User talk:Rowan Forest/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Hi again :)

Hello again. If I could, I wanna ask about 1 another problem. Sb has added biological dark matter to Organism template. It is controversial to me, but sth has interested me. You are an experienced and really helpful user, so maybe you could help solve it, if you have some time. :) In biological dark matter's article it is written that it's genetic material which doesn't fit to any of three domains and there is a taxobox (?) also where we can see biological dark matter belongs to unknown domain and unclassified kingdom, all of which suggests it's sth like unknown, new and yet unclassified type of life. Maybe all that informations let us adding BDM to the template or sth in that article should be changed? If you find some time, please could you think about that question and analase it? :) Thank you in advance and I'm sorry for interrupting. Greetings. :) Pinoczet (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit on Mercury

Thanks for backing me up. That whole chunk of the article is useless fluff. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for explaining what the article was trying to say. Here to sway (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Viking found life?

http://news.discovery.com/space/alien-life-exoplanets/mars-life-viking-landers-discovery-120412.htm

I don't know what to make of this.

Seems they analyzed the data and it matched up with circadian rhythms?

Is it worth mentioning in the Life on Mars article? DN-boards1 (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@DN-boards1: Factual answer: No. They did NOT find living microbes on Mars.
You are probably too young to remember this, but there is a handful of researchers, 6 - 8 people obsessed with the Label Release Experiment and, for more than 30 years they have been torturing the 2 landers' data through the most unlikely scenarios (they call it re-analysis) to make it say 'yes' somehow. Lavin is the leader, and welcomes anything that could cast a shadow on the "inconclusive" outcome and consensus.
Today, the collective wisdom of modern microbiologists is unable to culture/grow 99% of all microorganisms that live on Earth. That is by the most experienced and complex laboratories on Earth. Imagine to succeed with a single assay to grow/feed a Martian bug on their very first shot; It was unlikely to succeed but was worth the try —and an admirable one. Fast forward more than 30 years to the present, and following a zillion hypothesis on the positivity of the original result, this dude makes a computer program that deals with 'mathematical speculations', and on command, it says "yes" to circadian rhythm on the soil sample that grew nothing and has no organics, on a system with no sensors to measure any kind of circadian rhythm and was ultimately, contaminated with perchloride from the surface. Their speculation went nowhere as you can imagine. So no, it is not worth including it in WP, per WP:FRINGE.
BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
So basically, these guys are basically the fringeist of the fringe? DN-boards1 (talk) 02:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
No. They are fringe when formulating scientific hypotheses and interpreting their biased science. True fringe are the guys running the Journal of Cosmology (owners): Chandra Wickramasinghe and Rudolph Schild, investigators include Richard Hoover, Wallis, and Gibson. Wickramasinghe has done exceptional science in the past, but for several years now he let his fantasies/expectations run his interpretations and stories.BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Do Dirk Schulze-Makuch, David Grinspoon, and David Darling fall into this LR group? And I've heard of those Cosmology guys, they're real nutters. Panspermia on its own makes sense, but the nonsense about SARS and AIDS coming from space is just...kooky. But panspermia leading to abiogenesis is an interesting thing. But back to the main topic - do Schulze-Makuch, Grinspoon, and Darling fall into the LR-obsessed group? DN-boards1 (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
@DN-boards1: I do not recall those people entering the LR fray. Yes panspermia has its merit, and it is only recently with the discovery of extremophiles that their resistance to outer space has been assessed and it points at scientific possibility in nature. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
With the discovery of a global subsurface ocean on Enceladus, and the influx of writing on said ocean and the possibility of life, is it now a time where it could be feasible to restore the Life on Enceladus article, due to having enough material on it? DN-boards1 (talk) 03:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
An objective stub specifying life is a speculation. Multiple refs stating the same speculation is not data nor consensus. But as far as I can tell, a global ocean in contact with the rocky core raises its potential habitability as much as the subsurface ocean of Europa. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I also saw in the comments of the Universe Today report of that April 12, 2012 paper something that said this:

"The Viking LR didn’t rely on pyrolysis (heating) as the other experiments who failed to get positives. The LR just checked for gas release in case of the (radio-labeled)nutrient solution would be metabolized by microbes in the soil samples. In all cases the LR measured a steady (radioactive) gas release in the active samples which was expected as sign of respiration. The same samples didn’t show any gas release after they were heat-sterilized (160°C) or after sample storage for 3-4 months in the dark but otherwise ambient but isolated conditions. Interestingly the soil samples showed a lower release of gas after the sterilization temperature for the control run had been altered to ~46°C and 50°C respectively. The 50°C control almost eliminated the gas release like the 160°C controls. Any biologists and especially astrobiologist should become keen-eared by this kind of data shouldn’t they?

The LR data was dismissed after the Viking GC/MS instrument failed to detect organics – here comes the Phoenix finding of perchlorate into the game.

Alltogether the Phoenix findings strengthened the biologic interpretation of the LR as it explained the failure of the Viking GC/MS to detect organics…

so the choice still is either a false positive of the Viking LR or a false negative of the GC/MS (like it got in antarctic dry valley test runs where the Viking LR readily detected microbes with a positive result)."

I think the perchlorates' existence has been acknowledged and incorporated into more recent experiments around the Viking data, right? I believe Dr. Schulze-Makuch described a hypothetical Martian microorganism that utilized hydrogen peroxide: http://news.softpedia.com/news/study-describes-alien-lifeforms-on-mars-and-saturn-s-moon-titan-490151.shtml

Basically, during the day, they use hydrogen peroxide instead of carbon dioxide to perform photosynthesis, and during the night they use hydrogen peroxide to attract water.

Essentially, a theory that manages to reconcile the Viking data with the perchlorates - the Viking landers, after collecting soil samples, not only got ahold of perchlorates, but a small amount of life. And with the life coming into contact with the perchlorate and with the harsh open air, it pretty much died instantly, and what Viking saw when it was performing the biological experiments is analogous to what happens when you pour water on an ant - the experiments, instead of looking for life, ending up killing the life in the soil, producing the result that the LR and PR experiments detected the dying life, while the GEX and GCMS failed to. The GEX didn't produce a positive because the scientists were looking for more widespread life, possibly even lichens. The GCMS completely failed because by the time the GCMS had gotten the soil into the oven and begun heating, the perchlorates and the life had come into contact, resulting in the death of most life in the soil.

But yeah, they're grasping at straws here, but the Phoenix results don't necessarily invalidate the LR experiments due to the perchlorates, in fact it makes practically no difference to it. Either way, we're not certain what the hell Viking found - whether it was life or if it was a bunch of chemicals, or even both - but it's quite possible that it's a combination of both explanations - both the perchlorates and some sort of microbe ended up being detected. We weren't aware of what we were looking for. We assumed life would be widespread if it existed, we thought there could be lichens and such. We didn't know there were perchlorates in the soil - how could we have known? We'd never put a lander on Mars before! - and we sent a poor set of experiments looking for a kind of life on Mars that simply did not exist. The shame is that NASA hasn't sent a microscope to Mars yet - why haven't we done that - and the last time we looked for life on Mars directly was Viking. Curiosity looked indirectly, so did MER, and Phoenix looked for the unknown oxidant. But the next time we look directly is ExoMars and Mars 2020. After years and years, we still haven't sent a microscope. It's a shame Beagle 2 failed, if only somehow we could unfold those solar panels! But no rovers are nearby, and I doubt Opportunity and Curiosity are up for the task! If Beagle 2 had succeeded, if the Mars Polar Lander had succeeded, then we might be in a very different position here. We'd have the data from Viking, from Pathfinder, from the orbiters, from MER, from MPL, from Phoenix, from Curiosity, and from Beagle 2! We'd have a wealth of knowledge, but we don't. We truly know very little of what happened when Viking touched down. Did it just heat up an empty soil sample of perchlorates, or was there a small amount of microbes mixed in with it that got killed when it performed its experiments? I kind of feel that the latter is the case - the experiments detected life, but the results were produced by a combination of microbes and perchlorates that were killing the microbes. It's not necessarily an either-or situation, but yes, it could be that Viking found no life at all. But we can safely rule out the possibility that there were no oxidants there - we know there were now. The question is, was the only producer of the results perchlorates, or did dying microbes play a hand in it?

Sorry for the wall of text there, I just wanted to throw that out there. Just to comment on the Phoenix remark. --DN-boards1 (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


I am glad to see you are reading on it. The fact is that the experiments and controls were limited, so we are left with a wide range of interpretations from a biological perspective as well as chemical (pro and against life). That is why the overall result was declared "inconclusive". No mater how hard anyone can argue, there could always be a different interpretation of the data. The tipping point was the cold, dryness, low pressure and merciless radiation on the surface of Mars, so its surface was more likely to be sterile than thriving. Had you been around NASA then, you would have been submerged in an engineering "culture" that looked down on astrobiologists because their lack of models and numbers. They figure that bringing a soil sample from the subsurface is the best cost-effective solution (remember we can only culture 1% of the microbes on Earth, so there is no way to build in-situ experiments to satisfy the goals of an astrobiology mission focused on metabolism. See, biology cannot make predictions based on physics or mathematics as engineers and planetary scientists do, so the engineers were very annoyed to work on anything related to astrobiology. It just didn't look good in their resume, especially after Viking's biology results. They wanted to work on projects that succeed! Astrobiology was relegated to a small department and small funding, where only the most sagacious, astute, and conservative biologists survived, Christopher McKay and David S. McKay are 2 of them. Had you been involved in the development of the MSL (Curiosity rover) mission, you would not have dared to mention "astrobiology", but "habitability potential" at most. NASA directors were not interested in a joint effort with the ExoMars rover (because of the focus on astrobiology) but wanted to join with their own Mars Science Orbiter for atmospheric studies (it later became the Trace Gas Orbiter). Now with the evidence of an ancient wet, warmer Mars, and likely past habitability, NASA has warmed somewhat to astrobiology, but mostly to heed planetary protection requirements, and to use extremophiles for life-support systems in some future surface base. They figure that bringing a soil sample from the subsurface is the best cost-effective solution —remember we can only culture 1% of the microbes on Earth, so there is no way to build in-situ experiments to satisfy the goals of an astrobiology mission focused on metabolism. Alternatively, soil samples can be searched for DNA (see polymerase chain reaction) without the need to feed, grow and culture finiky microorganisms.
Regarding the WP article on the Viking experiments, it is noted that the consensus is an "inconclusive result", so please be very careful to lean one way or the other if you go there. The recent MSL radiatiojn measurements suggest that even the most radio-resistant Terran spores would not be able to survive on the Martian surface; that is why the ExoMars rover will dig down to 2 m, but a recent estimation says 7 m should be safer to find some preserved ancient DNA if present. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Should we really be ruling out the possibility of current life just yet? And expanding our horizons to Venus - what's your take on the idea of life there? Just throwing that out there. --DN-boards1 (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The consensus at the present time, based on the physical environment, is that life on the surface is not possible (some have written "sterile"), and that future searches should look into the subsurface. I could give you nearly 10 high quality refs stating that. So yes, life on the surface (as suggested by the Viking) is extremely unlikely or impossible. As a scientist I will never NEVER close that door, but I am not going to hold my breath either. In the Wikipedia environment, especially in science articles we have to be extremely careful when inserting a fringe claim (such as extant life on the surface) because of all the published research stating the opposite. However, this is not religion; the scientific method has a self-correction feature, so a single research paper -if correct- can override 30 years of negativity. We just have to watch and report. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I've never actually stated the possibility of life on the surface, I've always been thinking there's likely life in the subsurface. So, moving on from Mars to Venus. I attempted to bring this up earlier - what's your take on Venusian life in the clouds? What is the consensus there? I recall the VSTAR mission proposed for the Discovery Program was intended to look for life in the atmosphere of Venus, but don't quote me on that. --DN-boards1 (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that life in the atmosphere of Venus is extremely unlikely, if not impossible. I am not aware of any mission proposal to probe it for life. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Well it's not IMPOSSIBLE, nor unlikely. Just a subject that is less often discussed than say, Europa, Mars, Titan, or Enceladus. The conditions are right for life in the atmosphere - the temperature averages 82 degrees Fahrenheit, there's trace amounts of water vapor, there's an ozone layer, there's hydrocarbons, etc. And there's some strange things in the atmosphere. Like the fact that sulfuric acid and sulfur dioxide are both in the atmosphere, when they react quickly with each other (or maybe it was some other sulfur compound and sulfur dioxide, I know sulfur dioxide is involved though), carbonyl sulfide is also present, a substance that is nigh impossible to produce through inorganic means. The only ways it could be on Venus is volcanism and life. One problem with volcanism: As far as we know, only one volcano, Maat Mons, is active. One volcano cannot produce that much carbonyl sulfide. Lastly, there's carbon monoxide in such low amounts - practically a deficiency, in fact. Lots of carbon dioxide....but little carbon monoxide. Basically, there's an explanation involving free-floating microorganisms in the Venusian atmosphere that produce those carbon and sulfur compounds. It's also been stated that said life might use sulfur instead of carbon as its building block, rather than carbon - something I haven't really heard before. Interesting explanation. It's indeed highly unlikely any life could possibly hope to survive on the surface, but the atmosphere, especially the lower cloud deck, is where certain kinds of extremophiles like those on Earth would be right at home in. --DN-boards1 (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

There are so many wrong things with the speculations above I would not know where to start. I am not aware of any astrobiologist that would support those ideas. As I said, I am not aware of any concept/proposal to seek life in the atmosphere of Venus, as it is not remotely likely. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you please point out the flaws for me? Not to be rude, but I've been wondering exactly what is wrong with it. Please help, your input would be appreciated. --DN-boards1 (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
You are systematically biased; you believe in life on XYz and won't accept moderate thought for an answer. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I am not outright stating "there's life". I'm stating "It's possible there's life, and we shouldn't reject it outright." --DN-boards1 (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The same was said about unicorns. Come science, write down what is. The rest, you don't have to "disprove", but you don't have to type in an encyclopedia either. Read and think of the PURPOSE of the scientific method. BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I never attempted to disprove anything, I just stated there's a possibility that there's microbial life in the clouds. I'm not saying there's a certainty - very few things, such as the laws of physics, are certain in science - of life, I'm just saying it's not improbable. --DN-boards1 (talk) 06:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
And back to square one. I give up. Even a non-scientist should be able to tell the difference between a speculation and a hypothesis. I tried to help you. I'm out. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, I couldn't tell if it was a hypothesis or speculation.--DN-boards1 (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
So don't edit science articles. Please. Good bye. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Earth system science

The article Earth system science might interest you? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it may get my attention. Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

"Mars Mystery Solved"

E-MIST article newly created

Juno (spacecraft)

New articles Award

Moller M400 Skycar

DN-boards1 was a sockpuppet.

KIC 8462852 - Interesting Star - ETs?

Cubesat

US Congress - Astrobiology Report.

NASA-TV/ustream (10/26/2015@2:00pm/et/usa) - "Enceladus FlyBy" Teleconference.

request

Stars

KIC 8462852 Media

KIC 8462852

Video (58:48) - NASA's Next Steps?

Water on Mars question

Mercury's (hypothetical) moon

November 2015

DYK for KIC 8462852

ArbCom elections are now open!

Enceladus

Please help

Please support this nomination

A Barnstar For You!

Reference errors on 20 December

Happy New Year, BatteryIncluded!

Tetra quark SPI

Hi

A barnstar for you!

ET in Star Clusters?

Glider pictures

Video - Life's Rocky Start

Accretion

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI