animals that can live w/out oxygen found. aliens guarantee to exist now.

Life is amazing. To think we're alone in this universe (or any of the universes for that matter o_O) is laughable, quite honestly.
 
Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by Hyper Cutter

multicelluar, as in, more complicated than merely single celled.
if all this time we believed that only single celled organisms can exist without a need for oxygen, and we find that it is also possible for multicellular organisms (of the scale of humans, let's say) can also survive without oxygen, then it leaves the possibility open for other planets to house other civilizations/societies/ect.

that's what the article was trying to say.

the article was not trying to say that life was only just ow discovered to exist independent of oxygen. as someone just mentioned, cyanobacteria, independent of oxygen itself, produced oxygen that would eventually be depended on by other organisms. it's just that now organisms of the multicellular kind have been found to also exist independent of oxygyen.

I understand this, what I don't get is the conclusion that was drawn from this discovery. They haven't found unicellular organisms on other planets to begin with, what makes them think a multicellular anaerobe holds any significance. Why does the discovery of a multicellular anerobe hold more significance than the fact that unicellular anaerobes exist on our planet..


A multicellular anaerobe is probably just a missing link between the evolution from unicellular to multicellular.

the study doesn't necessarily prove that there are other beings independent of oxygen running around on other planets, but it LEAVES OPEN THE (very likely) POSSIBILITY that it is the case that there are oxygen-independent beings out there. remember the fossils of bacteria they found on mars? we did HAPPEN to find that, but it would not be necessary for us to find any kind of organisms since that would actually only prove us right, not wrong. see, so long as we are not proven wrong we are entitled to make the kinds of conclusions, such as there being other beings out there, because we haven't proven that there aren't.

the significance of this is that there are other possible conditions that can play host to life, not just the conditions that allowed us to exist. in other words, oxygen is not THE key for life and planets like earth aren't necessary for life either. there can be other planets, like mars, that could have or do have life.

you just have to think more about the POSSIBILITIES. and i think you were playing about the missing link thing because that has nothing to do with the study or us.
 
14nfjo2.jpg
 
To think we are the only intelligent being in the universe is a tad bit arrogant or even naive. If we were the only intelligent beings in the universe wouldn't that be a huge waste of space?
 
laugh.gif
anaerobic bacteria

Some perspective:

Life had to start from somewhere. We obviously started with something much smaller and much less complicated. It's possible that we come from bacteria from any of the planets in our solar system, or even planets out side of it. I think the scientific name is called 'panspermia', so it's certainly possible that we come from whatever's out there, and the life we're looking for is actually what spawned us. Life here is nothing special: we come from the most common elements in the Universe. Maybe if we were made of tungesten we'd be unique, but we're made of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen, and so is the Universe. We can see, talk, hear, and study. We are, so to speak, the Universe's way of finding out about itself. We are as much a part of it as it is a part of us.

food for thought: The life we evolved from had DNA. Life as we know it is DNA. Sure, if we find life somewhere else it'll be groundbreaking, but it's still like us. What if there's life out there that doesn't have that structure, DNA, and is coded with something completely different? I think that would be mind boggling.
 
Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by nawlinsjunkie

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by ChiefWiggum

Are you serious??? LMAO!! There are plenty of anaerobic organisms.

laugh.gif
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
WORD, I was like....this is the conclusion they came to.
this is why our public education is one of the worst in the world
laugh.gif
people need to retake middle school biology

Granted he did say multicellular....but I fail to see how this means aliens exist. You'd be surprised how many strange prehistoric creatures that have been discovered in uninhabitable places on earth (especially on the ocean floor).....something like 80 something percent of the ocean is undiscovered.


I may be wrong but didn't life precede oxygen?
nerd.gif

yea there was life way before there was oxygen.
 
Originally Posted by tml09

laugh.gif
anaerobic bacteria

Some perspective:

Life had to start from somewhere. We obviously started with something much smaller and much less complicated. It's possible that we come from bacteria from any of the planets in our solar system, or even planets out side of it. I think the scientific name is called 'panspermia', so it's certainly possible that we come from whatever's out there, and the life we're looking for is actually what spawned us. Life here is nothing special: we come from the most common elements in the Universe. Maybe if we were made of tungesten we'd be unique, but we're made of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen, and so is the Universe. We can see, talk, hear, and study. We are, so to speak, the Universe's way of finding out about itself. We are as much a part of it as it is a part of us.

food for thought: The life we evolved from had DNA. Life as we know it is DNA. Sure, if we find life somewhere else it'll be groundbreaking, but it's still like us. What if there's life out there that doesn't have that structure, DNA, and is coded with something completely different? I think that would be mind boggling.
You should read up on this theory that some evolutionist are pushing to help understand the creation of life on earth. I think its called the "RNA world", basically it states that life arose not from DNA or protein but from a RNA like structure that facilitated both catalytic and storing funtions. This after some thought is not far fetched as some enzymes are in fact RNA. But over time RNA evolved to incorporate DNA for larger storage and protein for more catalytic functions.  As for the article i wonder how they identified the organism as an animal without the presence of 16s mitochondria RNA which is usually the standard in classification.
 
Originally Posted by kobe82410

Originally Posted by DaNiKeRhiNo

Nice, that also throws the theory regarding how you need water to support life out of the window. Very interesting.

it doesnt prove that it all.

it just proves that that organism doesn't need oxygen to perform respiration, so it will go though a less complex version of cellular respiration called glycolysis, instead of going though the electron transport chain. and this we have known for a while now,
but it is interesting to see an animal having it.  but we've known of many anaerobic organisms, such as yeast and  e. coli.
E. coli use aerobic respiration. They can survive using anaerobic respiration because they are facultative anaerobes, but are not fully anaerobic dependent organisms like Clostridium species.

We look for H2O because all life as well know it depends on oxygen as a primary element for biological function/structure. (eg Deoxyribonucleic acid) Not all life depends on oxygen for respiration, but it is found in all living things. Usually biological life receives oxygen from the atmosphere or through H2O, there are other sources as well but mainly these. So I believe this is why we look for water so that we might find small microorganisms (aerobic or anaerobic, but still dependent on oxygen), since we have yet to see any evidence of large life forms on other planets.

Also the point of the article is that there are multi-cellular organisms that can survive without aerobic respiration something we didn't realize existed.
 
im pretty sure they found bacteria on mars a number of years ago...not sure.
in any case. Frankly, to think we (earth) are the only living organisms in existence in the ENTIRE universe is ignorant, stupid, and on that sarah palin tip.

FACT: when it comes to space, nothing is improbable.
 
misleading title is very misleading.

it isn't that big of a deal to find a anaerobic eukaryote.  i mean its awesome we discovered it but not surprising.

i don't expect 90% of niketalkers to understand the concept of anaerobes and aerobes
 
Originally Posted by nawlinsjunkie

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by nawlinsjunkie

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by ChiefWiggum

Are you serious??? LMAO!! There are plenty of anaerobic organisms.

laugh.gif
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
WORD, I was like....this is the conclusion they came to.
this is why our public education is one of the worst in the world
laugh.gif
people need to retake middle school biology

Granted he did say multicellular....but I fail to see how this means aliens exist. You'd be surprised how many strange prehistoric creatures that have been discovered in uninhabitable places on earth (especially on the ocean floor).....something like 80 something percent of the ocean is undiscovered.


I may be wrong but didn't life precede oxygen?
nerd.gif

yea there was life way before there was oxygen.
People please remember life before atmospheric O2 not oxygen the element itself. That came before life and is part of all living organisms.
 
Originally Posted by General Johnson

Originally Posted by sherwin100s

Originally Posted by General Johnson

Trips me out how people assume that all life must live/survive the way we do. Life is everywhere. It's behind you looking at you right now and you can't even see it.

It's on the Sun and all the planets in this solar system. Just because we can't see or recognize it, doesn't mean it is nonexistent.
eek.gif
Like OMG!

eek.gif
Totally!

eek.gif
I can't believe it's not butter!
 
I don't understand why we feel like life can only exist under the conditions that we evolved from. Shouldn't evolution teach us that if there is life present somewhere it will find a way to grow and adapt to the conditions it's living under. Why, up until now, has it been so far fetched to even think of something like this? I guess it's because it was just a theory and there was no proof, right?
 
Back
Top Bottom