S2F Posted May 28, 2014 #126 Share Posted May 28, 2014 In short, that might happen in a test tube. But Earth isn't a test tube. On a galactic scale I think the Earth would be a good example of a test tube....or petri dish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qxcontinuum Posted May 28, 2014 Author #127 Share Posted May 28, 2014 A bateria left on Mars is not going to propagate Mars with water, and then evolve and populate the planet. It's too cold. If the Bacteria survives it will more likely lay dormant forever unless a celestial strike sends it back to earth via Why not evolving and adjusting to the conditions found on Mars. On earth has been discovered bacteria that adjusted to live in sulphurous environments and more recently arsenic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S2F Posted May 28, 2014 #128 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Why not evolving and adjusting to the conditions found on Mars. On earth has been discovered bacteria that adjusted to live in sulphurous environments and more recently arsenic. Dormancy isn't exactly a conducive condition for evolution to occur in. The changes that take place through evolution take considerable time to occur, if they even do. Furthermore it requires an environment where reproduction can occur long enough that evolution could supply ample beneficial changes. You can't take life from an environment it has become adapted to and place it in an environment that is 'hostile' and expect it to survive. Survival may occasionally happen though for the most part the likeliest outcome is death. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted May 29, 2014 #129 Share Posted May 29, 2014 (edited) Why not evolving and adjusting to the conditions found on Mars. On earth has been discovered bacteria that adjusted to live in sulphurous environments and more recently arsenic. Finally! A reasonable question LOL. S2F already put it well - the part you are not reading in all those experiments discussed so far is The bacteria were revived NOT The bacteria thrived. Different things and different conditions to deal with. As I mentioned earlier earth was probably sterilized many times early in the piece by large impacts. Panspermia theoretically might have reseeded the planet. Now it seems rather probable to me that Venus Mercury and Mars might have got a bit of that too - if there is actually anything to Panspermia at the end of the day. Why no life on those planets, and billions of forms here? Because life can exist here, and those planets do not have the right conditions. Dumping bacteria on Mars is not going to turn it into a Jungle. It did not work then, why would it now? People got all excited about Mars back in the 1800s when Martian Canali were claimed to exist due to poor astronomical observations. You are a century late for Martian fever. It's a fossil. Edited May 29, 2014 by psyche101 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qxcontinuum Posted May 30, 2014 Author #130 Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) Finally! A reasonable question LOL. S2F already put it well - the part you are not reading in all those experiments discussed so far is The bacteria were revived NOT The bacteria thrived. Different things and different conditions to deal with. It actually say it Thrives. You may want to read the following article; http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/12/02/nasas-real-news-bacterium-on-earth-that-lives-off-arsenic/#.U4hz4Nq9KK0 To determine this, Dr. Wolfe-Simon took samples of the microbes, adding more and more arsenic while decreasing the amount of phosphorus in their environment to essentially zero. This would kill almost everything known to man, yet these little critters thrived. Edited May 30, 2014 by qxcontinuum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted May 30, 2014 #131 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Well if simple life is easy to evolve, it may have evolved on Mars and we may all be Martians. That is because evolution on the earth got set back a half a million years by the collision that resulted in our having the moon. Mars had no such delaying episode, and at the time would have had good conditions for life to evolve. Some meteor or something could have then knocked a bit of that off and after a few million years seeded the earth. Mars of course went on to become dessicated by the same processes Lost Shaman thinks are impossible here. Of course since Mars is smaller, it happened sooner. Actually though I think the odds are overwhelming that the life here is what evolved here and if we ever find traces of life on Mars it will be earthly contamination, just as if we find such things anywhere that has the same DNA, then it came from here and not on its own. Bacteria are unlikely to escape the way hydrogen will, but they can be knocked off by rocks hitting the surface hard enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lost_shaman Posted May 31, 2014 #132 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Frank, Dont put words in my mouth! I never said "impossible". I said it doesn't happen on Earth and that wasn't wrong. Only a tiny amount of Hydrogen and Helium escape Earths atmosphere every second. 3 kg of hydrogen to be more presise, even if that sounds like a lot it isnt. Earths gravity is sufficent to hold heavrier gases. Earth isnt Mars in slow motion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted May 31, 2014 #133 Share Posted May 31, 2014 What is the difference between impossible and "it doesn't happen." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lost_shaman Posted June 1, 2014 #134 Share Posted June 1, 2014 What is the difference between impossible and "it doesn't happen." Think about it Frank. Impossible is an absolute without any exception at all through time. Yet there are many examles one can think of that fit "it doesn't happen" which you wouldn't say they are "impossible" ever through all time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted June 1, 2014 #135 Share Posted June 1, 2014 You are patronizing me; we all know that. You seem to just want to argue for its own sake. If you concede it's possible then how can you know it doesn't happen? Anyway I made my point. You can talk to yourself from now on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lost_shaman Posted June 1, 2014 #136 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Good grief! Earth has enough gravity to keep gases heavier than hydrogen and helieum from escaping to space with the exeption of a small trickle of ions the magnetic field pulls away. Its that simple. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted June 1, 2014 #137 Share Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) It actually say it Thrives. You may want to read the following article; http://blogs.discove...c/#.U4hz4Nq9KK0 To determine this, Dr. Wolfe-Simon took samples of the microbes, adding more and more arsenic while decreasing the amount of phosphorus in their environment to essentially zero. This would kill almost everything known to man, yet these little critters thrived. Are you being deliberately dense or are you really this slow?? When did that bacteria go into space, and furthermore, when did it "thrive" in space? We are talking about bacteria on the outside of the ISS being in hibernation, and you think somehow a man encouraged bacteria whose environment was slowly altered, right here on earth in Mono Lake somehow means bacteria will survive in space on a comet. You should have read the article more closely they put this link in there especially for people like you: LINK - A NEW LIFE FORM WAS FOUND! (OR, THE ALIENS ARE HERE SOMEBODY FIND WILL SMITH) NASA found aliens! But not really. They found a bacteria that incorporates arsenic into its DNA, which is weird because arsenic is pretty toxic. They will soon grow, become sentient, try to overtake us and mate with our women, if films of the 1950s have taught me anything. Here, you will need this too: sarcasm sa/kazm/ noun the use of irony to mock or convey contempt. "she didn't like the note of sarcasm in his voice synonyms: derision, mockery, ridicule, satire, irony, scorn, sneering, scoffing, gibing,taunting; Edited June 1, 2014 by psyche101 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qxcontinuum Posted June 2, 2014 Author #138 Share Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) Finally! A reasonable question LOL. S2F already put it well - the part you are not reading in all those experiments discussed so far is The bacteria were revived NOT The bacteria thrived. Different things and different conditions to deal with. As I mentioned earlier earth was probably sterilized many times early in the piece by large impacts. Panspermia theoretically might have reseeded the planet. Now it seems rather probable to me that Venus Mercury and Mars might have got a bit of that too - if there is actually anything to Panspermia at the end of the day. Why no life on those planets, and billions of forms here? Because life can exist here, and those planets do not have the right conditions. Dumping bacteria on Mars is not going to turn it into a Jungle. It did not work then, why would it now? People got all excited about Mars back in the 1800s when Martian Canali were claimed to exist due to poor astronomical observations. You are a century late for Martian fever. It's a fossil. It actually say it Thrives. You may want to read the following article; http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/12/02/nasas-real-news-bacterium-on-earth-that-lives-off-arsenic/#.U4hz4Nq9KK0 To determine this, Dr. Wolfe-Simon took samples of the microbes, adding more and more arsenic while decreasing the amount of phosphorus in their environment to essentially zero. This would kill almost everything known to man, yet these little critters thrived. Are you being deliberately dense or are you really this slow?? When did that bacteria go into space, and furthermore, when did it "thrive" in space? We are talking about bacteria on the outside of the ISS being in hibernation, and you think somehow a man encouraged bacteria whose environment was slowly altered, right here on earth in Mono Lake somehow means bacteria will survive in space on a comet. You should have read the article more closely they put this link in there especially for people like you: LINK - A NEW LIFE FORM WAS FOUND! (OR, THE ALIENS ARE HERE SOMEBODY FIND WILL SMITH) NASA found aliens! But not really. They found a bacteria that incorporates arsenic into its DNA, which is weird because arsenic is pretty toxic. They will soon grow, become sentient, try to overtake us and mate with our women, if films of the 1950s have taught me anything. Here, you will need this too: sarcasm sa/kazm/ noun the use of irony to mock or convey contempt. "she didn't like the note of sarcasm in his voice synonyms: derision, mockery, ridicule, satire, irony, scorn, sneering, scoffing, gibing,taunting; Obviously you lost it or deliberately not admitting that you don't have an answer for everything. My answer with link to Nasa's researches were base upon your claims. Forget about the space station and outside earth viruses. The subject was on earth this time and the discoveries made here . Not sure who is the slow minded person here . Looks to me you aren't capable following cursively an extensive subject Edited June 2, 2014 by qxcontinuum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted June 2, 2014 #139 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Obviously you lost it Getting close. Had about enough of your childish nonsense. or deliberately not admitting that you don't have an answer for everything. Who claimed to have the answer for everything? The answers to the basic and somewhat inane questions you have been asking could be answered by most high school students. My answer with link to Nasa's researches were base upon your claims. No, not at all, what thread have you been reading? Again - Panspermia is not your hypothesis, and the fact earth bacteria may be present on Curiosity only slows down the possibility of detecting life, as we have introduced further variables - from the link: Just to recap; bacteria’s can live up to 10 days in outta space under normal conditions, tests have been made And that the bacteria was revived does not "make it possible" in your mind it's the same conditions, but in the real world, that's not the case. Two very different sets of conditions. Provide a link please, as I know this claim is not true. If we had ever discovered alien bacteria, it would be pretty big news. It's either a lie, or you read it wrong, which seems entirely likely. You started talking about earth bacteria, - one line just above this post - that's not the conversation so far. Forget about the space station and outside earth viruses. Why? That's what we were talking about life travelling through space, have you changed the title of the thread or something? With panspermia, the hypothesis is that microbes hitch a ride through space - remember? The subject was on earth this time and the discoveries made here . Then what has that got to do with space, every microbe has to adjust to many different types of conditions to survive space travel, not just one and it;s the hibernation aspects that make it possible. Bacteria that can eat arsenic can eat earth arsenic, if that bateria lands on a planet of arsenic it will struggle to do much more than consume the arsenic on that planet, it won't evolve into an alien city overnight. Some have evolved to eat nylon. They did not evolve into sentient overlords and take over this planet or anything in case you had not noticed. Not sure who is the slow minded person here . It's you, trust me on this one. Looks to me you aren't capable following cursively an extensive subject LOL, That's rich from someone who decides that one sentence changes the course of the discussion, self important much? I am not sure that you have so much as even grasped the subject yet. You still think Panspermia is your idea don't you? You have some wild fantasy that animals hitch rides on comments through space and initiate alien civilisations all over the place. That's just silly. Panspermia is a shaky hypothesis at a microbial level involving hibernation and vast swathes of time with no examples whatsoever and suffers credibility issues due to Wickramasinghe's zealous promotion. Do you even understand the evolution of the Universe? Maybe you should wrap your head around that before you start telling us how it works. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now