E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Mark Wilson / Getty Images file
"Arsenic life" researcher Felisa Wolfe-Simon is flanked by Mary Voytek, director of NASA's Astrobiology Program, as well as chemist Steven Benner and astrobiologist Pamela Conrad during a NASA news conference on Dec. 2, 2010. Many of the claims made during that briefing have now been refuted in peer-reviewed research.
Nineteen months ago, NASA's experts on astrobiology hailed the initial report about arsenic-eating microbes as a "huge deal," but with the publication of two peer-reviewed papers that have refuted that report, the space agency now says the picture is "as yet incomplete."
The statement from Michael H. New, astrobiology discipline scientist at NASA Headquarters' Planetary Science Division, runs counter to the instant reaction that the "arsenic-life" controversy is finished. Since Sunday's online release of the two papers by the journal Science, a lot of folks have been talking about FAILs and nails (as in last nails in the coffin).
New took a different tack:
"NASA supports robust and continuous peer review of any scientific finding, especially discoveries with wide-ranging implications. It was expected that the 2010 Wolfe-Simon et al. Science paper would not be exempt from such standard scientific practices, and in fact, was anticipated to generate significant scientific attention given the surprising results in that paper. The two new papers published in Science on the microorganism GFAJ-1 exemplify this process and provide important new insights. Though these new papers challenge some of the conclusions of the original paper, neither paper invalidates the 2010 observations of a remarkable microorganism that can survive in a highly phosphate-poor and arsenic-rich environment toxic to many other microorganisms. What has emerged from these three papers is an as yet incomplete picture of GFAJ-1 that clearly calls for additional research."
University of British Columbia microbiologist Rosie Redfield, one of the authors of one of the newly published papers, said in a blog posting that NASA's response was "cowardly."
"I'm at a loss for words," she wrote.
It's easy to find commentaries on the Web indicting NASA as well as the authors of the original paper, scientific reviewers, the journal Science and journalists for their part in the arsenic-life controversy. Just as some folks scrambled to trumpet the news that evidence of life had been discovered on Titan, now there's a scramble to assign blame. But scientific sagas don't move as quickly as a Twitter stream, and it's a good bet that this particular saga isn't over quite yet.
Here's a sampling of the reaction:
- Washington Post: Journal retreats, authors stand ground
- Guest opinion on Retraction Watch: Science should issue retraction
- Phylogenomics on Storify: Twitter stream for #ArsenicLife
- Q&A on USA Today: Arsenic life studies released
Got more reaction? Feel free to pass along links or voice your own thoughts in a comment below.
Alan Boyle is msnbc.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
It appears as though NASA has an agenda to justify their space explorations that does not bode well with good science. When a scientist's credibility is called into question, they are basically done.
Hmm - not sure I agree. You seem to be of the opinion that space exploration requires some extraordinary level of justification beyond the mere act of space exploration itself.
Their agenda is "simply" space exploration. I wouldn't read into this any further than that.
Now, ego(s) and professional credibility are at stake, and we're seeing a very human, very predictable walk-back from the originally over-hyped conclusions. I don't think this suggests any agenda other than the continued exploration of space though.
Furthermore, as stated in the press release (the sentiment of which I wish had been contained in the original 2011 release), the truly interesting nature of this microbe still warrants further research, and definitely ought to broaden our conception of what "habitable" conditions for life are. That should excite people, and I think NASA is within their rights to promote exploration writ-large in the field of astrobiology.
This shouldn't call the scientist's credibility into question - only the conclusions. Data is found to be incorrect all the time. This study simply shouldn't have made it into publication, and the conclusions certainly shouldn't have been hyped prematurely in the way they were. It would be best to let all the dominoes fall before burning anybody at the stake, or decrying an agency's mission/purpose as being tainted.
Space exploration and furthering collective human knowledge through space exploration is justification enough in my opinion. But opinions may vary :)
Cheers - I hope this whole mess is further investigated and cleared up in time.
What do you mean "justify space exploration?" It was justified decades ago.
How soon we forget that BOTH of the Viking landers' detected life on Mars in 1976.
I think NASA at the direction of our government said then that the data was inconclusive so they did not stir up all the religious nut bags on the planet. SORRY NUT BAGS.......LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE IS EVERYWHERE!!
@Kevin - It seems you (and NASA scientists) are desperate to claim extraterrestrial life as a fact. Your above quote:
I've seen statistical analysis smokescreens before. This one in the quote is about as ridiculous as I have ever read!
It is amazing to me that in the argument over extraterrestrial life, people rarely bother to discuss the real problem - how life could originate naturalistically in the first place. I suppose that is because it would be impossible. Only an infinite intelligence could create life with its complexities, and atheistic scientists will never admit to this.
No wonder they run around saying all kinds of things that make them look pretty silly... :)
When a scientist's credibility is called into question, they are basically done.
Hardly! History is replete with tales of scientists being ostracized and discredited for finding clues about new scientific truths that run counter to the prevailing wisdom (ie. the world is not flat, the stars do not revolve around the Earth, String Theory, Quantum Mechanics, black holes, etc, etc, etc).
It is only when we open our minds to scientific evidence that we may not want to hear, that we truly expand our knowledge.
GregCHE
Now hold on thar podna. It sounds like yer a gittin' yer cart out thar in front of yer horse!
I respect your right to your beliefs. That's why they call it "faith", it requires no scientific or factual proof. You simply believe what you believe and that is fine. But when you start accusing science of using "smoke-screens" and falsehoods, you've crossed the line.
Putting mysticism and myth aside Amigo the rest of us require some kind of proof and that proof is all around us. The science regarding Mars and the probability it was once a wet planet with a substantial atmosphere is pretty conclusive. Where you have light, water and atmosphere, you have the basic ingredients for life. That isn't mysticism, that isn't myth and soon we will have incontrovertible proof.
So don't git all huffy and git yer scanties in a knot Podna.
As far as I'm concerned you are free to believe the blue fairy touched the earth with her magic wand and poof! there was life. Believe that if you like. It's OK. It requires no proof to justify your belief, it's your belief, your faith. Good enough for you and that's fine.
But for my money, I'm going with science.
Head'em up and move'em out, cowboy. Yeehaw!
Yer's truly,
THE TISHOMINGO KID
Yes life is complex. No it doesn't take a sky daddy to create life. I''m not sure you would recognize statistical analysis if it struck you in the head.
@GregChE
I think the larger point is that most scientists would take your above statement as pretty silly as there is no evidence to prove or disprove it. All science is essentially the search for the truth. There is nothing silly about that. The difference between science and religion/philosophy is simply that science deals with provable facts and religion/philosophy deals with faith.
If Sky-Daddy has such infinite intelligence, how come he has so many dumb kids?
@Skip - "the rest of us require some kind of proof, and that proof is all around us..."
So the proof that life evolved is because life is all around us? This is fallacious reasoning and is hardly scientific. What is science is the law that states that life only comes from life. Spontaneous generation was disproved scientifically by Louis Pasteur and has stood to this day. No one has (or ever will) disprove it. It is based in science not wishful thinking or fallacy!
Not even close. For starters, you need complex organic molecules with the correct "handedness" (i.e. all left-handed amino acids - right ones won't work). Here's an experiment to try for yourself and see if it works: Take a frog (freshly died) and thoroughly sterilize it. Mix it up in a blender (under sterile conditions) and transfer it into a sterile container. Wait. Do you think life would arise from this soup? ALL the ingredients for life are still there. They are even in the correct proportions.
I would like to know what science exactly you are clinging to?
O noes, another Godder who thinks he's a smarty-pants and can disprove the disproof of God...
Evolution is not up for debate. It's a fact. Just because it's complex doesn't mean it requires a god.
@Greg-2438150 - Of course evolution is up for debate. People have been debating it for years. The problem is its definition...
Even creationists accept change over time, but that is not what is properly meant by the word "evolution". Let's not pull a bait-and-switch here. The origin of all life forms from a common ancestor millions of years ago through unguided natural selection and mutation is the textbook definition of neo-Darwinian evolution, and that is STILL up for debate because there is no evidence that it has or is occurring!
You are full of sh&t. Creationist do not accept any of evolution. The definition? LOL The Theory of Evolution has been one of the most scrutinized theory in the history of science. Over 150 years and not one dent. The only people who want to debate it are myth believer like you who are completely and utterly clueless and deluded. It wouldn't be a Theory if they didn't have evidence and it is still occurring!
@GregChE
Um, there is absolutely NOTHING that you've said that is factual.
Your basis for debate here is to come up with your own little experiments that others should try that you believe will fail. For example, your "frog" experiment might very well spring up life, given the proper conditions, of which, you convienently forgot "time".
And, for evolution, no, it's not up for debate. It is a scientifically proven fact, not opinion. The only debate is that there are creationists that refuse to believe it. Just because you may disagree that 2 + 2 = 4 does not detract from the truth of it.
And, as for your needing complex organic molecules to spawn life, you are correct, but again, what you convieniently leave out is that over eons those molecules evolved from the basic constituents, as we know them, for life.
@Greg and Scott - You can state that the theory of evolution is a proven fact all you want, but without real evidence you are grasping at the wind. As I said before, it all has to do with your definition. Dogs change... into other dogs. That does not mean that they have "evolved". You need to show real increases in the information content of the genome to be able to claim that evolution is happening all around us, but I bet you can't do it.
Scott - you are claiming that time is the miracle maker in the process of evolution. Give that frog experiment enough time, and life really will spring up. But how? You can claim time is the hero, but without a meaningful mechanism to explain it, you are just engaging in wishful thinking. Remember, this is supposed to be a scientific theory, right?
The truth is that time is the destroyer of hope in evolution, because things wear out with the passage of time as entropy increases (reduction in the amount of available energy for useful work). Time is not a creative force, it only make matters worse.
There is absolutely NO evidence for this assertion, or even a mechanism as to HOW it may have happened. If I am wrong, please cite evidence to the contrary.
GregCH,
You obviously have no clue what you're talking about because you don't even understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. Evolution explains the diversity of life, based on mutation and competition, aka natural selection. Abiogenesis explains the origins of life where the was previously no life.
Further, it's obvious that you have not even bothered to keep up on the scientific literature in this field because if you had bothered to do even a modicum of research beyond your creationist BS parroting then you'd be aware of some of the plethora of experiments in this particular avenue of explanation. Abiogenesis has produced an extremely reasonable explanation for the origin of life on this planet that doesn't involve panspermia (another reasonable explanation for the origin of life on this planet, but you wouldn't care about that because it conflicts with your roughly 4000 year old book written by people who needed to be told not to have sex with animals) in which lipids, naturally occurring molecules, bond into lipid layers (sphere chains of lipid molecules) that trap monomers inside of them forcing them to bond into polymers. As the polymers grow longer and as the lipid layers move towards and away from sources of heat in water sources (such as the ocean floor near volcanic vents), they absorb other mono/polymers and lipids allowing them to grow larger and consume more, these polymer chains, being comprised of different monomers, integrate other monomers at different rates based on their chemical composition, giving rise to competition through polymers that are able to absorb and use monomers more efficiently being able to grow and consume at faster rates than polymer chains that cannot. These lipid layers are the basis for DNA/RNA, which are the building blocks of living organisms.
But hey, keep on believing your thousands-of-years old book that says it's ok to rape so long as you pay off the girl's father, that disease is a curse from some invisible sky ghost, that rabbits are cud chewing animals, that there are four legged insects, killing babies is ok so long as they don't believe in the same invisible sky ghost as you (despite not being able to determine what invisible sky ghost they believe in), and all sorts of other ridiculous nonsense.
I bet you're the kind of person who would ask "if we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?" (By the by, it's because there was no necessity for those other primates to further evolve because their environment did not threaten them in a way that required adaptation [which means the proliferation of beneficial mutations across a species, not a conscious change to behaviors, in this context] to survive, e.g. they didn't need to walk upright because they lived in areas where this was not a significant aid to survival; the difference between savanna and jungle, in the jungle you climb up a tree to see predators, which is much harder to do when one walks upright due to the difference in upper body strength, foot structure, and stance, vs. the savanna where there are large swathes of tall grass plains where walking on all fours is detrimental due to being too short to see over the grass to detect predators. Basically, humans evolved because it filled the niche requirements of the environment in which they originated, the plains of southern Africa.)
Seriously, hit up google and do a bit of research because every time religious nutjobs, like you, post on these topics all it does is offer skeptics a platform to berate your opinions publicly due to their being completely baseless, irrational, and without merit.
What benefit does believing in your fairy tale provide humanity? It sure hasn't provided us with any scientific knowledge; no mention of efficient agricultural methods, no mention of useful disease prevention methods, no mention of metallurgical processes leading to the production of useful materials, no mention of chemistry, no useful astronomical knowledge, nothing useful at all relating to navigation, not a shred of accurate geological information, basically nothing useful at all. Hell, the only bit of morality that's even arguably useful doesn't come until almost 2500 years later, and it's just a regurgitation of a bastardized form of eastern philosophical principles.
Are you kidding me! I'm not going to help you learn Evolution. People like you are becoming fewer. Keep talking the stupidity. It will get you nowhere.
GregCH,
Just some of the peer reviewed journals that deal specifically with evolution and its processes. Just because you can't be bothered to understand research papers doesn't mean they don't exist. This is further evidence of your complete inability to do even basic research into a topic.
Do you even have access to a research database? If you don't, how can you possibly claim that you have even the slightest understanding of what evidence there is or isn't in regards to any process, relating or not relating to evolution. How can you claim to know the evidence that supports thermodynamics, or astronomy, or gravity. Seriously, do you even understand what evidence IS?
That's like saying "I've never seen Japan so unless you can provide evidence of its existence then I don't believe in it."
Yay, msnbc deleted my link, after not even posting the list of links I provided correctly in the first place. Google "peer reviewed journals evolution" and click away.
@Greg-2438150
Clearly, you are just choosing to be ignorant of the many years of research and findings of literally thousands of studies on this issue. Evolutionary processes have been studied, ad nauseum and the group of scientists is not shrinking, as you state, but is only growing.
Evolution occurs over time and geologic studies have conclusively shown how some species have evolved into others and how some have hit evolutionary dead ends.
As for your frog scenario, I pointed out that you convienently skipped over the "time" piece of the equation. Life forms when organic material is exposed to the right conditions, namely temperature and moisture and then "cooked" (for lack of a better term) over TIME. From there, simple amino acids can evolve into more complex life forms.
Heck, every single atom in your body was once at the center of a star, but it took time and the right conditions for those atoms to coalesce into more complex patterns.
Bottom line is that, quite clearly, you know not of which you speak. You clammer for scientific evidence, but scoff at the abundance of it. This just really indicates that you have your own point of view, backed up by nothing but wishfull thinking.
@Hi My Name Is Joe
MSNBC.com won't post links that start with "h t t p://". Post your links without that at the beginning at the addresses will show.
@Hi My Name Is Joe
Of course I know the difference, but the fact is that you are not willing to admit that these two concepts are inseparably linked. You cannot have molecules-to-man evolution without abiogenesis occurring first.
You are giving away your ignorance in the field of chemistry. Lipids are fatty acids, DNA is entirely something else - composed of long chains of nucleosides which are the combination of one of four different nucleotides (in the chemical class of purines and pyrimidines), deoxyribose sugar, and a phosphate group. This chemistry isn't remotely derived from lipids as you infer.
But the problem is much greater than you seem to recognize. You have to come up with a mechanism for the information present in the genome - and not just the information itself, but also the replication and error-checking machinery, all of which is encoded in the DNA. (You can't have specific proteins apart from DNA, and you can't have DNA apart from the oversight of proteins). Quite a conundrum for the materialistic evolutionist!
You actually have it quite backwards. Are you not aware that a large percentage of scientific inventions and discoveries were made by God-fearing creationists (e.g. Kepler, Newton, Faraday, Pasteur, etc.)???
The bottom line is that the materialistic evolutionist has to resort to story-telling, because there is no evidence whatsoever that abiogenesis has or could ever occur. Your lipid/monomer story is just one example of such stories that are not based on science at all.
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
@Scott M
I asked for scientific evidence in abiogenesis, and there is none. You can google away, but all you get is just-so stories. You cannot produce one peer-reviewed scientific paper that shows scientifically the process of abiogenesis.
Even intelligent human-directed experiments by man over literally millions of man-hours has not produced anything resembling abiogenesis. Instead, we get a small concentration of jumbled left and right-handed amino acids and harmful reactive byproducts, and burnt sugars, and never in concentrations needed for meaningful progress. And we are to conclude that atoms/molecules just assembled themselves automatically (without human intelligence) into the amazing machines they are today?
Abiogenesis is a dead-end, but the God of the Bible is the answer.
Revelation 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
If God is real, and He created life, He had to abiogenesis himself at some point.
At some point, something came into existence by chance chemical reactions or some other process. Why not life? Just because science has not proven it yet does not mean it did not happen.
@TonyInDallas - God by definition lies outside the domain of matter/energy and even time because He is a Spirit. Therefore He is not constrained as you imagine. That is why He is called the I AM in the Bible.
Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
So, God just exists, but there is no way that organic material can combine and grow over millions of years to become life?
I'm not following the logic. How can God be if He wasn't created?
@Greg
And, the Bible was written by men, not God.
Who's to say that, if there is a God (which I personally don't believe there is), it isn't some form of matter/energy?
First, you don't get your science right. Now, you don't even have your religion right!
@Greg
I know what you "asked" for and quite frankly, it's completely off-topic. That's the general M/O of Internet trolls, such as yourself... Make a false statement, then defend it by changing the subject.
The subject is EVOLUTION. Evolution is a scientifically proven FACT. There have been thousands of peer reviewed papers confirming it and with each new fossil record confirming it as well.
These are the FACTS. Just because you end your posts with a quotation from a book, written by men two thousand years ago, men that had little understanding of science and how/why the world works as it does, does not substitue as FACTUAL scientific evidence for your point.
Hey, far be it from me to tell you that your personal religous beilefs are wrong. I would never do that to anyone. But DO NOT substitute your personal faith for SCIENCE.
If you can't separate the two, you belong in a Seminary.
@Scott M - It is you who is changing the subject. My initial response was to statements saying that extraterrestrial life is everywhere, and that life had been found on Mars back in 1976 with the Viking lander (post #1.3). Therefore, the subject matter is abiogenesis, period.
Even you said in your earlier post #1.15:
So who's deflecting attention away from the subject?
The fossil record has given evolutionists nothing but bad news! Back in Darwin's day, with very little fossils discovered back then, he was certain the gaps would be filled in with more discoveries. They haven't. The countless gradual changes from one organism to another simply have not been found. The Cambrian Explosion is an embarrassment to evolutionary theory. More and more living fossils have been found, and show essentially no changes over millions of years of so-called evolution.
The fossil record is one that shows catastrophe, not gradual sedimentation over millions of years. The evolution of the eye, according to the fossil record, has occurred independently as many as 60 different times! Believing that happened certainly requires a lot of faith!
I think it is you that has to exercise extraordinary faith to believe in a molecules-to-man theory based on chaos and undirected processes, which is not supported by even one scientific experment.
GregChE, It is apparent by your posts that you don't believe in science.
You have also expressed complete faith and belief in the Bible as demonstrated by you biblical quotes. I put to you a rather simple paradox. The bible relates in Genesis the special creation of man. Chapter one has man created before the seventh day and chapter two after the seventh day. In both cases, man (Adam) is created before woman (Eve). The paradox is that God created man with nipples!
The "molecules to man" theory, aka evolution, explains male nipples very nicely. Please explain why it is logical to believe that a hypothetical all powerful, all knowing god would stick a pair of nipples on his special creation?
The Bible is not even internally consistent. In science, the principle of Occam's razor prevails.
@Greg
Well, you've now clearly shown your true colors. The topic that I responded to in YOUR post was about EVOLUTION and, interestingly, the quotes of MINE that YOU posted to make your point that we're not talking about evolution are about...wait for it...EVOLUTION!!!
Plain and simple: you are spouting nonsense and calling it fact, as in:
Um, the one problem with this is that every single word of it is completely false and I can hardly believe that you typed it without knowing so.
The preponderence of evidence is SO GREAT and just continues to grow that it is mind-boggling that in 2012 there could still be someone that is as ignorant of the facts as you are!
The following are all from SCIENTIFIC institutions and make it obvious that your statements about the fossil record and evolution in general are ludicrous:
Dale - The narrative in Gen. 2 focuses on the personal aspects of God's best creation - man; it is not a second account of creation as you incorrectly state.
As for male nipples, you are wrong again. It makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective. Are you actually suggesting that males once breast-fed or that they are evolving that ability in the future??? No - we know that male nipples are the result from embryonic development and actually reveals design economy during development in the womb. Besides, they do have a function, as they serve as sexual stimuli.
If you believe that, then why are you clinging to a hopelessly complicated explanation for the origin of all life through chaos and undirected, unintelligent and amazingly fortuitous chance events?
@Scott M - evolution as you call it, of molecules from the basic constituents (your words), for life is not evolution. Evolution, by definition, requires first life. You originally spoke of molecular evolution into life, which is abiogenesis. You are only further engaging to deflect attention away from the problem.
Even Stephen Jay Gould, the great evolutionist, knew the fossil record had major problems. That is why he had to come up with the concept of "punctuated equilibrium" to explain the Cambrian explosion. Wordsmithing at its finest!
Also, to be on record, it is not classical science when we deal with origins anyway, since none of it can be tested and it occurred in the distant past and can never be repeated. So it really is quite bogus for you to say that I am being unscientific with respect to evolution. Origins science relies upon presuppositions that simply cannot be proven, and is completely different from operational science which I engage in all the time as a chemical engineer.
GregChE, You did not answer the question as to why God put useless nipples on his very special creation? I am reminded of the story about a creationist who challenged an evolutionist because of a gap in the fossil record. The creationist claimed that since there was a "missing link" evolution could not be true. Low and behold, the evolutionist produced a fossil which exactly fulfilled the requirements for the so called missing link. The evolutionist proudly proclaimed that this smashed the creationist's argument. The creationist instead said, "You fool, now there are two gaps instead of one and two missing links!"
The lessen that Scott, Tony, and I should follow, as attributed to Mark Twain, is, "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
Yep, Samuel Clemens was a genius.
Selected quotes from Twain:
[1835-1910] American author and humorist
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true."
"'In God We Trust.' I don't believe it would sound any better if it were true."
"It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."
"Religion consists in a set of things which the average man thinks he believes and wishes he was certain of."
"There is no other life; life itself is only a vision and a dream for nothing exists but space and you. If there was an all-powerful God, he would have made all good, and no bad." Mark Twain in Eruption
"Our Bible reveals to us the character of our god with minute and remorseless exactness... It is perhaps the most damnatory biography that exists in print anywhere. It makes Nero an angel of light and leading by contrast" Reflections on Religion, 1906
"O Lord our God, help us tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it..." "The War Prayer"
"[The Bible is] a mass of fables and traditions, mere mythology." Mark Twain and the Bible
"Man is a marvelous curiosity ... he thinks he is the Creator's pet ... he even believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to admire him; yes and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays to him and thinks He listens. Isn't it a quaint idea." Letters from the Earth
"If there is a God, he is a malign thug."
Mr. Clemens was once asked whether he feared death. He said that he did not, in view of the fact that he had been dead for billions and billions of years before he was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.
"[The Bible] has noble poetry in it... and some good morals and a wealth of obscenity, and upwards of a thousand lies."
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing." Autobiography of Mark Twain by Samuel Clemens
Tony, I fully agree that Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain) was a true genius. He even lived in my hometown briefly in 1857 to help his older brother Orion publish the city directory.
I would love to hear a dialog between Twain and Einstein. Two different kind of geniuses. I wonder what would come out of that?
@GregChE
Go back and read the thread Greg. YOU brought up abiogenesis. I only made a simple comment on it as part of the larger topic that I was responding to, which was EVOLUTION. It's right there in in black and white. YOU are the one who is deflecting comments by changing the topic.
Once again, you are showing that you would rather just make a statement of belief without having facts to back your statements up. You are once again, changing the topic to avoid having to confront your own misstatements.
The search for truth that follows a scientific methodology is science. Evoloution is a science because you have a theory, observations and experimentation to confirm facts.
@Scott M - The very post I responded to (#1.3) Kevin said:
This is why I responded in the beginning of the thread. Someone can't make grandiose claims about life being all over the universe without discussing abiogenesis. The implication is that, if you have the right materials and temperatures, wala... you have life! The topic never was evolution as you continue to repeat. Your own words:
Abiogenesis as stated in your own words, but without any evidence to back it up. There isn't one scientific experiment that backs up these claims, for the simple reason that an effect (life) can never be greater than its cause (chemicals / time). Only God is the explanation of life.
As a believer in the God of the Bible, the real life we should be seeking is eternal, because we're all going to die some day. This life is found only in His Son Jesus Christ. Check it out.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
The post I replied to and the discussion you and I have been having is about your comments on EVOLUTION.
Stop dodging the issue!
Clearly, you have your "beliefs" and that's fine, but don't go passing your unsubstantiated beilefs off as scientific facts and worse, spreading complete falsehoods and calling them facts, like there is no scientific evidence for evolution and that evolution is on shaky ground. These are flat out wrong statements, with a hundred years of peer reviewed science behind them.
That sums it up pretty well. I think if you actually looked at the so-called evidence for evolution being promulgated in the literature, you would see that it is indeed on shaky ground. Remember, evolution is not simply change. We still have to work on the definition a little more. I explained my definition of evolution quite well (see post #1.13). If this whole-scale type of change from one ancestor into all others is really what happened, we should see no distinct boundaries at all between animals/plants/etc. We should see a continuum of change. Instead, the fossil record shows stasis with clearly defined boundaries.
That is precisely why the late Dr. Colin Paterson, then senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, said:
Gould himself had this to say with respect to transitional fossils:
Shaky ground indeed!
GregChE, The shaky ground is lying about what other people say and believe. It is a creationist lie that Dr. Colin Paterson made the statement which you refer to. The link to it all is here.
Dr. Paterson in his 1978 book titled Evolution wrote: "In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ."
His actual statement is that it is impossible to know from a fossil if it was the actual ancestor of a later form.
Honesty is a necessity in science and rational discourse. When one side resorts to dishonesty and outright lies, it is an indication of how weak their position is.
Dudes, give it up. He's only going to quote the Bible, and he's only going to quote the Bible verses that someone else has told him are important. He ignores the rest of the Bible.
He is also only going to spout what others have told him about science. Obviously Protestant and probably a fundamentalist sect (cult?).
As much as I think Catholicism is a controlling organization, the Vatican can at least admit to scientific fact, even if it takes a few decades.
@Dale - I am not lying, but it appears you don't like reading quotes from real evolutionists who have problems with a failed theory! These quotes are real, whether or not you want to believe the rhetoric coming from the TalkOrigins site. Patterson had much more to say, not only by way of personal letter to Luther Sunderland, but also in a Q&A session during a 1981 presentation at the American Museum of Natural History (full transcript available). It is really silly for you to suggest that all these quotes (there are many more) are not true, as it makes your position all the more embarrassing.
A few other quotes from other evolutionists:
David B. Kitts, PhD (Zoology)
Gould again:
And again...
NASA's statement, as reported in this story, does not contest that the two new studies dispute a conclusion of the first study that arsenic was utilized in place of phosphorous. Rather, NASA reiterates the finding in the first study, which is not in dispute, that "...neither paper invalidates the 2010 observations of a remarkable microorganism that can survive in a highly phosphate-poor and arsenic-rich environment toxic to many other microorganisms." Science is not a democracy. Every finding needs to be peer reviewed and verified. Even if GFAJ-1 does not utilize arsenic, it still can survive and grow in a high arsenic environment which is poisonous to just about every other life-form.
The problem is this: the fact that the microbe exists in a high-arsenic environment was never a surprise. What was surprising was that it was able to utilize arsenic in its lifeform. This was the amazing claim. Now that this claim has been called into question and looks unlikely to stand, NASA has backpedaled a bit and tried to save face by saying that the study's overall conclusion that the microbe exists in a high-arsenic environment still stands. Well, yeah, but that's not what the study was really about.
That's like me saying that while I was stargazing in my back yard last night I discovered a new comet. You correct me and point out that it was just an airplane, and I try to save face by saying that my original statement that I was stargazing in my back yard last night still stands.
Another analogy. Dan Rather claimed in 2008 that there was concrete evidence that W was given preferential treatment and sleazed his way out of doing his National Guard duty. After the ¨concrete evidence¨ was almost instantly shown to be phony, he continued to tout that his story was still accurate because it showed the well-established viewpoint that W benefitted from special treatment in his Guard experience, but his story was that there was evidence and there wasn´t. He may well have cost that other over-privileged twit the election.
Yet another analogy. People from the Bush administration still to this day tout the value of the Iraq invasion on the basis of Saddam being a bad man, even though they justified it at the time on evidence of weapons which has turned out to be unconfirmable.
Yup, good one.
@Greg
Unless you are familiar with the anthropic principle, which clearly you aren't.
Please stop trying to be a Monday-morning scientist, when you clearly don't have any scientific training or understanding.
A lot of people have their reputations on the line here. And one of them is NOT Wolfe-Simon. She reported her observations. The objections came from people who did essentially believe that she had falsified her data. This turned out NOT to be the case. And the University of British Columbia is NOT a powerhouse in cellular research. This was an attempted assassination by blog. Non-peer-reviewed blog. Non-scientific blog. Self-serving blog. Political blog. And a complete corruption of the peer review process. The sort of pseudo-science that manages to eke itself out in blogs rever rises above the level of bone-ass stupid.
The whole idea that a so-called scientist can write a blog slamming someone else's work is a great deal like the medical schools who consider "mentioned in the press" as a valid scientific citation. The people who participated in this mass slander are simply people of low character trying to get their 15 minutes any way they can. This is NOT science.
I wholeheartedly agree. Dr. Redfield wants to be the Gloria Allred of science, and that's far worse than a blown hypothesis by Dr. Wolfe-Simon and her team.
Well said Chris. I'm looking forward to seeing further research behind this. She had some observations to start which deserve much more study. I wouldn't be surprised if in a year two more studies "confirm" her research after these "refute" it. Hopefully we see some new peer reviewed studies come out in the near future in one way or another.
Personally I hope more data comes out in support of her research because I find the implications amazing.
B
Most of you are missing the point. The conclusion from the original study was that this organism utilized arsenic instead of phosphorus. That's a monumental discovery if true and it turns out not to be true. It's sensationalism in science and Wolfe-Simon's reputation is very much in danger due to shotty science in search of headlines. Anyone know what GFAJ stands for? Give Felisa a Job!!! Now she famous just like Pons and Fleicshmann!
I would argue you're missing the point. NASA and other astronomers would likely have overlooked highly-concentrated arsenic planets for signs of life immediately, thinking it was not possible to sustain life. And while GFAJ-1 has not proven it is possible to replace phosphorus, the paper did help in demonstrating that life can survive in such harsh environments. Which begs the question -- at what point is life no longer unsustainable? We don't know where that boundary lies.
If it comes form the lips of the Government, well, you get the idea.
In a way , is right ....
All life forms are a big deal ....
And those living in the harshest of conditions , warrant these kinds of studies to include or exclude the probability of their capability of living within or on a planet with those hostile conditions ....
Thanks Alan Boyle for this article ....
I put NASA is right ....
Can microbes eat cyber letters with zero nutrients .... ??
"LOL"
Finding other forms of life, living in conditions we thought not possible, could be of enormous value. Not something to be dismissed on the first negative results. So we have some new data points. Given the potential value, I suggest that it is a good use of my tax dollars to continue investigating.
I'm really delighted that there are actually a fair number of people who can follow and discuss this topic intelligently. Whatever tactic this extremophile uses to survive arsenic will at the very least prove interesting- and may have some very useful applications. Let the jury deliberate as long as it likes- something wonderful may yet come of it.
I remember being a bit perturbed when I first heard of it. As I remember, the hypothesis was that the strain was living in a environment deficient of some element that was being replaced by arsenic. The thing that was puzzling to me was that they did not isolate the life form, then analyse it for arsenic. It seemed to me that their undertaking was incomplete.
I am not a biochemist but was a fair chemist in my youth.
Between the corrupt politicians, ignorant and more corrupt news journalists, and fraudulent and even more corrupt researchers - Science is being destroyed Obama has finally created a culture of utter stupidity and corruption. Historians are going to record Obama's term as the days the United States went backward!
As much as I dislike Obama I think you are way off base here, this is like blaming Bush which I'm sure someone will later.
I have a lot of problems with Obama, but there is no need to politicize this story. That will only have democrats coming back that it started under Bush.
Can I get an Amen Brother
Political troll at it in a science article again.
These things take time, folks. Be patient, they will get there.
Your taxpayer dollars being wasted, yet again.
And how is this development a waste of money? This was very powerful data they gained for science.
My vote that this is a good use of my tax dollars.
I remember when Felisa Wolfe-Simon did that press conference with her gushing evangelism and it seemed very odd at the time the way she and her partners jumped to a conclusion. It reminded me of other rushed scientific announcements that always seem to be more about ego than science. Remember "Cold Fusion"?
Arsenic-eating microbes and the implications that follow seem a worthy scientific endeavor. It's NASA that's done.
NASA was once the epitome of razors edge science, today, it waffles in medoracy and is trying to exploit unfinished research to be able to squeeze what little funding available in today's economy. We don't need bad science, the demise of NASA will come because of it. NASA needs to re-discover our nearest neighbor, the moon, for several reasons, we already know of huge deposits of critical metals, we need to learn to mine these so when we run out or need more than we can mine on earth we can use the moon, learning to create moon habitats will only better the ones we will build on other planets like Mars. Because of the moons light gravity much of our interstellar space craft could be built and launched from there also. We are not ready for a manned flight to Mars yet, we don't have the right propulsion systems or man life support systems anywhere good enough for a four year mission until we create those we can and must keep exploration close to the vest.
That's right Kip, "NASA was once the epitome of razors edge science" until all the German Nazi rocket scientists retired from NASA and moved back to Germany. It's been downhill ever since.
Really now who gives a poop
You took the trouble to post; so you must give a poop.
The issue that I have, as do others on this comment stream apparantly, is that the refutations and criticisms do not appear to be coming out of serious attempts to replicate results. They are coming out of supposedly 'learned' backsides and the decidedly, unlearned press. The process of science calls for a cycle of validation and review. This should not be a forum for contempt prior to investigation. As stated earlier by Dale3242, "science is not a democracy".
The press should reserve comment on the merits of the research and focus on the process. It shouldn't get caught up in the drama. Because, that just feeds to beast. What is very interesting is NASA's backing off of the reporting. That was spineless.
This research has exciting implications if it's verified. Extremophiles are one of the most interesting aspect of current studies in biology. Since, the premise that these organisms do live in a phosophate rich Arsenic-rich environment would lend credence to the idea that they can use Arsenic as a metabolite at some level.
"Since, the premise that these organisms do live in a phosphate rich Arsenic-rich environment would lend credence to the idea that they can use Arsenic as a metabolite at some level."
I assume you meant phosphate poor. No it doesn't! As other researchers have pointed out, even a minute amount of phosphate can be used by other mechanisms. Using arsenic violates everything we know about cellular metabolism, so it takes more than one explosive research paper to overturn what we know about basic biology after decades of research.
Just because you might want something to be true or find it interesting doesn't make it so. Now we have TWO independent results that contradict the earlier findings. Take a guess which one of these scenarios are likely to be correct. I see Cold Fusion and faster-than-light neutrinos all over again. I have no problem with the research. I have a problem with grandiose claims that try to overturn decades of knowledge with little evidence to back them up when there was no direct evidence that the microbes were metabolizing arsenic. A little more humility would have been warranted.
Steve Wonton, thanks for noting my typo. Yes, you're correct, I'd intended to say Phosphate-poor
I completely agree that it "takes more than one explosive research paper to overturn... decades of research...". My interest is in letting the process of science work. Clearly, any claims that contradict current thought and beliefs will be contentious and seen as being beyond credibility. The history of science is rife with examples where decades of traditional thought are overturned. Typically, not, since in most cases our current understanding is generall correct. But, it can and does happen. What's more important is that the process continues with replication and continued research without undo bias and premature indictment.
I am not convinced that GFAJ-1 uses arsenates in its life processes. But, I'm also not convinced that it doesn't. The 2 papers refuting this organisms use of arsenates in lieu of phosphates go a long way towards this. But, there were enough differences in methods and materials to say that more work is required.
In science failures are as insighful as successes. in any case. this is clearly a strange organism.
Space Exploration - The Banner of the Ancient Myths of Earth Still Flaps in the Wind.
Space explorations only justification is this. Bear in mind that you might need to know alittle philosophy and history to understand.
All throughout humanities history humanity has been a traveler...an explorer. For humans to not have travelled and explored would have kept the process of the evolution of thought in the realm of being like the ape. Although highly intelligent and able to be trained they lack the ability to create sentient thoughts...as we know it. Apes can communicate and show emotions but what sets a species apart from non-sentient thought is the ability to imaginatively create an image in their mind and then build upon that vision thus breaking the connection between non-sentient and sentient beings.
As humans crossed the plains of Earth long ago many events took place that all began with a human leaning against a small sapling for support. As the ancient human grasped the sapling something happened. Thought began to occur. Advanced thoughts of support that took the weight off of the ancient humans body. Soon afterwards the human found a stick laying on the ground and remembered the earlier encounter with the sapling. Picking up the stick the human began walking and realized that the stick like the sapling took a certain amount of weight off of the body making it easier to walk. The human increased its speed of travel and exploration but more importantly the human realized that he could catch the small things that scurried about. No longer was human regulated to things that did not move such as nuts and berries but could actually chase things. The small sapling that the human had used to prop itself up with now created a new thought, purpose.
Purpose in being able to chase down a creature for food. This purpose gave rise to a new purpose. Being able to catch as many small scurrying creatures as possible which gave once again smarked the humans mind one day after being disgusted the human threw his stick into a large clump of brush and soon heard a whimper. Curious the human investigated the sound and found out that the human no longer needed to chase its prey as he pulled the stick out of the whimpering beast. The human need only practice being able to hit a moving target.
Over time from the simple exchange of weight of the human leaning against a sapling gives rise to the ancient kingdoms of Alexander the Great where like the humans of old had done he set across the world that was known at that time exploring and conquering those he came across...with his spear in hand. With each conquered city Alexander the Great brought people out of their dismal existance of living in huts making cities where there had only been bare rock before. Alexander brought education to them as well which included many theories that created new thoughts in the minds of of the people which excited their imaginations and did many wonderous things such as creating new passions and chances of employment, The greatest accomplishment however was that Alexander the Great took an untamed landscape and with sapling in hand made it new which kept humanity striving forward.
But striving forward for what? Eventually Alexander's Great Journey cam to an end with his death and as result wars erupted from which out of necessity many new forms of warfare arose to conquere ones enemies. As time wore on and humanity become more civilized through the exchange of knowledge the spark happened again.
John F. Kennedy took that next step on the Alexanderian Path by building the first every rocket that would carry humanity across the unknowns of space to a new land called the Moon. Thus the sapling becoming the spaceship that carried humanity into a new era of exploration, imagination, creation and the beginning of humanities next phrase of evolution.
So what is the simple explanation for space exploration? Because like the ancient human who first grasped the sapling and become inspired led to the survival of the human species.
Space exploration is the key to humanities survival and regardless of what those who live in a moment think they are simple minded and are fearful of what the unknown may bring. They are the cave dwelling human that is too scared to move to scared to think rather instead if they just sit still then nothing will happen to them.
If humanity just sits still and does not colonize the Moon and Mars and create a new network of roads in space regardless of those who say such a notion is crazy because their lack strength makes them weak then humanity will whither into the history of the Universe as being nothing more than...dust in the chalice of Hades.
Do not listen to those who say space exploration costs to much or that they is nothing out there for humanity and that humanity is alone in the Universe. These humans are of the snake that slithers into the cave to take those who do not have strength. Such thoughts are rot and the design of Death itself...the mortal enemy of Creation. Their minds are of a simple nature to rule a world that has already been conquered. Most humans have the drive in their lives because of Death.
Only those that have the drive of Creation in their minds will rise above and create a new age for humanity.
Once humans begin colonizing the Moon a new age for humanity will begin that will create the next step up the ladder of transendancy thus just like the sapling that was there for the ancient human it will be there everytime that humanity takes the next step and once again grasps the handrail.
Unfortunately, mainstream science has become the modern version of the old 'church' from the days of the Spanish Inquisition. You will follow doctrine or you will pay a price.
Funny how this works because while the media trumpeted the discovery of the Higgs Boson, it had not - in fact - been determined that what was observed was the old 'god particle'. It may be... it may well be but the final tally has not yet come in. Science claims to deal in absolutes, but, like the church, clearly doesn't mind dining from the buffet of assumption when it suits their tastes.
I always find it amusing how scientists consider things like this "impossible". Every time one of them says "it's" (whatever IT may be) impossible, isn't it amazing how it seems to be found, developed or happens. Deep sea life was supposed to be impossible but we found life at unimaginable depths anyway. The list of the impossible being possible is longer than 2 human arms.
None of these scientists seem to realize that it's a very BIG universe and that our laws of life may not necessarily apply to other worlds. Look at the worlds they've already found. As different from our own as night and day. The "life" they're looking for will be just as different and an open mind needs to be kept by everyone so that the possibilities can be imagined and, just maybe, found.
In its own way Star Trek's Mr. Spock had it right......"Infinite diversity in infinite combinations".
Stop... all ya'll just ... stop. Listen to what you are saying. All of you are waiting for "proof" to come from one of these NASA missions. You don't NEED IT. You do not need proof from a satellite, or a lander, or a photograph to "know" that life exists elsewhere. You're totally "insane" if you do not already believe in life elsewhere, microbial or humanoid, or plant-like, or any other type of life for that matter. It's an absolute FACT that life exists everywhere, possibly including on the other side of our own galaxy which we cannot peer through with our telescopes. Anybody who is not already faced the fact that we're not alone in the universe, needs to go have their head checked, and "God" can be whatever "it" wants to be, it obviously has no bearing on the choices that humans make, and does not "guide" anyones hand into doing anything. An all powerful being may have set this universe in motion, but "it" does not interfere with it's ongoing processes, all it does, is keep the laws of physics in balance for every.... single.... atom... in the universe. "it" is too busy dealing with every particle in the universe to be worried about the choices of men. Please stop griping... get a grip, and just realize and prepare yourself to enter a time-frame in the history of Earth that includes the knowledge of Extra-terrestrial beings, which will be found in nearly every corner of every galaxy out there. Peace --- C.M.
Actually I think the organism in question is an Earthling
Great post. Disclosure is coming soon. We are not alone......bigtime.
lol 'Disclosure', is that like the second coming of the aliens? Will there be four little green horsemen?
In other news, life has been found based on old lace. The old lace-based life found to be just as deadly as arsenic-based life.
I love science! It's heartening to know that there are such great checks and balances in every discovery.
Science is ever evolving. Everything must evolve or it flounders and doesn't survive. It's the reason why science progresses and marches forward and why religions regress and dwell in superstitious and imagined pasts .