Waspie_Dwarf Posted November 23, 2017 #1 Share Posted November 23, 2017 Ocean-covered planets may not be the places to search for life Quote Although water worlds are awash with one of the key ingredients for life, surprisingly, they might not be the best places to find it. Tessa Fisher, a graduate student at Arizona State University in Tempe, and her colleagues presented this counter-intuitive idea last week at the Habitable Worlds conference in Laramie, Wyoming. Her research shows that a planet soaked in oceans could be starved of phosphorus – a major component of DNA and other important molecules. Read More: New Scientist 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taniwha Posted November 23, 2017 #2 Share Posted November 23, 2017 Life is the biggest mystery of all. What is the reason for all the energy of the universe combined? Yet, here we are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piney Posted November 23, 2017 #3 Share Posted November 23, 2017 Quote “I think the major breakthrough with this is that someone finally put the astronomers and the oceanographers and the biologists all in one room.” They are also finally putting archaeologists, geneticists and historians in one room. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightScreams Posted November 23, 2017 #4 Share Posted November 23, 2017 I think some scientists have too many assumptions about what's essential for life given the fact that our only example is our measly little planet in a sea of planets. it's a bit reaching to say that a water rich planet will be starved of prosperous and therefore likely no life. Rocks in the form of asteroids probably would hit oceanic worlds all the time, likely bringing in phosphorous but I'm wondering how a planet having 3 or 4 times less phosphorus in the oceans than Earth is somehow a guarantee that life cannot thrive there? I'm sure earth would be fine with less phosphorus providing it's not completely devoid of it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenoFish Posted November 23, 2017 #5 Share Posted November 23, 2017 It would be a terrible assumption to say that life can't exist on a water world. Because if we are the only life to exist then the universe is a waste of space. I don't think the question is that life can't, but what kind of life could? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted November 23, 2017 #6 Share Posted November 23, 2017 Deep sea volcanic vents might offer some insights ... ~ [00.01:53] ~ google vids link 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nnicolette Posted November 24, 2017 #7 Share Posted November 24, 2017 On 11/22/2017 at 5:26 PM, Waspie_Dwarf said: Ocean-covered planets may not be the places to search for life Yeah... Because we know the ocean is an unlikely place for life to exist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted November 24, 2017 Author #8 Share Posted November 24, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Nnicolette said: Yeah... Because we know the ocean is an unlikely place for life to exist... If you think that 1 in trillions =likely then you really do need a beginners course in statistics. The reality is that in the entire universe we only know of one world that has life. We don't know if life us common or rare. We don't know if Earth is typical of planets with life. We don't know if ocean worlds are likely to have life or not. So you go ahead, carry on ridiculing things you don't understand. Edited November 24, 2017 by Waspie_Dwarf Typo. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bison Posted November 27, 2017 #9 Share Posted November 27, 2017 (edited) On 11/22/2017 at 6:40 PM, NightScreams said: I think some scientists have too many assumptions about what's essential for life given the fact that our only example is our measly little planet in a sea of planets. it's a bit reaching to say that a water rich planet will be starved of prosperous and therefore likely no life. Rocks in the form of asteroids probably would hit oceanic worlds all the time, likely bringing in phosphorous but I'm wondering how a planet having 3 or 4 times less phosphorus in the oceans than Earth is somehow a guarantee that life cannot thrive there? I'm sure earth would be fine with less phosphorus providing it's not completely devoid of it. It occurs to me that a world completely covered in water might not have salty oceans. There would be no erosive run-off from land. It's generally held that such run-off is what washes the sodium and chloride, which make up salt, into the oceans. A non-salty ocean could be capable of efficiently taking up phosphorous in solution, unlike salty ones. It's been suggested that most bio-available forms of phosphorus may have been brought to Earth by meteorites. Edited November 27, 2017 by bison removed duplicate word, general rewording,improved paragraph structure 2 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