BF2S Forums D&ST - Science

Aactually, Im not reffering to archaea and resistant animals. I mean a life form so different we wouldn't even recognize it, like a gas based life form

dayarath wrote:

Debating about biological possibilities is pretty pointless because our understanding of life is extremely limited. Vostok and such are as close to alien as we can get because they might show us lifeforms who use different systems of extracting and using energy. It's not only about the build or resistance.

Thus far almost every single lifeform has based itself around the production and consumption of ATP by breaking down molecules on a cellular level. It would be interesting to see if there's anything else that works (perhaps better), which would in turn greatly extend our understanding of life.

If you're talking about a lifeform that has an outwardly appearance as gassious I see this as pretty impossible. At the very least it has to be solid. If it isn't, absorbing and containing / using energy wouldn't be possible.

Some viruses are nothing more than a strand of RNA...

Last edited by EVieira (2010-10-11 12:57:56)

dayarath wrote:

EVieira wrote:

Some viruses are nothing more than a strand of RNA...

And in turn they are usually enclosed in a solid substance, and dependant on a larger organism's structure to move around.

Either way, how could a virus survive if there were no solid, energy producing organism to begin with?

And what if they did just that?  Not symbiotic, but rather, used their gaseous properties to construct a form of exoskeleton from solid substances.

Good point, daya. The gaseous thing was more of an example though, like, as you said, it would be interesting to discover a life form that performed processes thought to be impossible or previously unknown. It's possible there are other kingdoms and phylums in space or even on earth that we haven't discovered yet.

Ilocano wrote:

dayarath wrote:

EVieira wrote:

Some viruses are nothing more than a strand of RNA...

And in turn they are usually enclosed in a solid substance, and dependant on a larger organism's structure to move around.

Either way, how could a virus survive if there were no solid, energy producing organism to begin with?

And what if they did just that?  Not symbiotic, but rather, used their gaseous properties to construct a form of exoskeleton from solid substances.

It'll get a little more complex than a simple virus if that's the case .

What I meant by move around is that they're usually caught up in the fluid streams and their directions or flying around with gas movements. They can't move on their own hence dependant on other organisms to get anywhere to do anything worthwhile to begin with.

dayarath wrote:

EVieira wrote:

dayarath wrote:

And in turn they are usually enclosed in a solid substance, and dependant on a larger organism's structure to move around.

Either way, how could a virus survive if there were no solid, energy producing organism to begin with?

Viruses can survive without other organisms. In crystal form, some can withstand even the vacuum of space. And they don't need others structure to move around, virus can be easily carried by the wind. Although trees can't move by themselves either and are still life forms.

The problem is that they can't actually do anything when there isn't any multicellular being around, might aswell classify them as lifeless because they have no purpose if there's no larger organism around.

And if I'm not mistaken once entering another organism doesn't it need to be encased in a substance such as proteins? Can hardly imagine strands of RNA moving around on their own.

A very large part of my study is cellular / microbiology (could say I pretty much study that atm) but I don't really remember much from viruses and the like.

Consider viruses lifeless? Granted, they can only truly function when inside other organisms. But that's the way they found to survive, and multiply. Its actually a much smarter way than bacteria, since they leave all the complex stuff such as ATP, mitosis, mitochondrias, Golgi structures, cellular membranes, etc., all to their host.

And in this way they do more than survive, they thrive. Look at AIDS, Ebola and the common cold. We've managed to control the first, but still we have no cure for any of them.

EVieira wrote:

Consider viruses lifeless? Granted, they can only truly function when inside other organisms. But that's the way they found to survive, and multiply. Its actually a much smarter way than bacteria, since they leave all the complex stuff such as ATP, mitosis, mitochondrias, Golgi structures, cellular membranes, etc., all to their host.

And in this way they do more than survive, they thrive. Look at AIDS, Ebola and the common cold. We've managed to control the first, but still we have no cure for any of them.

Not to mention that using antibiotics is only a temporary solution that makes them more resistant, aaanyhow:

Since we're talking about differing lifeforms, the first ones in a chain undoubtedly have to be self-sufficient. You can't start off with a parasitic organism. Undoubtedly though parasitic organisms can be much, much smaller and simpler built than their counterparts.

Well yes, if there's a virus with nothing to call it's host it's essentially dead, although it would technically still be alive.

Last edited by dayarath (2010-10-11 13:56:40)

dayarath wrote:

EVieira wrote:

Consider viruses lifeless? Granted, they can only truly function when inside other organisms. But that's the way they found to survive, and multiply. Its actually a much smarter way than bacteria, since they leave all the complex stuff such as ATP, mitosis, mitochondrias, Golgi structures, cellular membranes, etc., all to their host.

And in this way they do more than survive, they thrive. Look at AIDS, Ebola and the common cold. We've managed to control the first, but still we have no cure for any of them.

Not to mention that using antibiotics is only a temporary solution that makes them more resistant, aaanyhow:

Since we're talking about differing lifeforms, the first ones in a chain undoubtedly have to be self-sufficient. You can't start off with a parasitic organism. Undoubtedly though parasitic organisms can be much, much smaller and simpler built than their counterparts.

Well yes, if there's a virus with nothing to call it's host it's essentially dead, although it would technically still be alive.

No organism is self-sufficient. All organisms need to feed off of something. The bottom of our chain in vast majority rely on the sun. The top, on preying on the ones below. If you consider a virus in a chain, they are on top. Nothing consumes them, and they can consume us. Its hard to accept because they are so much smaller and simpler.

P.S.: Antibiotics do nothing to most viruses, since they are designed to attack cellular structure of pathogens. Antivirals, such as Tamiflu and AIDS cocktails, are designed to kill viruses, but aren't nearly effective as antibiotics with bacteria.

dayarath wrote:

EVieira wrote:

No organism is self-sufficient. All organisms need to feed off of something. The bottom of our chain in vast majority rely on the sun. The top, on preying on the ones below. If you consider a virus in a chain, they are on top. Nothing consumes them, and they can consume us. Its hard to accept because they are so much smaller and simpler.

P.S.: Antibiotics do nothing to most viruses, since they are designed to attack cellular structure of pathogens. Antivirals, such as Tamiflu and AIDS cocktails, are designed to kill viruses, but aren't nearly effective as antibiotics with bacteria.

That was bad wording on my part, I meant to say that it has to live off of naturally occuring building blocks for life, not being self-sufficient.

For viruses I suppose we're just gonna have to wait till nanobots come around.

Ok, good point. Still, to me viruses are the oddest things we have that can be called "alive". Wouldn't surprise me if they were actualy part of some evil alien experiment our test-tube planet

dayarath wrote:

In closing I believe it's pretty vital we concentrate on getting off this aptly named 'pale blue dot' and delve into the resources of our own solar system before we start daydreaming about visiting something a gazillion miles away. If there's anything I understand about the subject, it is that our own resources and the ones we can make are by far not enough to open up the possibility of interstellar travel. We need to start thinking bigger, much, much bigger.

Resources, everything we put a value on-on earth is in spades in space. I was watching a show the other night and they were talking about asteroids within our own solar system that could be mined for hundreds of trillions of dollars in return (net profit). "In fact, all the gold, cobalt, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, osmium, palladium, platinum, rhenium, rhodium and ruthenium that we now mine from the Earth's crust, and that are essential for our economic and technological development, came originally from the rain of asteroids that hit the Earth after the crust cooled." It's hard to determine exactly what resources and how much is need for interstellar travel without actually understanding what technology would be needed.

You're not going to stop people from daydreaming. We just need to make sure that the very long term goals are not impeding our immediate goals .. which they are not.

@presidentsheep, it is entirely possible that life was delivered to earth from another celestial body. H.G. Wells might not have been that far off when he wrote about aliens from Mars coming to Earth.

Kmar wrote:

Resources, everything we put a value on-on earth is in spades in space. I was watching a show the other night and they were talking about asteroids within our own solar system that could be mined for hundreds of trillions of dollars in return (net profit). "In fact, all the gold, cobalt, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, osmium, palladium, platinum, rhenium, rhodium and ruthenium that we now mine from the Earth's crust, and that are essential for our economic and technological development, came originally from the rain of asteroids that hit the Earth after the crust cooled." It's hard to determine exactly what resources and how much is need for interstellar travel without actually understanding what technology would be needed.

Yeah I believe I saw in a documentary somewhere sometime ago that impact craters are usually associated with rich mineral deposits and the like.

Whatever it's going to be that we'll need, I'm pretty sure we're going to need alot of it.

Spark wrote:

dayarath wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

silicone based life is possible to. i imagine that would require completely different conditions for life though.

And here it starts getting really complex because you end up in the realm of endless possibilities. You're probably going to be as knowledgeable on the subject as I am so I can't really add anything of value .

Theoretically yes, it would be possible - still a bit of a mystery why no lifeform has used sillicones though. So far we can mainly agree that the easiest to use are carbon and water because these are recurring substances in pretty much every lifeform. Although every lifeform thus far could have been connected by some common ancestor that started the trend.

Nah, there's a very obvious reason.

Carbon is a bit more reactive, and reacts with basically anything. It also polymerises very easily. This is kind of an advantage, and natural selection does the rest.

isnt it also because of carbon bonds or some shit?

Off-topic I know, but would milk be considered a neutral substance?