Seriously thoughtful Nasa discovers a New form of life?

[HarryT]

This was a paper published in the journal "Science", which is pretty much as "respectable" as it gets.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This was a paper published in the journal "Science", which is pretty much as "respectable" as it gets.

Was that is response to my comment?

I agree with you but am confused what/why you are saying this?

[HarryT]

No, it was in response to erictoma's post about "propaganda". The journal "Science" certainly isn't in the propaganda business.

[kennyc]

Thanks Harry.

[ardeegee]

A new look at the data:

http://rrresearch.blogspot.com/2010/...ria-nasas.html

[Donnageddon]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

A new look at the data:

http://rrresearch.blogspot.com/2010/...ria-nasas.html

And such is the power of science. Nothing is true, only provisionally accepted, subjected to falsification, and considered "fact" only when denial of it's reality would be perverse.

And even then

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

- Stephen Jay Gould

Still there remains the "provisional" assent.

This current arsenic replacement for phosphorus is an interesting experimental observation, but far from "fact". It will be interesting to see how well others can reproduce the results.

And even then, I do not imagine extra solar evolution producing the same genetic formulation.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

A new look at the data:

http://rrresearch.blogspot.com/2010/...ria-nasas.html

Hmmmm.....will definitely have to see how this plays out....

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Life forms on this planet had millennia to work out ways of combining otherwise-incompatible chemicals to support the engines of life. Life forms are a lot more than "eat food, burn energy, crap out leftovers"... they are incredibly intricate systems that use chemicals to create, stimulate or regulate other chemicals, and use proteins to alter chemicals into useful tools.

Arsenic might not "work" in terms of terrestrial life forms' life systems, but that doesn't mean arsenic couldn't be a "workable" part of the life system of some other organism. So this news doesn't surprise me a bit. It's actually similar to the discovery of microorganisms living in the deep ocean vents, using heat and incredibly volatile chemicals to create energy and sustain them.

The more we learn about life, the more we discover that it is much more diverse and robust than we give it credit for.

[ardeegee]

More criticism:

http://www.slate.com/id/2276919/

[kennyc]

That's from Carl! But it appears to be based on the same paper/blog you quoted above. But yeah with comments from a few others. Looks like NASA may not have do enough checking on this one, but I'm quite surprised it was published in Science if there is this much lack of support.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

It just goes to show you: Even the best of magazines (like the best of scientists) can goof up now and then.

[kennyc]

It's happened before, but if this turns out to be wrong ... it concerns me greatly.

[ardeegee]

Many more comments:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/lo...aid/#more-3742

[kennyc]

You know I was reading "A Short History of Nearly Everything" (I'm almost done) and he mentioned a paper published in Science that said women were inferior in math due to genetics. So clearly such bad/incorrect papers seems to get through on occasion.

[ardeegee]

The problem is that with such an important possibility, the care taken with the research must be vast. But according to so many experts in the field, their methodology was only half-vast.