Terraforming Mars!

[Desdichado]

Nucleic acids and proteins have a very chicken-and-egg relationship, but there are a lot of possibilities as to how they originally got together.

As to the question of whether or not DNA and life are hand in hand, that's demonstrably not true; viruses and other extremely simple life forms use RNA, not DNA. Although RNA is still pretty complex as well.

As a somewhat aside, I just read an article today about plants in genetics labs of the genus Arabidopsis that are apparently "repairing" genetic flaws based an a "backup copy" in the RNA, which is a completely unprecedented and unexpected discovery. Among other things, if it turns out that it can be applied widely across all terestrial life systems, it would make the processes of evolution as currently stipulated by evolutionary theory much more unlikely.

Which brings us back to the ever-popular extra-terrestrial bioengineering theory of life.

 

[Turanil]

Among other things, if it turns out that it can be applied widely across all terestrial life systems, it would make the processes of evolution as currently stipulated by evolutionary theory much more unlikely.

Which brings us back to the ever-popular extra-terrestrial bioengineering theory of life.

If evolutionary theory is a nonsense and that terrestrial life-forms are the by-product of bio-engineering. Well, there must be at least one precursor (of those who bioengineer other life forms in the universe) who had nobody to bioengineer them but evolution in the first place. Unless an advanced specie of the future traeled back in time to bioengineer themselves of course.

 

[Desdichado]

It doesn't say that evolutionary theory is nonsense, it merely says that this new evidence -- if it can be applied outside of the extremely narrow conditions under which is occured -- it does go a ways towards removing one of the basic building blocks of evolutionary theory as it's currently defined. If mutations aren't necessarily passed on because "backup copies" of non-mutated genetic code can still manifest, then it makes evolution as currently defined more unlikely.

In other words, even if a lot of conditional effects do pan out, then there's still an avenue for evolution to work as currently defined by the theory, it's just more unlikely. Also, the theory can be modified to accept this new data; it doesn't have to be completely scrapped.

Let's not make this article say more than it actually is saying! Besides, my interpretation of it was largely a joke; I think the Erich von Danniken theories are fun from an X-files/Dark•Matter perspective, but I don't take them very seriously.

 

[tarchon]

As a somewhat aside, I just read an article today about plants in genetics labs of the genus Arabidopsis that are apparently "repairing" genetic flaws based an a "backup copy" in the RNA, which is a completely unprecedented and unexpected discovery. Among other things, if it turns out that it can be applied widely across all terestrial life systems, it would make the processes of evolution as currently stipulated by evolutionary theory much more unlikely.

I think the novelty is more in the mechanism - DNA repair is a pretty well known phenomenon. It just means that the mutation rate is slower than it could be, not that it doesn't happen, since the repair mechanisms sometimes fail to detect or repair damage.

 

[Krieg]

.../snip/... plants in genetics labs of the genus Arabidopsis.../snip/...)

Sheesh Joshua you could have just said plants from the mustard family.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Unless you're expecting that what life we find there is life we brought there ourselves, then this is highly unlikely.

I suppose I have a more gnostic approach. Life exists by purpose-- I have no reason to expect that purpose to differ from Earth to Mars any more than I would expect it to differ from Earth to Tau Ceti or anywhere else in the universe.

The chances of alien life being particularly similar to our own is comparable to the chances that a monkey with a typewriter would bang out a copy of "Heroes of High Favor: Halflings".

See, you should have picked one that I wrote, you'd have had a wittier angle.

At any rate, I would say the chances of "alien life" being particularly similar to ours are astronomically better than the chance that "life" would arise spontaneously in two different places in two totally different forms. That is to say, I would bet on more similarities than differences.


Wulf

 

[Mark]

Sheesh Joshua you could have just said plants from the mustard family.

That wouldn't have cut it...

Spoiler

Yes, I know about the spelling/near-homonym, thank you VERY much...

 

[Pbartender]

Terraformed Mars...


(Click for a larger image.)

 

[Turjan]

It doesn't say that evolutionary theory is nonsense, it merely says that this new evidence -- if it can be applied outside of the extremely narrow conditions under which is occured -- it does go a ways towards removing one of the basic building blocks of evolutionary theory as it's currently defined. If mutations aren't necessarily passed on because "backup copies" of non-mutated genetic code can still manifest, then it makes evolution as currently defined more unlikely.

Actually, this finding about RNA corroborates the current evolutionary theories. Many people who deny the validity of the evolutionary theory point out that it's statistically extremly unlikely that a dual system of information storage in one molecule (DNA) and function in a second molecule (protein) develops spontaneously. This notion is correct . The solution is, indeed, that RNA is the original biomolecule. RNA combines both functions, information storage and catalytic function. Originally, proteins served only structural purposes in mixed molecules with RNA (see ribosome). With evolution going in both directions, protein and DNA, with RNA as origin, the statistics gets much friendlier . And in this regard, RNA as a backup copy makes perfect sense .

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Where did you get that pic Pbartender?