![]() |
Interesting.
|
From Jurassic Park:
Quote from Dr. Malcolm: Nature finds a way. |
very big deal, but nearly as exciting as green chicks
|
This is akin to finding silicon based life here on earth. The idea has been postulated for decades, knowing that the periodic table gives symmetry to certain elements. Carbon is the backbone of all life as we know it because it can link into indefinitely long chains while allowing other elements to piggyback, giving amino acids the structure need. Well, silicon can do the exact same thing. You can take any hydrocarbon chain and replace each carbon with silicon and it will retain the structure.
If you look at the numbers (on Wiki, but I trust factual stuff like on Wiki)... In the Solar System, silicon is about 6 times rarer than carbon, while arsenic appears to be 10-20 times more abundant than phosphorous. But on EARTH, silicon is about 500 times more common than carbon (but it's all trapped in molecules), while phosphorous is over 500 times more common than arsenic. I find that interesting, how the relative abundances inverts so much between the Earth's surface and the solar system around it. |
Quote:
Ian |
December 2, 2010 11:46 AM PST
NASA scientists discover all-new form of life Read more: NASA scientists discover all-new form of life | Geek Gestalt - CNET News NASA scientists discover all-new form of life | Geek Gestalt - CNET News http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/201...senic_full.jpg This is a NASA image of the microbe GFAJ-1 grown on arsenic. The microbe is the first known life to have a DNA structure different than all other known life forms. (Credit: NASA) Read more: NASA scientists discover all-new form of life | Geek Gestalt - CNET News Quote:
EDIT: The big six are: We Have Salted The Earth Quote:
|
I knew the residents of California were different but that is stranger than normal even for California.
|
This young scientist has been searching for this very event for some time.
Searching for Alien Life, on Earth Sign in to read: Early life could have relied on 'arsenic DNA' - life - 26 April 2008 - New Scientist Cambridge Journals Online - Abstract She mentions something interesting, which I haven't yet seen as related to this press release. I mentioned above that the Solar System (ie. primordial stuff) has a higher arsenic abundance than phosphorous. The early Earth would have been a highly arsenic enriched environment, which would be toxic to modern biology. She mentions that early life on Earth would have likely been arsenic based, and that as some point later in time, might have died off as the arsenic-phosphorous ration changed. Then, a SECOND creation of life would have occurred, but phosphorous based this time. I shall not mention how quaint that is (two distinct and complete formations of life from non-life on Earth), because it'll end up bumping this thread to the abyss. |
Quote:
what a dork. |
|
Quote:
Oh yeah, SCIENCE spent TAX MONEY on something interesting. What a wonderful world we live in!! |
This is a very big deal. It will be looked at in the future as one of the biggest things sense Watson and Cricks findings.
|
Quote:
What in the world are they known for? :rolleyes: |
Quote:
James D. Watson and Francis Crick proposed the double helix structure for the DNA molecule in 1953. What these folks have done is pretty darn cool IMO. :) |
good thing L.A. never got to drain Mono Lake...
|
damn! very cool!
|
Quote:
They were the first to come up with the structure of DNA. One of the most important findings of science to date. This is big. Good work NASA! |
Quote:
So can you please enlighten all of us? I mean, when you aren't busy making false claims to discredit my posts? You said in your post that they didn't discover bacteria, but discovered microbes instead (snicker, chuckle). So please, if you don't mind, share a bit of your expertise and explain to all of us uninformed peons how bacteria are not microbes? ROFLMAO. I've been told that not all microbes are bacteria, but all bacteria are micro-organisms (microbes). You obviously know more about it than the scientists who made this earth-shattering discovery and announcement, yet they called these little tiny organizms bacteria. can you please explain how they could have made such a huge mistake? snicker This is what those foolish so-called scientists said on NASA's website: Quote:
While you are correcting those dumb NASA scientists you also might wanna update and correct the wiki page on microbes, those darned fools think that bacteria are microbes. Yeah I know, how dumb can they be? LOL Microorganism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1291395087.jpg |
Do you have anything useful or vaguely intelligent to say?
|
Quote:
actually they 'borrowed' the research of Rosalind Franklin, and her work on the helix. They got theirs published before hers, though... Many years later, Crick admitted that they used her data. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:27 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website