I think this discovery was quite predictible if you conisder the essence of Life. The most comprehensive definition of life is:
LIFE-= HUNGRY MATTER AND EDIBLE TOO (V. Butulescu) If there is something to eat, life appears immediately. Invasiveness is the first law of Evolution. The most convincing example is ice worms- living on Alaska glaciers and on the deposits of methane hydrate ice (different species) These bacteria gourmets are eating arsenic, OK! I have some doubts re fluorine and chlorine, but I am open to the facts. On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > Yeah, okay, people have known about the Mono Lake bacteria for a while now. > But the latest paper in Science reports progress in understanding the > bacteria, and culturing it in the lab. It is an important development. It is > worthy of a NASA press conference. I think it does enhance the possibilities > of other life in the universe and maybe even in the Solar System, which is > awe inspiring. I say kudos to the authors and NASA. > > See the review in New Scientist: > > > http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19805-arseniceating-bacteria-point-to-new-life-forms.html > > Interesting quote: > > "Despite surviving on arsenic for a year, the bacteria would still "prefer" > to grow using phosphorous: biomolecules react more efficiently in water and > seem to be more stable when constructed with phosphorous than arsenic. They > only substitute arsenic if there is no alternative." > > That doesn't surprise me, but I'll bet that a life form evolving in the > presence of arsenic that uses it from the get-go would not have this > tendency. Biological system are incredibly resilient and they often want to > return to their own pre-defined norm, sort of like plastic toothpaste tubes > with a memory for the shape. Or cold fusion reactions which, as Pons said, > have a kind of memory and want to return to the previous power level after > someone interrupts them. (Skeptics mocked him for saying this, but many > chemical reactions such as fire in a burning log do the same thing so I > don't see why they doubted it. If the NAE is unaltered, why wouldn't the > reaction return to the same level of activity?) > > - Jed > >
