Has NASA Discovered Evidence for Extraterresterial Life?

In summary, the Kepler Space Telescope has found indications of life on an arsenic-based planet, which could expand the range of habitability for Earth-like planets.
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3
What do you suppose the nature of the "discovery" is?
 
  • #4
Could possibly be publication of a paper based on data from the Kepler Space Telescope's search for Earth-like planets. The research was mentioned at a TED talk a little while ago and caught by some science news websites (http://news.discovery.com/space/kepler-scientist-galaxy-is-rich-in-earth-like-planets.html).

[edit: actually after reading the link Greg posted, it seems like the paper is on arsenic biochemistry and implications for the origin of life. Still sounds pretty exciting.]
 
Last edited:
  • #5
I can't find a single article that is coauthored by more than two of the five participants. Voytek is probably just an administrator. Wolfe-Simon coauthored one article with Elser (about the role of molybdenum in bacteria, not too exciting and apparently unrelated to astrobiology) and one article with Benner (regarding signatures of life based on alternative types of biochemistry). There is another article, mentioned by Universe Today as well, that discusses the possibility of having life forms that use arsenic instead of, or in addition to phosphorus.

The last participant, Pamela Conrad, works at the Virtual Planetary Laboratory. To quote: "The Virtual Planet Laboratory (VPL) is a team of scientists who are using the best supercomputers available to simulate Earth-sized (terrestrial) planets. VPL's goal is to discover the likely range of habitable planets around other stars and to find out how these planets might appear to future planet-finding missions."

Based on this information, I think that we can rule out discovering evidence of extraterrestrial life. There's a good chance that they'll announce finding that allowing for arsenic-based life forms expands the range of habitability.
 
  • #6
Here's an interesting article from February 2009 that perhaps gives some insight into Thursday's announcement (http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2556/does-earth-harbour-a-shadow-biosphere-alien-life [Broken]):
The tools and experiments researchers use to look for new forms of life - such as those on missions to Mars - would not detect biochemistries different from our own, making it easy for scientists to miss alien life, even if was under their noses.

"When you don't know what you're looking for or what it'll look like, you have to come up with a whole scientific method for how to go about [looking for] it," added Steven Benner, a Fellow at the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution and The Westheimer Institute for Science and Technology in Gainesville, Florida.

Scientists are looking in places where life isn't expected - for example, in areas of extreme heat, cold, salt, radiation, dryness, or contaminated streams and rivers. Davies is particularly interested in places that are heavily contaminated with arsenic, which, he suggests, might support forms of life that use arsenic the way life as we know it uses phosphorus.

It seems that researchers may have discovered life on Earth that uses novel biochemistries based on arsenic (certainly a discovery worth publication in Science). If this is the case then this discovery, in some senses, is more exciting than finding evidence of alien life on another planet (at least to a biochemist like me). This is in essence an "alien" life-form, but it lives on Earth and can be more easily studied than some hypothetical life in a far away solar system.

It remains to be seen just how different these arsenic-metabolizing organisms are from other life. Are they merely standard, run-of-the-mill microbes that have adapted to metabolize arsenic, thus providing a proof of principle of arsenic biochemistry (the more likely scenario)? Or might they represent a more ancient form of life that preceded or evolved in parallel with modern organisms (very unlikely, but if this were the case it would be an extremely significant finding)? Of course, this could all be idle speculation and the paper could be on something completely different.

Either way, I'm now eagerly awaiting this week's issue of Science.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
Well the hype has got me all giddy :)
 
  • #8
[PLAIN said:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/nov/HQ_M10-167_Astrobiology.html]...to[/PLAIN] [Broken] discuss an astrobiology finding that will impact the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life. Astrobiology is the study of the origin, evolution, distribution and future of life in the universe.

If nothing else, we will be able to refine the Drake equation by an iota or more.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
Ygggdrasil said:
It seems that researchers may have discovered life on Earth that uses novel biochemistries based on arsenic (certainly a discovery worth publication in Science).

I think your conclusion might be premature. I read that to mean that someone has thought of a way that this could be possible. Not that there are actually candidates for life that works this way.

I would put it on par with that movie Evolution where anti-dandruff shampoo with selenium was the arsenic-equivalent for nitrogen based lifeforms.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
I hate the way people/the media hype everything up. We're living in the age of exaggeration.
 
  • #11
Mu naught said:
I hate the way people/the media hype everything up. We're living in the age of exaggeration.


VERY true...more over i do get irritated by the term " might possibly " or " may one day "
where our modern science to confirm and then tell what's what
 
  • #12
When I heard about this upcoming announcement, I tried to think of where on the "spectrum" of searching for alien life this might fit. By "spectrum", I mean where on the following list this news could fall:

1. Finding conditions compatible with supporting life.
2. Finding direct evidence that life once existed.
3. Finding life.
4. Finding intelligent life.

I'm guessing this would have to be at level 1, or (remotely possible) 2. We'll see tomorrow.
 
  • #13
Redbelly98 said:
3. Finding life.
4. Finding intelligent life.

I'm guessing this would have to be at level 1 or 2. We'll see tomorrow.

I could be wrong, but I would find it hard to believe there wouldn't be a leak if it was either 3 or 4. That kind of news would get around very quickly and difficult to contain.
 
  • #14
There's also level 0 - speculating about conditions that could be compatible with supporting life. Since none of the participants of the conference strike me as the kind that would be able to find anything physical (they are all theorists), we should be closer to level 0 than to level 2.
 
  • #15
hamster143 said:
There's also level 0 - speculating about conditions that could be compatible with supporting life.

I saw this on CNN and thought "holy crap!" But after reading and thinking, I'm going with level 0.
 
  • #16
Level 5. We the scientists are the aliens, and are now your overlords. This meeting is to lay out the new Rules for Approved Human Activities.
 
  • #17
FlexGunship said:
I think your conclusion might be premature. I read that to mean that someone has thought of a way that this could be possible. Not that there are actually candidates for life that works this way.

hamster143 said:
There's also level 0 - speculating about conditions that could be compatible with supporting life. Since none of the participants of the conference strike me as the kind that would be able to find anything physical (they are all theorists), we should be closer to level 0 than to level 2.

I doubt that a purely theoretical paper speculating about the possible biochemical conditions of extraterrestrial life would make it into Science. There is reason to think that there could be some organisms with novel arsenic biochemistry. For example, in 2008, a team led by the US Geological Survey found organisms that could photosynthesize using arsenic in a lake in California (Kulp et al. Arsenic(III) Fuels Anoxygenic Photosynthesis in Hot Spring Biofilms from Mono Lake, California. Science 321: 967 (2008). http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1160799).

My guess would be that the NASA team developed new methods for seeking evidence of arsenic metabolism (methods which could possibly be used in future space probes) and validated these methods by seeking arsenic-metabolizing microbes in Mono lake or other similar areas. Finding and sequencing more arsenic-metabolizing bacteria would be helpful as it would provide more data to help determine whether the ability to metabolize arsenic originated recently or represents a more ancient form of life perhaps present on the early earth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
Arsenic-based life tastes like chicken, but I hear it's not good for you.
 
  • #19
Perhaps?

Could the Mono Lake arsenic prove there is a shadow biosphere?
Do alien life forms exist in a Californian lake? Could there be a shadow biosphere? One scientist is trying to find out.

Mono Lake has a bizarre, extraterrestrial beauty. Just east of Yosemite National Park in California, the ancient lake covers about 65 square miles. Above its surface rise the twisted shapes of tufa, formed when freshwater springs bubble up through the alkaline waters.

Felisa Wolfe-Simon, a geobiologist, is interested in the lake not for its scenery but because it may be harbouring alien life forms, or “weird life”. Mono Lake, a basin with no outlet, has built up over many millennia one of the highest natural concentrations of arsenic on Earth. Dr Wolfe-Simon is investigating whether, in the mud around the lake or in the water, there exist microbes whose biological make-up is so fundamentally different from that of any known life on Earth that it may provide proof of a shadow biosphere, a second genesis for life on this planet...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/eureka/article7040864.ece
 
  • #20
Simon is investigating whether, in the mud around the lake or in the water, there exist microbes whose biological make-up is so fundamentally different from that of any known life on Earth that it may provide proof of a shadow biosphere, a second genesis for life on this planet...

Question about this arsenic thing. It's a substitute for phosphorus, right? But it's not a substitute for COHN-, or even RNA/DNA-based life, right?

This hypothetical arsenic-based life is still organic and based on RNA?

Yah, found this on Wiki:
It has been speculated that the earliest life on Earth may have used arsenic in place of phosphorus in the backbone of its DNA
 
  • #21
DaveC426913 said:
Question about this arsenic thing. It's a substitute for phosphorus, right? But it's not a substitute for COHN-, or even RNA/DNA-based life, right?

This hypothetical arsenic-based life is still organic and based on RNA?

The hypothetical arsenic-"based" life would still be based primarily on carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen. The main difference would be, as said in wikipedia, substitution of arsenic for phosphorus. Felisa Wolfe-Simon and co-authors argue that it is possible that such molecules could exist (without being too unstable to allow life) and why these types of molecules may have been easier for life to use on the early Earth in an article in the International Journal of Astrobiology (abstract below):

"All known life requires phosphorus (P) in the form of inorganic phosphate (PO43- or Pi) and phosphate-containing organic molecules. Pi serves as the backbone of the nucleic acids that constitute genetic material and as the major repository of chemical energy for metabolism in polyphosphate bonds. Arsenic (As) lies directly below P on the periodic table and so the two elements share many chemical properties, although their chemistries are sufficiently dissimilar that As cannot directly replace P in modern biochemistry. Arsenic is toxic because As and P are similar enough that organisms attempt this substitution. We hypothesize that ancient biochemical systems, analogous to but distinct from those known today, could have utilized arsenate in the equivalent biological role as phosphate. Organisms utilizing such 'weird life' biochemical pathways may have supported a 'shadow biosphere' at the time of the origin and early evolution of life on Earth or on other planets. Such organisms may even persist on Earth today, undetected, in unusual niches"
(Wolfe-Simon, Davies and Anbar. Did nature also choose arsenic? Int. J. Astrobiol 8: 69 (2009). doi:10.1017/S1473550408004394, http://www.ironlisa.com/WolfeSimon_etal_IJA2009.pdf [Broken])

In particular see fig 2 for the authors' speculative picture of As-RNA and As-DNA.

I would be absolutely stunned if Thursday's Science paper announced they found As-DNA or As-RNA. I could definitely see other aspects of arsenic metabolism (e.g. using it as an electron donor for the fixation of carbon dioxide) and maybe limited incorporation into some biosynthetic pathways, but an organisms with a form of genetic material chemically distinct from all other known organisms would be a huge discovery.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
Well I know a lot of people are let down, but I'm pretty excited. Because this has major implications for the origins of life on earth. Arsenic compounds for things like nucleotides form much more readily than phosphorous ones. It may mean that nucleoside arsenates came before nucleoside phosphates.

Pretty cool.
 
  • #23
Ygggdrasil said:
I would be absolutely stunned if Thursday's Science paper announced they found As-DNA or As-RNA. I could definitely see other aspects of arsenic metabolism (e.g. using it as an electron donor for the fixation of carbon dioxide) and maybe limited incorporation into some biosynthetic pathways, but an organisms with a form of genetic material chemically distinct from all other known organisms would be a huge discovery.

Are you stunned?

It still uses some phosphorus, so it hasn't swapped ALL of it out for arsenic, but still, it's pretty freaking cool.
 
  • #24
  • #25
DaveC426913 said:
Wow. I went to that page and the video completely froze my system - even the mouse (yet the audio played on). I had to do a hard boot recovery.

Ouch, that's almost as bad as the early speculation on the news networks as to what this announcement was going to be.
 
  • #26
Jack21222 said:
Are you stunned?

It still uses some phosphorus, so it hasn't swapped ALL of it out for arsenic, but still, it's pretty freaking cool.

I was very stunned, then I read the paper, thought about it, and am skeptical of the claim that the bacteria uses As-DNA as its genetic material (it may contain As-DNA, but these would likely be nonfunctional). For my (very longwinded) thoughts on the paper, see my post on the biology board (https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3016806#post3016806).

Despite my skepticism, I still think the paper is very neat and exciting. Who knows what other undiscovered biochemistires are out these in other extreme environments.
 
  • #27
A cool discovery (creation?), but I think the hype is overshadowing the fact that we know water can support life without the need of atmosphere or sunlight, we've known this for a long time (I believe ever since we started poking around hydrothermal vents?). Isn't that a bit more exciting, or at least equally so, as we know there is plenty of water elsewhere?

Or has the excitement shifted from the astrobiological implications to biology in general? In which case, yes, very interesting!
 
  • #28
I am puzzled as to why NASA has any role in this. It is terrestrial biology.
 
  • #29
arsenic_based_life.png


According to a new paper published in the journal Science, reporters are unable to thrive in an arsenic-rich environment.
 
  • #30
Redbelly98 said:
I am puzzled as to why NASA has any role in this. It is terrestrial biology.

They funded the research under a branch of exobiology. Basically trying to answer the question: "what else should we look for that might indicate life?"
 
  • #31

CNN said:
Washington (CNN) -- Scientists have discovered a form of bacteria that can thrive on arsenic -- an element generally considered toxic -- dramatically expanding both traditional notions of how life is sustained and the range of where it might be found in the universe, NASA funded-researchers said Thursday.

The bacterium -- strain GFAJ-1 of the Halomonadaceae family of Gammaproteobacteria -- was scooped from sediment in California's Mono Lake, an area rife with high levels of naturally occurring arsenic, it said.

Scientists were able to grow the microbes from the lake with only small portions of phosphorous -- considered an essential nutrient in the biomolecules of naturally occurring bacteria.

The bacterium not only grew but also incorporated the arsenic molecules into its DNA (As-DNA), in place of phosphorus, she said.

According to my understand of molecular biology, an organism based upon As-DNA - if that is the proper scientific nomenclature for such a molecule, represents a new class of life that is relatively distinct from P-DNA. Similarly, a new class of life would also be represented by Si-DNA or Silicon based life where Silicon is replaced by Carbon, however such a class of life would have to respire Silicon Dioxide instead of Carbon Dioxide, and because Silicon Dioxide is not a gas, such a class of life is highly improbable.

With further genetic engineering of this bacterium away from P-DNA evolution, it may be possible for the organism to completely substitute Arsenic as As-DNA.

Applications for such a bacterium could involve removing Arsenic from contaminated soils and water.

Is the probability of class As-Si-DNA based life in the Universe non-zero?

Reference:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/02/nasa.extraterrestrial.life/index.html?hpt=T2"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
Orion1 said:
According to my understand of molecular biology, an organism based upon As-DNA ... represents a new class of life that is relatively distinct from P-DNA.

Ivan Semaniuk made a good point in a sound bite.

He suggested it is not so much that this bacterium is making As-DNA, simply that As is getting substituted for P in the existing DNA.

Kind of like hemoglobin taking up CO instead of O, only more permanent (probably better examples of substitutions out there).
 
  • #33
Orion1 said:
According to my understand of molecular biology, an organism based upon As-DNA - if that is the proper scientific nomenclature for such a molecule, represents a new class of life that is relatively distinct from P-DNA. Similarly, a new class of life would also be represented by Si-DNA or Silicon based life where Silicon is replaced by Carbon, however such a class of life would have to respire Silicon Dioxide instead of Carbon Dioxide, and because Silicon Dioxide is not a gas, such a class of life is highly improbable.

With further genetic engineering of this bacterium away from P-DNA evolution, it may be possible for the organism to completely substitute Arsenic as As-DNA.

Applications for such a bacterium could involve removing Arsenic from contaminated soils and water.

Is the probability of class As-Si-DNA based life in the Universe non-zero?

Isaac Asimov, who has a PhD in biochemistry in addition to being a science fiction writer, discussed the conditions for alternative biochemistries in his essay "Not as we know it." Although he doesn't discuss arsenic-based life, he does discuss possible conditions for silicon-based life:

http://www.bigear.org/CSMO/HTML/CS09/cs09p05.htm
 
  • #34
Student1983 said:
Can we really jump the gun to silicon based life? I mean, if the evidence is empirical, then we have an organism using "mostly" arsenic instead of it's usual diet. I would like to point out that these organisms are not totally weaned off of P-DNA. They just supposedly use arsenic in its place. I'm just curious if we have enough evidence to jump from arsenice to silicon here.

Definitely not, especially because Si-life would not be expected to function at the temperatures and pressures present on Earth. Furthermore, it's still not clear whether the organism actually functions using As-DNA instead of P-DNA. The NASA study has implications only on the possibility of replacing phosphorus with arsenic, and does not provide any support for or against the existence of other such element substitutions.
 
  • #35
FlexGunship said:
They funded the research under a branch of exobiology. Basically trying to answer the question: "what else should we look for that might indicate life?"
Okay, sounds reasonable.
 
<h2>1. What evidence has NASA discovered for extraterrestrial life?</h2><p>NASA has not yet discovered conclusive evidence for extraterrestrial life. However, they have found evidence that suggests the possibility of microbial life on other planets and moons within our solar system.</p><h2>2. How does NASA search for extraterrestrial life?</h2><p>NASA uses a variety of techniques to search for extraterrestrial life, including studying the conditions on other planets and moons, analyzing data from telescopes and spacecraft, and conducting experiments to simulate the environments of other worlds.</p><h2>3. What is the significance of discovering extraterrestrial life?</h2><p>The discovery of extraterrestrial life would have significant implications for our understanding of the universe and our place in it. It could also provide valuable insights into the origins of life on Earth and potentially lead to new technologies and advancements in space exploration.</p><h2>4. Has NASA found any evidence of intelligent extraterrestrial life?</h2><p>No, NASA has not found any evidence of intelligent extraterrestrial life. However, they continue to search for signs of advanced civilizations through projects such as the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI).</p><h2>5. How does the search for extraterrestrial life impact our understanding of the universe?</h2><p>The search for extraterrestrial life allows us to explore the vastness of the universe and contemplate the possibility of life beyond our planet. It also challenges our current understanding of what conditions are necessary for life to exist and expands our perspective on the potential diversity of life in the universe.</p>

1. What evidence has NASA discovered for extraterrestrial life?

NASA has not yet discovered conclusive evidence for extraterrestrial life. However, they have found evidence that suggests the possibility of microbial life on other planets and moons within our solar system.

2. How does NASA search for extraterrestrial life?

NASA uses a variety of techniques to search for extraterrestrial life, including studying the conditions on other planets and moons, analyzing data from telescopes and spacecraft, and conducting experiments to simulate the environments of other worlds.

3. What is the significance of discovering extraterrestrial life?

The discovery of extraterrestrial life would have significant implications for our understanding of the universe and our place in it. It could also provide valuable insights into the origins of life on Earth and potentially lead to new technologies and advancements in space exploration.

4. Has NASA found any evidence of intelligent extraterrestrial life?

No, NASA has not found any evidence of intelligent extraterrestrial life. However, they continue to search for signs of advanced civilizations through projects such as the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI).

5. How does the search for extraterrestrial life impact our understanding of the universe?

The search for extraterrestrial life allows us to explore the vastness of the universe and contemplate the possibility of life beyond our planet. It also challenges our current understanding of what conditions are necessary for life to exist and expands our perspective on the potential diversity of life in the universe.

Similar threads

  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
975
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
767
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
21
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Back
Top