Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

An Animal That Lives Without Oxygen

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the besides-me dept.

Earth 166

Julie188 writes "Scientists have found the first multicellular animals that apparently live entirely without oxygen. The creatures reside deep in one of the harshest environments on earth: the Mediterranean Ocean's L'Atalante basin, which contains salt brine so dense that it doesn't mix with the oxygen-containing waters above."

cancel ×

166 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Strange (4, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765362)

I find it odd that the article mentions absolutely NOTHING about the implications of this discovery as it pertains to life on other planets.

Re:Strange (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31765448)

I find it odd that TFA is only about twice as long as the summary.

If it is under 300 words, it's not a real article and I can admit I read it right?

Re:Strange (2, Insightful)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765784)

Also, the rule of "Pictures or it didn't happen" should apply... right?

Re:Strange (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | more than 4 years ago | (#31767166)

There is a picture. RTFA.

Re:Strange (4, Funny)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765546)

Or how a bucket of these might taste! They live in brine, are from the sea... Imagine these on french fries and potato chips!

Re:Strange (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765624)

If there isn't any Old Bay on there, it's a waste of time.

I mean, french fries without Old Bay...why don't you just cut my nuts off while you're at it? :)

Re:Strange (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31765968)

I mean, freedom fries without Old Bay...why don't you just cut my nuts off while you're at it? :)

Fixed.

Re:Strange (5, Funny)

Jello B. (950817) | more than 4 years ago | (#31766864)

Ha ha ha, the phrase "french fries" was at one point replaced with the phrase "freedom fries" and you referenced this in your comment. Your wit astounds me.

Re:Strange (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31768666)

Ha ha ha, the phrase "french fries" was at one point replaced with the phrase "freedom fries" and you referenced this in your comment. Your wit astounds me.

And you felt the need to write out the punchline why? Because the only good troll is a successful troll.

Re:Strange (4, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765826)

Or how a bucket of these might taste! They live in brine, are from the sea... Imagine these on french fries and potato chips!

Why were Futurama, Fry and anchovies the first things that immediately came to my mind when reading this?

Re:Strange (2, Insightful)

publiclurker (952615) | more than 4 years ago | (#31766380)

Great, now I can't read this article without doing it in Zoidberg's voice.

Re:Strange (1)

toriver (11308) | more than 4 years ago | (#31766826)

"MORE! I WANT MORE!"

Re:Strange (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31766542)

Or popplers.

Re:Strange (2)

tiedyejeremy (559815) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765572)

Wasn't oxygenic life a relative latecomer anyway?

Re:Strange (3, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765942)

Aerobic life was fairly early in the phylogenic tree. It isn't uncommon to find anerobic life even today, it is uncommon to find multicellular anaerobic life.

Re:Strange (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31766848)

That's sort of a bad way to frame it; mostly, for a long time after life arose there wasn't any free oxygen.

Once there was free oxygen, it didn't take life very long to start using it.

So it was more of a come-after than it was a latecomer.

Re:Strange (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 4 years ago | (#31767024)

Yup, O2 life is the gray goo run amok!

Re:Strange (4, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765592)

I find it odd that the article mentions absolutely NOTHING about the implications of this discovery as it pertains to life on other planets.

Maybe because terrestrial biologists aren't always thinking in terms of extra-terrestrial biology? It's just not everyone's field of study.

Of course, the exo-biologists (and geeks here on Slashdot) will make the connection, but I'm hardly surprised TFA didn't. Me, I'm no longer surprised to hear that there are such organisms -- the longer we have known about "extremophiles" the more it makes it fairly obvious that critters adapt to all sorts of condition, and quite likely originated in them. For me, it makes it fairly obvious that in the big-honking galaxy (let alone universe) that at least *some* form of life ha evolved elsewhere.

Now, knowing this doesn't make it any easier to look for life on other planets. It broadens the search parameters, but I don't think it gives us a tool to say "there could be life there". But, who knows, astronomy has grown quite a lot in my lifetime.

Cheers

Re:Strange (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31766824)

> the longer we have known about "extremophiles" the more it makes it fairly obvious that critters adapt to all sorts of condition, and quite likely originated in them.

Actually, it's more like critters originate in the most hospitable conditions around. The extremophiles just show us that once life exists, it's very good at adapting and growing into harsher regions.

Re:Strange (3, Funny)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#31767274)

Of course, the exo-biologists (and geeks here on Slashdot) will make the connection, but I'm hardly surprised TFA didn't. Me, I'm no longer surprised to hear that there are such organisms -- the longer we have known about "extremophiles" the more it makes it fairly obvious that critters adapt to all sorts of condition, and quite likely originated in them.

Yes, I've learned about a life form that can live without sunlight, members of the opposite sex, and surive entirely on pizza and soda pop. There's even a website devoted to this life form, but I forget the name right now.

Re:Strange (4, Interesting)

Adustust (1650351) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765596)

I agree that this article is very lacking on details. I would like to know more about how the hydrogenosomes affect the creature's mobility and whether or not a larger animal could be sustained with these organelles.

Re:Strange (1)

Kirin Fenrir (1001780) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765636)

I thought oxygen wasn't actually a requirement (except when bonded to hydrogen to form water, of course.)

Re:Strange (2, Interesting)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765714)

We already knew of anaerobic monocellular life, so hypothetically life could arise on a planet without oxygen. The only thing this changes is that it means we could hypothetically also find multicellular life on such a planet. I don't think existing theory said such life was impossible, meaning it was already a hypothetical possibility, so now it's no longer hypothetical on earth, and somewhat less hypothetical for alien worlds.

Which is still pretty cool. I myself previously assumed that we'd find multicellular life only on planets with oxygen from either geologic sources or as a result of microorganisms producing it. Still I'm hardly surprised that a short article on oceanic biology doesn't cover every tangentially related field of science that I'm interested in. :)

Re:Strange (5, Informative)

srmalloy (263556) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765746)

There are other articles with more coverage -- Live Science [livescience.com] , BMC Biology [biomedcentral.com] (PDF of 20-page article with pictures available), New Scientist [newscientist.com] , Nature [nature.com] , and others. The provisional PDF available at BMC Biology is the full article as it was accepted, and details the experimental procedure that confirmed that these were completely anaerobic organisms.

Re:Strange (1)

madsenj37 (612413) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765916)

Although it might seem strange, these are not the first organisms on earth currently living that do not breath oxygen. The implications for life on other planets have already been discussed based on that fact. They live in extreme climates without light and seem to exist off of the rocks they live on. There is also anaerobic bacteria. However, the articles mentions the first multi-cellular organisms that do not require oxygen on earth. There are implications however, they are a different set.

Re:Strange (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31766288)

Although it might seem strange, these are not the first organisms on earth currently living that do not breath oxygen.

No one is claiming they are.

Re:Strange (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31766532)

Although it might seem strange, these are not the first organisms on earth currently living that do not breath oxygen.

Although it might seem strange, you are not the first poster on slashdot that does not spell "breathe" correctly.

Re:Strange (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#31766494)

I find it odd that the article mentions absolutely NOTHING about the implications of this discovery as it pertains to life on other planets.

That's because there are no practical implications about the discovery of life on other planets. Life on a very diverse world found time to comfortably evolve into a hostile environment. That doesn't at all mean that, for example, the moon could have life.

Frankly, until we actually discover some life elsewhere, the possibilities of what we'll find are wide open. Invent a creature and it could exist somewhere simply because we don't know otherwise. We may even find that nine times out of ten a species won't reach the age of space travel without being nearly identical to a human in shape. Maybe 4-armed aliens always go to war and wipe each other out before they get into space. We don't know so what we find here doesn't help us that much when trying to work out a percentage of habitable planets in our galaxy.

Re:Strange (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31766552)

That's because real science doesn't make wild speculations. Real science is boring--though not neccessarily to the scientists that perform it. Scientists leave the fun stuff to the bloggers and the rest of the media.

Re:Strange (1)

Shinmizu (725298) | more than 4 years ago | (#31766988)

The explanation's pretty simple: the Mediterranean is only on Earth, so it would be pretty silly to look for Mediterranean-dwelling sea creatures on any other planet, wouldn't it?

Re:Strange (1)

dov_0 (1438253) | more than 4 years ago | (#31767990)

I find it odd that it doesn't mention this 'discovery' being over ten years old either!

Re:Strange (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31768454)

Exactly. They've been looking for life with the same old parameters. Must have oxygen in the atmosphere. Plan must possess liquid water. Now, finally, maybe this will have them actually think outside of the box for a change. You'd think NASA would already know how to do that.

first? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31765378)

**Visualize Goatse**

Or its just holding its breath... (1)

thbigr (514105) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765434)

Sorry, couldn't help me self.

Re:Or its just holding its breath... (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31766124)

Has been holding its breath for hundreds of generations now...

Not new (0, Offtopic)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765510)

CmdrTaco replaced oxygen with tacos years ago.

so thats what is fixing the mars rovers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31765516)

so thats what is fixing the mars rovers?

Far more impressive (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31765590)

Since these animals live underwater, this means they must also have found water without oxygen!

There is no Mediterranean Ocean (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31765606)

There is no Mediterranean Ocean. There is however a Mediterranean Sea.

Re:There is no Mediterranean Ocean (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31766370)

while you are it, can you point out the difference between a ocean and a sea?

Re:There is no Mediterranean Ocean (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 4 years ago | (#31766718)

Thar Be Dragons in Oceans

Re:There is no Mediterranean Ocean (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31766774)

And I believe you're not allowed to have more than seven seas.

Re:There is no Mediterranean Ocean (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 4 years ago | (#31767114)

There are seven seas but only 1,3, 4, or 5 oceans.

Re:There is no Mediterranean Ocean (1)

toriver (11308) | more than 4 years ago | (#31766994)

If you want to be formal. Some languages however use their word for "ocean" when talking about the Mediterranean: Norwegian and Swedish for instance. Same goes for the Caspian Sea.

Then again we have lakes that we call fjords, and vice versa.

Re:There is no Mediterranean Ocean (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31767162)

If you want to be formal. Some languages however use their word for "ocean" when talking about the Mediterranean: Norwegian and Swedish for instance. Same goes for the Caspian Sea.

Then again we have lakes that we call fjords, and vice versa.

What does this have to do with the wrong usage of the word ocean in this enlgish language article?

Re:There is no Mediterranean Ocean (1)

toriver (11308) | more than 4 years ago | (#31767528)

Did you get a burr under your saddle, mis-spelling AC?

Re:There is no Mediterranean Ocean (1)

ari_j (90255) | more than 4 years ago | (#31767790)

There are also Lakes which are not lakes, such as Lake Maracaibo, a bay. We also have the Aral Sea, a lake. The point is that there are proper nouns that are the correct names for bodies of water, and in English the name of the body of water known to the Romans as mare nostrum is the Mediterranean Sea. Translations from other languages in which it is known as something equivalent to "middle of the Earth ocean" should use the correct English name for the body. If they do not, then they are mistranslations.

Re:There is no Mediterranean Ocean (2, Funny)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#31767576)

Oh the Mediterranean Ocean, where the Jumbo Shrimps frolic happily.

Unsurprising (4, Interesting)

thepike (1781582) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765616)

Given that there are plenty of bacteria that can do this (including those that find oxygen toxic) it's not surprising that multicellular creatures have evolved to take advantage of low oxygen environments. There are probably numerous, people just haven't been looking hard enough. Plus, when you store your samples in places with air, you get serious sampling bias for things that like air.

Re:Unsurprising (3, Insightful)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765824)

This has interesting implications for biosphere models during and before the Oxygen Catastrophe of the Siderian period. It also reveals an alternative evolutionary path which with these exceptions was otherwise prevented by those events. It fundamentally changes the possibilities of pre-Siderian life.

Re:Unsurprising (1)

Estanislao Martnez (203477) | more than 4 years ago | (#31766042)

Given that there are plenty of bacteria that can do this (including those that find oxygen toxic) it's not surprising that multicellular creatures have evolved to take advantage of low oxygen environments.

Do you mean that some multicellular aerobic organisms evolved into multicellular anaerobes, or that some monocellular anaerobes evolved into multicellular anaerobes? The article seems to suggest the latter, with the no-mitochondria claim.

Re:Unsurprising (0)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31766460)

Yeah, you're a genius. What other great an unfounded obvious things are there?

Stop trying to imply your smart, it only backfires.

"Plus, when you store your samples in places with air, you get serious sampling bias for things that like air."
You don't say?

Re:Unsurprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31766598)

Stop trying to imply your smart, it only backfires.

...

Re:Unsurprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31766930)

Stop trying to imply your [sic] smart, it only backfires.

I see you've learned from experience.

Re:Unsurprising (1)

hrimhari (1241292) | more than 4 years ago | (#31767050)

Jealous, are we?

Re:Unsurprising (0, Troll)

losfromla (1294594) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768124)

That's two postings (that have been pointed out) with bad spelling from a Dad In Portland, maybe the kids got on his computer? Kids? Stop posting on Daddy's forum, you're making him look bad.

Re:Unsurprising (2, Informative)

hallucinogen (1263152) | more than 4 years ago | (#31766800)

The thing is that multicellular organisms require a lot more energy than unicellular organisms and for that there's the citric acid cycle. However there's no citric acid cycle without oxygen. This is the reason we haven't found any multicellular anoxiphiles (?) so far. I think. BTW there's a horrible mistake on the second sentence of the original article and they say it went thru peer-review. WTF! Hint: google "anoxia tolerance"

Re:Unsurprising (2, Informative)

Lunar_Lamp (976812) | more than 4 years ago | (#31767900)

The second sentence is:

"Although a few metazoans can survive temporarily in the absence of oxygen, it is believed that multi-cellular organisms cannot spend their entire life cycle without free oxygen."

I did Google for a bit, and couldn't find anything to disagree with this, except the word 'temporarily'. While I'm not particularly familiar with anoxia tolerance, my quick searching suggests that certain species of turtle can have up to 3months without oxygen in cold water. There may be others out there, but this is the largest number I found. This is clearly a temporary phase in the life cycle of the organism. Are you trying to argue that they are implying that this is more than merely 'temporary' but a major chunk of the life cycle? Personally, were I reviewing the paper, I'd not have had a problem with allowing that phrase to be used (with the caveat that there is no information that I am not privy to currently, and there is no controversy in this area currently).

Re:Unsurprising (1)

hallucinogen (1263152) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768144)

Saying "a few animals can survive temporarily in the absence of oxygen" is sort of like saying "a few animals can swim" or "a few animals eat meat". There are countless animals that survive temporarily in anoxic environments. For example a vast number of insects begin their life in the oxygen depleted (often anoxic) environments of lake sediments.

Been there...done that! (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765656)

Anaerobic respiration [wikipedia.org] does precisely that and has been doing so for generations.

Re:Been there...done that! (3, Insightful)

milgram (104453) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765742)

I think this might be more in line with an organism that doesn't use O2, rather than one that does but can exist for periods of time without it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanogen

Re:Been there...done that! (5, Insightful)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765986)

You're ignoring the huge, huge chasm between unicellular and multicellular organisms, one which was not bridged by evolutionary processes for over 3 billion years by most estimates. It was previously thought that multicellular life without an oxygen-based metabolism was impossible, because previous models of microorganism evolution pegged multicellular development to a point after the Oxygen Catastrophe of the Siderian period. This discovery may lead to wholesale revision of models of microorganism evolution over geologic time.

Re:Been there...done that! (5, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#31766216)

The key part is multicellular. As in what your brain isn't.

The naivety of mankind (5, Insightful)

assemblerex (1275164) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765696)

To think that all life needs oxygen or even a sun to exist goes back to our belief that the earth is the center of the universe.In reality we are a blip on the map.

It is an entrenched thought (1, Informative)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765944)

Even David Attenborough who himself narrated the Blue Planet were animals were shown that lived independent of the sun, narrated happily on Planet Earth that all lives needs the sun... It is just that for us it is so true that we forget that it isn't.

Fact: Hetero males have more anal sex then homosexual men. See how that fits in your little hetero world. Thinking the universe revolves around you is more common then you think.

Re:It is an entrenched thought (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#31766140)

As they say, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Fact: Hetero males have more anal sex then homosexual men. See how that fits in your little hetero world. Thinking the universe revolves around you is more common then you think.

This is true, but only if you think in absolute terms instead of per capita terms. There are simply more heterosexual people, therefore even if only a fraction of them have anal relations frequently, the shear number overcomes the number of homosexuals who have such intercourse all the time. As with most 'number of people' issues, only a per capita model has any relevance, and therein things are exactly as you expect.

And for the record, I'm bi.

Re:It is an entrenched thought (2, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31766236)

I'm bi. Does that have any effect on the frequency that you spend the night alone in your mom's basement? If it does, I know some slashdotters that may be willing to give it the old college try...

Re:It is an entrenched thought (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#31766572)

I'm starting to cease being surprised when this joke gets trotted out [slashdot.org] every time I reference my sexuality.

(Read as: you're not original.)

Re:It is an entrenched thought (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | more than 4 years ago | (#31767276)

Don't take it as an affront to your sexual orientation. It's pretty much an unwritten rule that whenever anyone mentions sex in any context, they are accused of not getting any.

Re:It is an entrenched thought (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#31767452)

Oh believe me, my UID does not do me any credit, since I lurked for ten years before registering, and that only for the /. anniversary parties. (Seattle's was freakin' awesome BTW.) I've seen every variation of the 'basement slashdotter virgin' joke.

Re:It is an entrenched thought (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31766518)

NO they don't. That which they get energy from depend on the sun.

Just sayin.

Re:It is an entrenched thought (1)

tgd (2822) | more than 4 years ago | (#31767014)

There's a difference between a script, which sounds good and is just fine for its target audience, and what scientists know or believe.

You neither know he happily narrated that, nor that he was under the impression it was true.

And considering there is vast amounts of life that has no relation to the sun (chemeosynthesis), and its not a grand secret, its not all that entrenched of a thought.

However, relative to the discussion at hand, there's a HUGE difference between not assuming a particular form of life CAN'T happen, and showing that it, in fact, HAS.

Re:It is an entrenched thought (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#31767278)

Oh, and though it's been alluded to, it has not been explicitly stated by others that all known life does depend on the sun in some way, if for nothing else than providing the energy to keep the earth at a temperature above 2.7 Kelvin of deep space. So, stick that in your pipe and nuclear fusion it.

Re:It is an entrenched thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31767986)

Fact: Hetero males have more anal sex then homosexual men.

Cite? That sounds like one of those completely baseless claims that everybody repeats because they wish and hope it was true.

Re:The naivety of mankind (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31766090)

No, it's not, it's that without empirical evidence of other life you don't make assumptions about it. Life dependent on oxygen is teeming on Earth, so it's not about excluding other life, it's about giving precedence to a working model over one that's otherwise a bunch of unknowns.

Re:The naivety of mankind (1, Informative)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31766190)

Actually, plant life needs carbon dioxide, not oxygen. when the planet first formed, it didn't have an oxygen-rich atmosphere. The oxygen in our atmosphere had to be generated by plants. Life existed for hundreds of millions of years before any life that required oxygen evolved.

Re:The naivety of mankind (1)

tgd (2822) | more than 4 years ago | (#31767270)

Unicellular life -- the branch of life we consider "plants" after the point the atmosphere changed over to an oxygen/nitrogen one.

Re:The naivety of mankind (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#31766964)

Of course, if we were to truly understand that we were nothing but an invisible dot on an invisible dot, infinitely small, our souls would be destroyed [wikipedia.org] .

Re:The naivety of mankind (2, Informative)

postglock (917809) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768632)

Ultimately, these animals are still dependent on a source of energy such as a sun. These animals are not capable of capturing such energy themselves, but rely on photosynthetic organisms such as plants or algae at the bottom of the food chain. As another poster pointed out, carbon dioxide is necessary for this photosynthesis, not oxygen. This is converted into sugar, which animals subsequently consume. Hydrogenosomes function similarly to mitochondria in converting sugar into ATP (more accessible energy), but differ in that they produce (surprise, surprise) hydrogen as a byproduct.

This isn't new... (0)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765710)

There's a joke in this somewhere about somebody's mom breathing through her ears, but I'm just way too busy to figure it out now.

No biggee... (-1, Offtopic)

grub (11606) | more than 4 years ago | (#31765770)


I discovered my ex-wife's cunt years ago.

A lot of comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31765838)

A lot of the comments so far seem to be missing the point. Sure various bacteria and such don't need oxygen to live but until now, animals did. I assume they are using the term "animal" in the taxonomic sense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal).

Core Paper (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31765876)

The summary discusses an article which is talking about an abstract of the provisional paper available at http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1741-7007-8-30.pdf [biomedcentral.com] .

mod 0p (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31765930)

Guess what (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31766280)

It's got a higher IQ then 75 percentiles of niggers.

Re:Guess what (1)

losfromla (1294594) | more than 4 years ago | (#31768254)

then -> than
percentiles -> percent
I'd guess that, roughly, more than 90% of the human population has a higher IQ than you do.
Suggestion: Make the changes in your "stock phrase" document, then next time you copy-and-paste them into the forum, you won't look like as much of a dunce. You'll still be a moron, just that, it won't seep out of your fingers as obviously.

What is meant by "without oxygen"? (0)

mschaffer (97223) | more than 4 years ago | (#31766316)

I am certain that these organisms contain oxygen in some of their molecules, like DNA, RNA, amino acids, etc.

Perhaps these organisms do not consume oxygen in respiration?

Re:What is meant by "without oxygen"? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31766566)

"I am certain that these organisms contain oxygen in some of their molecules, like DNA, RNA, amino acids, etc."

Why?

FTA:
" The creature's cells apparently lack mitochondria, the organelles that use oxygen to power a cell. Instead they are rich in what seem to be hydrogenosomes, organelles that can do a similar job in anaerobic (or oxygen free) environments."

Someday, there will be a way to link to articles, and on that day you can stop looking like a duuf.

Re:What is meant by "without oxygen"? (1)

Frenchman113 (893369) | more than 4 years ago | (#31766954)

"I am certain that these organisms contain oxygen in some of their molecules, like DNA, RNA, amino acids, etc."

Why?

FTA:
" The creature's cells apparently lack mitochondria, the organelles that use oxygen to power a cell. Instead they are rich in what seem to be hydrogenosomes, organelles that can do a similar job in anaerobic (or oxygen free) environments."

Someday, there will be a way to link to articles, and on that day you can stop looking like a duuf.

mschaffer refers to oxygen in the sense of the atomic species. It is certain that all known life forms have oxygen atoms in them, and mschaffer is simply being pedantic.

Re:What is meant by "without oxygen"? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31767148)

He means in the sense that they almost certainly have some water in them, which usually has some oxygen as a component.

Re:What is meant by "without oxygen"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31767460)

"I am certain that these organisms contain oxygen in some of their molecules, like DNA, RNA, amino acids, etc."

Why?

because then the big title would have been "inorganic life found". It would me much more extraordinary if they found life that has no oxygen in its molecules. There's a BIG difference between that and not having mitochondia. The article doesn't claim that, so the mschaffer's post isn't dumb. Perhaps you should read the article (and the post) more carefully before calling people a duuf. Lately it seems slashdot is not about debating ideas but calling other people names.

Re:What is meant by "without oxygen"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31767798)

"I am certain that these organisms contain oxygen in some of their molecules, like DNA, RNA, amino acids, etc."

Why?

FTA:
" The creature's cells apparently lack mitochondria, the organelles that use oxygen to power a cell. Instead they are rich in what seem to be hydrogenosomes, organelles that can do a similar job in anaerobic (or oxygen free) environments."

Someday, there will be a way to link to articles, and on that day you can stop looking like a duuf.

Don't be such an ass.
I'm guessing that the GP means elemental oxygen, not the molecular gas oxygen.
yeah oxygen is in everything living. take a look at the wikipedia entry for "hydrogenosomes"... see those capital "O"s in the diagram? Oxygen!
So even though these Animals live without O2, they certainly aren't living without O bound up in various molecules in their body.

Re:What is meant by "without oxygen"? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#31767164)

You were wrong before you started.

You shouldn't assume that just because life we've found on Earth has anything like DNA, RNA and amino acids.

It is entirely possible that life elsewhere, even on our own planet, can look entirely unlike anything we've ever seen.

Contrary to what many scientists seem to think or at least project, we do not know everything. In the grand scheme of things, we know very very little about the way stuff works in general, even if from our perspective it seems we know a great deal. We barely understand a tiny fraction of the way the universe works on the confines of our own planet, let alone every where else in the universe.

Assumptions do nothing but hold you back. If you can't prove it, don't assume it.

Mediterranean Mystery (1)

mindbrane (1548037) | more than 4 years ago | (#31766624)

There are vast deposits of salt beneath the Mediterranean, so much so that it's been suggested (Miracle Planet episode x(?)) that the salt deposits were necessary to the evolution of life forms today because of the amount of salt taken from the seas. Sorry I've not the time to search more but this The Mediterranean Disaster Mystery [nasca.org.uk] link gives an intro.

Re:Mediterranean Mystery (2, Funny)

mindbrane (1548037) | more than 4 years ago | (#31766700)

Sorry I just read the linked to page. Do Not Go There. Again Sorry. Try the Miracle Planet Episode. So sorry...

Mediterranean Ocean (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31767100)

There is no such thing as "Mediterranean Ocean"

Not really accurate (2, Insightful)

johno.ie (102073) | more than 4 years ago | (#31767280)

Water is 89% oxygen by weight.

Re:Not really accurate (1)

SheeEttin (899897) | more than 4 years ago | (#31767590)

True, but that oxygen means nothing if you can't separate it from the hydrogen.
Water, water, everywhere, and not a drop to drink, eh?

what? (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31767612)

no cthulhu tag?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>