Bacteria found thriving beneath Antarctic glacier

The following article, very interesting US protections for Idaho salmon, steelhead are here to stay | Xfinity

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Ah bacteria. I think this is just another piece of evidence that shows that wherever there is liquid water and an electron donor/accepter, there will be life. It seems that extreme pH, salinity, and temperature can not exclude life as easily as we had expected them to.

---

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

The question is, can life develop there, or can it only migrate there over time, slowly gaining new adaptations to let it move into more and more hostile environs?

The answer is, we don't know yet.But unless we want to take the position that life has always existed (which we know cannot be true), then we have to accept that life developed somewhere.

Very true. I was thinking more about extraterrestrial life. There are plans that are trying to get NASA funding for a lander on the dwarf planet Ceres. They claim the possibility of life there, and people like to use extremophiles as a reaosn to believe life could arise there.I'm torn on the issue. I love space, and want them to search everywhere possible for life, but I don't want them wasting money on a search that has a low probability of success. If it is shown that life arose in a temperate environment then spread to more and more hostile environments, then with a statistically insignificant pool of 1, we don't know that life can arise in hostile environments themselves.

The environment here on Earth that life arrose from was fairly hostile.

Possibly, but it was hostile in a "very warm" way. If it arose around undersea vents, or even in a puddle somewhere, there was a lot of energy available for use. On a frozen planet, moon, or dwarf planet, it would seem to have a disadvantage in that there is little excess energy for protolife to use. I understand that life can adapt to that type of environment, but I'm not convinced it can develop there.I'm just anxious for someone to find life elsewhere in the galaxy, preferably in the solar system somewhere, and I think it's out there in vast quantities, I would just rather have them looking in the more probable areas first. Titan, Enceladus, Europa, even Mars or Venus, are all very good places to look.Edited by Perdition, : Added last paragraph

In the thread "reproduction before life" started to challenge buzsaw I posted some links to videos covering the early history of the planet. See post number 9There is a visit to a cave that represents the conditions of the early earth. A very acid environment and bacteria living off hydrogen sulfide, etc.There is mentioned also an experiment where they extracted bacteria from ground water from the worlds deepest mine.Turns out that the reproduction rate is slowed to a cell division every thousand years.

By definition, life can only develop (or survive) in a commodious environment. Those bacteria described in the OP would be just as amazed (to the extant that bacteria can be amazed) that life exists in the horribly hostile environment that we humans find ourselves in. In fact, most bacteria would find it hard to believe that any life can exist in an oxidizing environment (and not just because its hard to believe anything when one lacks any brain cells.)Genomic sequencing should resolve what the phylogenetic history of these bacteria is and at what point they diverged from ancestors living in less harsh (by our standards) environments.

Correct, however, when I said "hostile environment" I meant hostile to most life as we know it. The so called extremophiles would likewise consider us to be the extremes, not themselves, but our nomenclature is, perhaps necessarily, anthropocentric.

Really stupid spam effort deleted.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Spammer.