Life in a Cosmic Petrie Dish

Microbes that cause salmonella came back from spaceflight even more virulent and dangerous in an experiment aboard the US space shuttle Atlantis, according to a study published on Monday.

The experiment by microbiologists at Arizona State University sent tubes with salmonella bacteria on a shuttle flight in September 2006 to measure how space flight might affect disease-causing microbes.

The salmonella sample that travelled millions of kilometers (miles) in orbit changed their pattern of certain genes compared to identical bacteria back on Earth, said the study in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Following the shuttle flight, studies using mice showed the salmonella bacteria aboard the shuttle were "almost three times as likely to cause disease when compared with control bacteria grown on the ground," said a university statement outlining the study.

After about three weeks, 40 percent of mice fed the salmonella from Earth were still alive while only 10 percent of those given the bacteria from space survived, according to the study.

The professors who carried out the research, Cheryl Nickerson and lead author James Wilson, said the results of the research could help advance understanding of salmonella and other infectious diseases -- in space and on Earth - possibly paving the way for development of new treatments.

Salmonella and other related bacterial pathogens are a leading cause of food-borne illness and infectious disease, particularly in developing countries. No vaccine exists for salmonella and it has become increasingly resistant to antibiotic treatment, the study said.

The research revealed the key role of a regulatory protein, Hfq, which could be responsible for the enhanced virulence of the microbes after space flight, the authors said. The finding could shed light on how cells act on Earth.

The study also examined the morphology of the bacteria during space flight and found changes that indicate the formation of a biofilm, which was not observed in the samples grown on Earth. Biofilms are associated with increased virulence of bacteria. Link

Let's take a stroll through the Universe since its creation, shall we?

   All the elements we know and perhaps as many we don't yet know, were created within the first second of the 'Big Bang'. Add to that cosmic cauldron another equally large list of 'anti-elements'. THAT is a where our theoretical and speculative science is today. We have a fairly basic knowledge of that and any permutations of that and it is unlikely that will change no matter (sorry) how much further we evolve or how much more we learn. We have the sketches - we are back-filling the colors, like some cosmic paint-by-numbers exercise in conjecture, fact and supposition. We don't know everything, but we DO know how and why it happened. And even factoring into that pot o' boiling miasma things like 'time', string theory, chaos and quantum physics, we have a decent handle on how it all began.

   The most prevalent element in the Universe is hydrogen. Followed by helium, carbon and iron. There's a reason for that, they are all very simple, stable and long-lived elements. Most of the elements we hold dear and which support OUR life form are results of the fissions and fusions of those elements under all the extreme conditions existing mere seconds after the big bang. Toss into that mix the influences of extreme gravity, cold and constant bombardment by sub-atomic particles released at the big bang and you have what we know as The Universe, our home. These conditions gave us the other factors our life form requires to ...live. Those include certain ratios of elements, existence of more complex elements and the ability of those elements to bond by virtue of attractions based on sub-atomic particles conducive to what we call life.

  Until recently, it was thought that life on this planet was carbon based and required oxygen. Not so. We have discovered 'lifeforms' on Earth which are silica based, require no oxygen, no light and which can exist under extremes of temperature, light and pressure which theretofore we'd ascribed to extraterrestrial imagination. In short, we have lifeforms on this planet which would do nicely at the extreme reaches of our knowledge of the Universe. It is now accepted that 'life' could teem in the frozen methane seas of Titan. Or in the lithosphere of Saturn. Perhaps even in the atmosphere of Jupiter. We have learned 'life' is merely a conjuntion of factors which, for some reason or another, is capable of replication by means, as yet, unknown to us.

   It just so happens that during the infancy of our own little corner of the cosmos, there were untold numbers of comets which bombarded Earth. We know with certainty that comets are primarliy 'ice'. Not neceesarily 'water' or H20 'ice', but other forms - like methane, or the components thereof, which include copious amounts of nitrogen, carbon dioxide and heavier isotopes of our favorite element - hydrogen. During that period when our own planet's crust was almost liquid in it molten lava and its atmosphere was almost nonexistent - those comets rained upon Earth.

   The crust stabilized, the volcanic activity abated and all the 'steam' created by all those incoming comets condensed into our seas. The seas cooled things down and added the stability of a steady mass of huge proportion to our new and still fragile crust. But there was no life yet on Earth. It had a noxious atmosphere, and it was more like Venus in its basis. But things did start shaping up for the approach of life as we know it, about 3 billion years ago. The more complex elements and some newly formed molecules began to condense in the seas of Earth, warmed by the heat of the planet's core and the still unrelenting rain of asteroids and meteors from afar - all containing new and different additions to the grand mix.

   At some point right about here in the supposed geological history of Earth, there occurred life. It is and will be continued to be argued whether it was the alchemy of a cauldron filled with the appropriate elements OR seeded by components which hitched a ride on 'the tails of comets' which acted as the basis for life as we know it to begin. I have an instinctual intellectual need to credit both as the source. And here's why.

   In that boiling pot of random elements which was the Earth 3 billion years ago, I cannot bring myself to assume it could be mere happenstance that life might arise. The possibility of it coming from seeds found in comets seems to me more likely and my positon is widely held. Yet, I cannot rule out a terrestrially-centric beginning, considering experiements and observations done in laboratories. I tend to think it is probably a combination of both. I would like to think that is a fairly accepted method. And, actually it IS.

   Given that, the next logical step in the emergence of 'proto-life' would be that once the seas of Earth had calmed and cooled somewhat and things quieted down enough geologically, that more complex molecules fell here from comets and passing or colliding bodies, which facilitated terrestrial life. Like little seeds. In the words of Immanual Velikovsky - 'manna from Heaven'.

   Given that and the Drake equation, age of the Universe and our own solar system's infancy in that grand scheme, it is not unlikely that microbes or viruses also fell to Earth.

   Given that, it is, again, not unlikely that life on this planet came from somewhere else. That is as least as likely a possibility as it originating here of its own volition. To my mind - BOTH are about the same in likelihood. So this news of bacteria becoming even more virulent or strengthened by the stresses of space comes as no surprise to me. In fact, it confirms my life long held suspicions. Life, once created, is damned difficult to eradicate.

   Our solar system is a baby in relation to the larger Universe, based on how and when it was created, and we are fairly certain in that, it is easy to assume that there were many others created many times long before us. And those systems, for whatever reason were destroyed or disturbed and spawned chunks of rock, pieces of planets, parts of ancient seas which were thrown violently into the cosmos and fell for billions of years UNTIL they landed HERE.

This new research seems to indicate that. What do YOU think?.Spread the word! 

Comments

[Yokel]

I've not heard of the silica lifeform stuff except in science fiction. Any cites? I'd like to read more.

As to the Drake Equation, I don't find it convincing. Too many assumptions. Each term is at the very best a wild ass guess. So, GIGO, garbage in garbage out. Who knows? Nobody. Me either.

A rather interesting take on life in the universe is combining the Fermi Paradox and the Singularity (the Vernor Vinge one, not the other ones). We are here because we are the first. And soon will will give birth to better than human intelligence. Then all hell breaks loose as the machines improve themselves at a very rapid rate.

The mathematician I.J Good (an assistant of Turing during WWII) in 1965 wrote about what would happen if there was an intelligence just slightly smarter than any human who ever lived. Self improving intelligence would rapidly take off. Recursive self-improvement. I believe that's what will happen in the very near future. 20-30 years or so. Modulo some Islamic jackasses biologically screwing us back to the dark ages.

Human civilization only took hold about 10,000 years ago. Verses 3 billion years for life. That's a blink of an eye. An existence proof of rapid change. I believe we are on the verge of the next *HUGE* change in the history of life. Machines that think are just about here. And then when they start designing better versions of themselves, look out! They'll compress 10,000 years into a few days, weeks, perhaps months? It won't take long at all.

Strap in. It's gonna be a bumpy ride.

[Steel]

'...cites'?...

Yeah, HERE is a place to start.

I know, Drake's 'equation' is frought with argument and contempt, and yet, it simply cannot be wrong.

Given the numbers, time, dimension and components involved, it cannot be wrong.

Even if you reduce all the functions by near infinity, the equation stands.

We are not alone.

I am of several minds re AI/machines.

I am certain that self replication is at hand.

I assume self reproduction is nigh.

I know self awareness is on the near horizon.

Whether those components comprise a viable 'lifeform'?

Not so much.

Seems like, just as things are today with the machines we build, there will always be a missing ingredient.

INTUITION.

I've seen lots of work on this and to my mind, no 'lifeform' will ever be able to remain dominant without it.

And no machine can be built WITH it.

And therefore, no machine could build a machine with it.

Ergo. Macines will remain subservient.

Perhaps not always friendly, but always easily out 'guessed'.

Do you know of the the old saw which says ... if cats had an opposing digit, they would rule the world?'

I find that much more easily accepted than a machine doing so.

I am not quite ready to hail my new mecahnical overlords just yet.

At least - that's my hunch.

[Oldcatman]

SCI FI!!!!

[Yokel]

Thanks for the links. I thought you meant real examples of Silica based life, not speculation and theorizing. That's fun an all, but darn it I want real HORTA like in STTODS! (Star Trek the original damn series)

I agree with you that we are (probably) not alone. I believe there is (probably) other life in the universe. I'm not convinced it is any more advanced than bacteria though. I still believe the Drake equation is bad math. As Enrico Fermi said about aliens, "where are they?" Other than filling in for Art Bell on Coast to Coast?

INTUITION ?

There are lots of lifeforms that exist right here on Earth that, as far as I can tell, have no intuition. Bacteria, viruses, the kittens in my blender. HA! Just kidding about that last one.

INTUITION ?

Paraphrasing the mathematician John Von Neumann: show me specifically how a machine isn't like a human and I'll build a machine to do exactly that. What, specifically, is "intuition?"

INTUITION ?

That sounds like the cop out that Kasparov gave 10 years ago when a machine kicked his ass at chess. "It has no 'creativity'". So what? It still smashed your puny human ass.

INTUITION ?

Sounds like "spirit" or "soul". I thought you didn't believe in the supernatural?

Just what is this "intuition" of which you speak?

I honestly have as much trouble with strongly defining "intuition" as "intelligence" so I'm kinda screwed here argument wise.

Anyhow, machines will rule the universe. Shortly. ;)

[Moze]

My my my... what have I stumbled onto in this thread.

Here's my .02 cents (not sense): Machines, by which I take it you mean computers, are no more complex than 1s and 0s, or boolean logic. As a consequence, machines will never be more than an extension of the human mind, which is to say the carpenter's use of a hammer, or a cup of wine.

On the other hand, ya'll don't mind if I have a seat and watch from here, do you? I think that'd be best...

Cheers,

[Steel]

I'll address this in reverse order.

Moze ...

There has been no small success in 3 dimensional architecture vis a vis chip design recently, albeit, only a few stacks.

There has also been some promising research in organic or molecular computational devices, including the employment of genes themselves to act as the switches.

Quantum computing devices rely on particles with at least 8 different states (quarks/charm).

The days of computers merely being on/off gang switches are drawing to a close.

It will soon be possible to enable machines to utilize base 10 and therefore much more capatable to our own way of analyzing and crunching of data.

And I have long held (since 1970), that true liquid crystal technology, where a sphere filled with the right material in liquid state will ultimately be found and that will mimic our brains completely.

Machines WILL be capable of independent thought in the not distant future.

BUT ...

[Moze]

[BUT ...]

What?

Were humans able to engineer a machine capable of "independent thought," what would the machine lack that human kind possesses?

Cheers,

[Steel]

Yokel ...

First, let me say how rewarding it is to have yet another literate, thoughtful and well-spoken commenter hereon - welcome aboard!

I was being lazy and assuming that what I know of silica based lifeforms would be readily apparent in that search link.

My apologies.

Recently, scientists found a new lifeform living near sub-ocean heat vents which seems to be silica based. It has no relationhip to any other lifeform on Earth. I'll dig it up if you insist.

Drake's equation IS a tad enthusiastic and perhaps even overly hopeful, but as I said, when reduced by a factor of near infinity, it still holds.

The 'where are they' conundrum is specious. We are, after all, still reasonably well confined to the speed of light and a good approximation of the distances involved. And other sentient lifeforms may simply not have had the time OR the inclination to stop by and say 'howdy'.

OR, they may be all around us, right now.

If the new and improved versions of the Universe holds true - there's every reason to expect another lifeform may also be in a dimension inaccessable, and therefore, unrecognizable, to us - as we would be to them. It is the height of arrogance to eliminate that possibility.

Now, on to intuition.

Of course animals have it, as evidenced by their ability to KNOW when a seismic event is imminent AND to KNOW when their masters left the office hundreds of miles away. But you're partially correct when you say that 'I don't 'believe in the supernatural.

And I am loathe to use anecdotal evidence, but I must, and hope that will bear me out.

I was tested for an uncanny ability to see things before they happened, to predict the color of the next drawn card when I was three years old at a Texas university. Fear and curiosity drove my parents to seek that testing. It was an ability that I quickly lost in the next few years - but not entirely.

It still happens, only less and less as I age. A good example of what I speak was in a Monopoly game 20 years ago with a half dozen people. Two siblings and some acquaintances. I was throwing a lot of box cars and out pacing the competition. My sister defied me to throw another pair of sixes.

I threw sixes until the rest of the people at the table insisted that I stop. And not in play, either. I simply kept rolling them as a demonstration. I easily rolled over a dozen pairs of sixes IN A ROW. My fellow game players were spooked badly.

The problem was and IS, that I was not consciously TRYING to do so. It was something which I knew at that time and in that place I could and did.

I've had other instances of similar things happening, enough to convince me of two things ...

Yes, there are abilities humans have which are as yet unproven and poorly chronicled.

The other thing is more personal. I realized that when I was TRYING to do such things it was impossible. The obverse held true - I had to force myself to NOT try and that is damned difficult.

That said, I would define intuition as pre-cognizance. Sometimes we just KNOW something WILL happen and it DOES happen. The body of research in this is massive. The world's militaries spend billions on such study based on past success.

Now, allow me to wrap this up.

Quantum theory and the absolutely proven inter-connectivity of subatomic particles regardless of distance lends itself nicely to the idea that the quarks in our head can be connected to quarks at the other end of the Universe and THAT may be what's at play here. Such a phenomenon defies and circumvents the speed of light rule entirely ... and there is much research going on right now about that very paradox.

String theory ALSO lends itself - for if strings are close to each other, there MAY be a way to hop from one to the other given the right circumstances. Another possibility are 'wormholes'.

All suggest that it is not necessary to actually travel THROUGH time OR space to arrvice at another destination eons OR light years away.

The math is sound here and widely accepted.

So it may be as simple as intuition is just a manifestation of any of those theories.

I am very open minded and cannot 'believe' it is NOT possible.

I would need to try too hard to think it CAN'T be ... or happen

THAT, my new friend, is intuition.

I am unable to prove it, quantify it, describe it or even speak intelligently about it, but I know it is so.

As to machines ever gaining that facility - no. A machine could make a very good guess, based on observation and analysis, but will never (sic) have the ability to just 'know' in the complete absence of any empirical data.

A machine's predictions will not ever be misconstrued as intuition.

In fact, I will go one step further - it will be that single fact which will invariably ALWAYS give humans an edge over machines.

Granted, machines will be merciless in their potential to erradicate humans/human like entities and may very well be successful in that endeavor. But they will never be able to second guess the inherent irrationality of humankind.

I will continue to provide you and the other readers with material which will evoke comment and provoke thought.

Call it a hunch.

[Steel]

Moze ...

That day is coming - when machines will be completely independent of the need of human input.

Intuition.

I will aver that intuition would cause a machine to malfunction.

Intuition goes against every conceivable notion of survival.

Or does it?

[Moze]

[machines will be completely independent of the need of human input]

For Peat's sake, Steel, for fun on dateless Friday nights, I'd go to K-Mart and put Ataris into endless loops that blasted "bite my crank" onto the green screen. Those machines were completely independent of further human input, except for the manager that had to unplug them...

Cheers,