but makes finding a meaningful relationship more difficult overall, but your mileage may vary.

    14. Re:It is an entrenched thought by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Prior to Prop 8 I used to say that nobody needed to know, but now it seems imperative that everyone voluntarily out themselves to increase acceptance of these minority sexual preferences.

      This is pretty much it. I see it more as a political statement than an in-your-face sexual declaration, which is why I don't go into any detailed exposition. My family is homophobic in the extreme, in fact when I was growing up my dad would talk about how all "the gays" should be rounded up and exterminated. Not only am I bi, but I've had years of issues with gender dysphoria (and no, I never transitioned). Needless to say I've spent a lot of hours in therapy. All of this has underscored how important it is to stand and be counted in some form. So I make mention of it now and then, just so people don't labor under the impression that everybody they meet is straight unless they're full-on limp-wristed flaming/mincing.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    15. Re:It is an entrenched thought by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I grew up in very religious conservative circles with very homophobic parents. I've taken the path of least resistance, dating women and even marrying (to a wonderful woman who accepts everything about my sexuality, luckily). I haven't given myself much of an opportunity to express my homo side, but I don't live in denial. I get off to gay, straight, and transgender pr0n. If I'm attracted to a guy I'll probably comment on him to my wife, though we never seem to agree on which guys are hot (or girls for that matter).

      I think that being forthright about these things really separates valuable, tolerant people from the assholes. People who are bigoted, or the sort you talk about that think men are stereotypically unrestrained, sex-crazed pigs who can't be trusted (or that being bi just means you haven't "made up your mind" and are likely to change horses midstream and leave them), need to be culled from any sort of pool of serious relationships anyway. They are essentially insulting and demeaning by their very opinions, as though who you are and what you like automatically makes you untrustworthy, disloyal, and otherwise deficient of character. I don't associate with such people.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    16. Re:It is an entrenched thought by MenThal · · Score: 1

      If I'm attracted to a guy I'll probably comment on him to my wife, though we never seem to agree on which guys are hot (or girls for that matter). .

      So, not making much progress on that three-way, eh?

    17. Re:It is an entrenched thought by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Actually she's open to the idea, or claims to be, but we're so busy and we have a daughter so it's very difficult logistically to set anything up, let alone agreeing on who to approach. Consensus and comfort is extremely important in such a matter, so I'm not going to apply any significant unilateral pressure. I'm a very patient person.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    18. Re:It is an entrenched thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Locke's right in a way. There's not really a point in referencing your sexuality in something like this aside from playing the victim. I liked your argument until you closed with that, and that's on the basis of tact versus any sort of "hate" against non-heteros.

  14. What is meant by "without oxygen"? by mschaffer · · Score: 0

    I am certain that these organisms contain oxygen in some of their molecules, like DNA, RNA, amino acids, etc.

    Perhaps these organisms do not consume oxygen in respiration?

    1. Re:What is meant by "without oxygen"? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "I am certain that these organisms contain oxygen in some of their molecules, like DNA, RNA, amino acids, etc."

      Why?

      FTA:
      " The creature's cells apparently lack mitochondria, the organelles that use oxygen to power a cell. Instead they are rich in what seem to be hydrogenosomes, organelles that can do a similar job in anaerobic (or oxygen free) environments."

      Someday, there will be a way to link to articles, and on that day you can stop looking like a duuf.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:What is meant by "without oxygen"? by Frenchman113 · · Score: 1

      "I am certain that these organisms contain oxygen in some of their molecules, like DNA, RNA, amino acids, etc."

      Why?

      FTA:
      " The creature's cells apparently lack mitochondria, the organelles that use oxygen to power a cell. Instead they are rich in what seem to be hydrogenosomes, organelles that can do a similar job in anaerobic (or oxygen free) environments."

      Someday, there will be a way to link to articles, and on that day you can stop looking like a duuf.

      mschaffer refers to oxygen in the sense of the atomic species. It is certain that all known life forms have oxygen atoms in them, and mschaffer is simply being pedantic.

    3. Re:What is meant by "without oxygen"? by maxume · · Score: 1

      He means in the sense that they almost certainly have some water in them, which usually has some oxygen as a component.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:What is meant by "without oxygen"? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      You were wrong before you started.

      You shouldn't assume that just because life we've found on Earth has anything like DNA, RNA and amino acids.

      It is entirely possible that life elsewhere, even on our own planet, can look entirely unlike anything we've ever seen.

      Contrary to what many scientists seem to think or at least project, we do not know everything. In the grand scheme of things, we know very very little about the way stuff works in general, even if from our perspective it seems we know a great deal. We barely understand a tiny fraction of the way the universe works on the confines of our own planet, let alone every where else in the universe.

      Assumptions do nothing but hold you back. If you can't prove it, don't assume it.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    5. Re:What is meant by "without oxygen"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I am certain that these organisms contain oxygen in some of their molecules, like DNA, RNA, amino acids, etc."

      Why?

      because then the big title would have been "inorganic life found". It would me much more extraordinary if they found life that has no oxygen in its molecules. There's a BIG difference between that and not having mitochondia. The article doesn't claim that, so the mschaffer's post isn't dumb. Perhaps you should read the article (and the post) more carefully before calling people a duuf. Lately it seems slashdot is not about debating ideas but calling other people names.

    6. Re:What is meant by "without oxygen"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I am certain that these organisms contain oxygen in some of their molecules, like DNA, RNA, amino acids, etc."

      Why?

      FTA:
      " The creature's cells apparently lack mitochondria, the organelles that use oxygen to power a cell. Instead they are rich in what seem to be hydrogenosomes, organelles that can do a similar job in anaerobic (or oxygen free) environments."

      Someday, there will be a way to link to articles, and on that day you can stop looking like a duuf.

      Don't be such an ass.
      I'm guessing that the GP means elemental oxygen, not the molecular gas oxygen.
      yeah oxygen is in everything living. take a look at the wikipedia entry for "hydrogenosomes"... see those capital "O"s in the diagram? Oxygen!
      So even though these Animals live without O2, they certainly aren't living without O bound up in various molecules in their body.

    7. Re:What is meant by "without oxygen"? by fnj · · Score: 1

      "Pedantic," eh? Is that what some of us mean when we say "correct?"

    8. Re:What is meant by "without oxygen"? by mschaffer · · Score: 1

      @ BitZtream
      You are a stupid ignorant jackass! At least I know what I am talking about.

      The article mentions that the organism takes up leucine, and amino acid that does indeed contain oxygen. The orgamism lives in brine (you know---salty water). All water contains oxygen. (Ever hear of H2O? It's water---and is is composed of one oxygen atom per two hydrogen atoms.)

      Now, if someone had discovered an organism on earth that doesn't use oxygen in some part of their respiration, DNA, RNA, and amino acids, maybe, just maybe, that would justify your dumb-ass existance.

      Just to be clear, I do mean organism. Prions and the like are not necessarily organisms.

  15. Mediterranean Mystery by mindbrane · · Score: 1

    There are vast deposits of salt beneath the Mediterranean, so much so that it's been suggested (Miracle Planet episode x(?)) that the salt deposits were necessary to the evolution of life forms today because of the amount of salt taken from the seas. Sorry I've not the time to search more but this The Mediterranean Disaster Mystery link gives an intro.

    --
    ideopath @ play
    1. Re:Mediterranean Mystery by mindbrane · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sorry I just read the linked to page. Do Not Go There. Again Sorry. Try the Miracle Planet Episode. So sorry...

      --
      ideopath @ play
  16. Mediterranean Ocean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    There is no such thing as "Mediterranean Ocean"

  17. Not really accurate by johno.ie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Water is 89% oxygen by weight.

    --
    872835240
    1. Re:Not really accurate by SheeEttin · · Score: 1

      True, but that oxygen means nothing if you can't separate it from the hydrogen.
      Water, water, everywhere, and not a drop to drink, eh?

    2. Re:Not really accurate by tokul · · Score: 1

      Water is 89% oxygen by weight.

      It is also 11% highly flammable and explosive.

  18. what? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    no cthulhu tag?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  19. Re:Guess what by losfromla · · Score: 1

    then -> than
    percentiles -> percent
    I'd guess that, roughly, more than 90% of the human population has a higher IQ than you do.
    Suggestion: Make the changes in your "stock phrase" document, then next time you copy-and-paste them into the forum, you won't look like as much of a dunce. You'll still be a moron, just that, it won't seep out of your fingers as obviously.

    --
    Only I can judge you.
  20. Well... by Dieppe · · Score: 1

    How do you kill that which has no life?!

    1. Re:Well... by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      How do you kill that which has no life?!

      That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons even death may die.

      Duh!

  21. Re: Stranger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Invent a creature and it could exist somewhere simply because we don't know otherwise.

    Okay, how about this?

    Nah--too weird...

  22. What's the big deal by BinaryX01 · · Score: 1

    Zombies also live without oxygen, when is someone going to release a research paper on that?

    1. Re:What's the big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neeed braaaiiinnssss, BRAAAIIINS, fooor reeesearch paaaper...

    2. Re:What's the big deal by Yosho · · Score: 2, Funny

      Technically, zombies unlive without oxygen.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
  23. Love by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It probably survives on love, which is quite similar to oxygen, IIRC.

  24. They must be extraterrestrial by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    "The creatures reside deep in one of the harshest environments on earth: the Mediterranean Ocean's L'Atalante basin"

    We don't have a Mediterranean Ocean here on Earth.

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

    Landlubbers. If they can't see the other bank, then it must be an ocean.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  25. Subsistence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I seem to recall being told, in the late 70s, that a simple Lutetium-Vanadium compound made a very good Oxygen substitute, but it had to be in precise quantities. - neither too much, nor not enough.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc1sgCT7X2c

  26. Fantastic! by grikdog · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Begs the question, is this an evolved form of some other oxygen-using Earth native? Or does it share absolutely NO ancestors with any other form on Earth? The latter is strong evidence for life as we don't know it elsewhere in the cosmos. A pretty strong hint, iow, that life is cheap and ubiquitous.

    --
    ``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
    1. Re:Fantastic! by K10W · · Score: 1

      my ex wife didn't require oxygen either (one of the many factors I tried "improving" her by removing........... didn't work) so perhaps it evolved from her, she's pretty basic animal and clearly came first but I'm not so sure about the earth origin bit.

  27. Why does Frylock from ATHF come to my mind? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you spoke of those three Futurama features, I thought of Aqua Teen Hunger Force because it's a much more balanced meal than what you referenced.

  28. Use Spell: Heal Other. Learn2Diablo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've seen them do that in Diablo. They put on armor that gives them increase in Hitpoints, then they hurt theirselves until they get such a low Hitpoints they can remove their armor to give theirselves negative Hitpoints. Then because their life is now away from zero, perhaps far under -1, they can go around pissing off everyone on this dirty little server in realm Planet-Earth and none can kill them.

    It happened to Jesus the Christ once, so when they stuck that poor soul on a spear in the air He used spell Heal Other to take their life to zero for instant kill. Then to get even, they killed Jesus and stuck him in a tomb, but his three mormon babes came around to use Level 69 Reserect (if you know what I mean).

  29. Nobody thinks that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They just hadn't observed otherwise until now. Why do you have to assume everyone's that arrogant? Maybe you watch too many movies...

  30. They mean water with no saturated oxygen right? by DigitalReverend · · Score: 1

    Perhaps this little guy does live on oxygen, but simply has a process to separate from the hydrogen directly from the water itself. Just because there is no saturated oxygen dissolved in the water doesn't mean it doesn't live on oxygen.

    --
    I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
  31. Archaens &/or CyanoBacteria... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These things this article's about sound a BIT like "Archaens" actually, but, you do raise a point:

    E.G.-> If one were to "dig back deep enough" into earth's past, before what's been called "the oxygen revolution"?

    Well ,you'd find something quite like these things too - in Cyanobacteria!.

    I.E.-> Cyanobacteria made oxygen utilizing life possible really, by "busting loose" oxygen atoms from molecules that contained them in their chains!

    (Because early on afaik in the earth's start of life beginnings? Whatever oxygen was around, was already "bound" to other atoms, not "loose" (sort of like how soil that has all the nitrogen locked into nitrates won't grow squat, @ least, as far as plants as we know them currently)).

    Your point's a good one though - I've considered the possibility of gaseous, or energy based life-forms even... & this? THIS is the 'scary part', because once we begin our journeys into the "great wide open" that is the universe (ion-drive, anyone?)?? I think we had better be a "Wee Bit more judicious" in our treatment of other-world species & NOT do what was done to the native american or other cultures our explorers infested in the name of profit...

    Also, I feel that (per what you state really) we ought to modify our view of what we call "intelligence" (and, get over our "racial ego" too, in our largely feeling that WE are the "only intelligent lifeform")

    E.G.-> Simply because KOKO THE GORILLA long ago demonstrated SHE CAN "SPEAK" OUR LANGUAGE via signing, & she even taught her fellow gorillas how to use it to make requests (proving that they talk to one another, & that they can learn and spread that knowledge too (to the point she even named a pet kitten of hers "ALL BALL" (Which a ball was her fav toy, & she basically said "this is my fav. & best toy" now vs. that ball, more-or-less)... the other gorilla she taught sign even said to their keepers, via sign "I want a kitten too!" - pretty neat!)...

    So, long & short of it: I just hope we can do that much, because IF we run into beings we cannot understand? We might anger them, & bring home an invader we CANNOT handle

    APK

    P.S.=> Oh, on a "side/off note"? I left you a little "FYI", here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1610696&cid=31784824 ... apk