"New Form of Life" Claim

[Sayonara]

Scientists in the USA claim to have found evidence that structures known as 'nanobacteria' are actually alive, and may be responsible for a variety of human illnesses.

 

Other researchers are doubtful that there is enough evidence to call the structures life forms, as they are smaller than viruses and exhibit only a few features associated with life.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3729487.stm

[Ms. DNA]

That was an interesting article, Sayonara, thanks for posting it. I'd be more convinced if they had been able to extract DNA, though. I hope there'll be some follow-up.

[MolecularMan14]

Yes it would be more convincing if they had extracted the essence of life itself.

I myself never doubted the existance of "nanobacteria" because there is evidence of it in most every case of disease in which no evidence could be found. (with the exception of borrelia diseases). However, it is obvious to me that they are alive. Though they lack many of the concpets for life itself, they have reproduced and grown into a species they are now. Viruses are also not considered alive but remain concious enough to be programmed to attack certain cells, and carry either(sometimes both) DNA and RNA. So THEY too are alive.

sometimes, one must always look beyond the current standards into the outliers and beyond in order to see the truth. lol.

[ydoaPs]

no, viruses r not alive. they have no metabolism. they need liveing cells to replicate. they have no cellular organization. they r not alive. an experiment was done in which viruses were crystalized proving they r chemicals. they r broken dna/rna that have been covered in a protien coat. that is why they r usually very specific to species

[Ubermensch]

no, viruses r not alive. they have no metabolism. they need liveing cells to replicate. they have no cellular organization. they r not alive. an experiment was done in which viruses were crystalized proving they r chemicals. they r broken dna/rna that have been covered in a protien coat. that is why they r usually very specific to species

Stephen Hawking and I disagree with you.

 

#1) The "metabolism" argument is begging the question. All forms of life need something else to keep them alive.

 

#2) I can turn you into a crystal. You're made of carbon, you'll do. In fact, there are merchants which sell this as a mortuary service.

 

#3) As for the DNA hangup, forget it. The first life forms didn't have DNA, but used a more primitive system that became obsolete when DNA appeared.

[coquina]

Here is an article I found quite interesting about a group of bacteria that produce magnetite.

 

http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/moskow01/moskow01.html

 

Here's a snippet about magnetosomes:

 

Magnetosomes: Magnetite

The hallmarks of magnetosomes are their size specificity and distinctive crystal morphologies [ Mann et al., 1990b; Frankel and Bazylinski, 1994]. Although variations exist between species, almost all magnetosomes, regardless of composition, fall within a narrow size range of 35-120 nm when measured along their long axes [ Vali and Kirschvink, 1990; Heywood et al., 1990; 1992; Bazylinski et al., 1994]. This size specificity of magnetosomes is significant because within this size range the particles are uniformly magnetized, permanent single magnetic domains (SD). In addition, the particles are arranged along the chain axis such that the crystallographic magnetic easy axes are also aligned [ Frankel and Bazylinski, 1994]. The size specificity and crystallographic orientation of the chain assembly is optimally designed for magnetotaxis in the geomagnetic field.

 

If I were starting out all over again, I would really like to become involved in researching the Archaea in general and chemosynthetic bacteria in particular. I think there will be great advances made with them in bioremediation.

[Glider]

Stephen Hawking and I disagree with you.

 

#1) The "metabolism" argument is begging the question. All forms of life need something else to keep them alive.

 

Viruses don't' date=' because they're not alive. They only need another organism to replicate them (they can't even do that themselves). They can reamain viable outside of their host anywhere from minutes, to years (depending on the virus). Outside of the host organism, they require nothing as they do not grow or replicate or do anything.

 

#2) I can turn you into a crystal.

No you can't.

 

You're made of carbon, you'll do.

 

Not exclusively. Being carbon based is not the same as being made of carbon.

 

In fact, there are merchants which sell this as a mortuary service.

 

I was an undertaker in my dim and murky past, and I've never heard of such a thing. Could you provide us with a link?

 

#3) As for the DNA hangup, forget it. The first life forms didn't have DNA, but used a more primitive system that became obsolete when DNA appeared.

 

They used RNA which is less stable than DNA, but that has nothing to with whether or not viruses are alive.

[Sayonara]

I was an undertaker in my dim and murky past, and I've never[/i'] heard of such a thing. Could you provide us with a link?

It's fairly new over here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/southerncounties/community/diamond/you.shtml

[Glider]

I can see why. Nice ice-breaker at parties though huh?

 

"Hey, nice ring!"

 

"Thank you. It's my wife"

 

 

"...er..."

 

 

Anyway, the argument is still weak. We could extract enough iron from a person to make a six inch nail. That doesn't mean we're made of iron.

[JaKiri]

Stephen Hawking and I disagree with you.

 

That's the most wonderfully irrelevent 'Argument from authority' that I've ever heard.

[ydoaPs]

i want a link to where hawking says that viruses are alive. that would be pretty irrelevent anyway because hawking is a physicist

[pulkit]

Given their size these things are roughly between 500 to 1500 atoms wide. Is it possible for such a small (numerically speaking) and simple (structurally speaking) for to exsist life ?

Plus with such few number of atoms involved, you cannot even think of super complex molecules such as RNA, isn't that completely out of the equation ?

[ydoaPs]

what makes you think life has to have DNA?

[Glider]

One of the requisites for life is the ability to replicate (viruses don't have this). If something is to reproduce itself, it must have some mechanism by which it can ensure that the copies it roduces are relatively accurate, and therefore viable, rather than just random combinations of the parts of the original (most of which would be inviable).

 

DNA/RNA are, as far as I know, the only 'organic blueprints' on this planet. Personally, I don't know of any other mechanism (doesn't mean one doesn't exist though).

[5614]

there is also a possibilty that silicon may be the bases of another form of life.

 

just as we are carbon based: scientists say possiblt there could be silicon based life on other planets, that "the possibilty is there."