Extreme Life Found a Mile Below Seafloor

[Achilles]

Link

Scientists have found life about twice as far below the seafloor as has ever been documented before. A coring sample off the coast of Newfoundland turned up single-celled microbes living in searing temperatures about a mile (1,626 meters) below the seafloor.

 

"These are probably not only the deepest, but the hottest organisms found in deep marine sediments," said R. John Parkes, a geobiologist at Cardiff University in Wales. "I was hoping we would find them this deep, so we were very excited that we actually did confirm they were present. It's fascinating to know what proportion of our planet actually has living organisms in it."

Apparently we have a new record for extremophiles!

 

The most important part of the article is this:

"Until we know what's there on Earth, we're not going to have a clue what's possible on other planets," Parkes said. "I think people have taken the message from this type of work that it's no longer sufficient to take a scoop of Martian soil from the surface and say there's no life. If life on Earth can go as deep as several kilometers, there's no reason why that wouldn't be true under similar conditions on another planet."

This makes me even more excited about the prospect for sending life-seeking probes to other potential candidates within our solar system, such as Europa.

[Salzella]

Wow, tough little beasties eh?

 

And I see their point about not finding life outside of space until we've documented our own little scrap of the cosmos. Mind you, there is still the fact that Earth's conditions are unusually hospitable, so it still seems unlikely to me. On the other hand, my main experience of extra-terrestrialo life is sci-fi novels, so....

[Gurges-Ahter]

I agree with Salzella, but playing devil's advocate... while Earth's conditions are "unusually hospitable", that hospitality doesn't extend to a mile below the ocean floor.

 

However, if the life forms that exist there started on the Earth's surface and evolved to be able to live that far below the surface, which seems likely, that would make it tougher to believe life exists below the surface of any other known planet.

[Jae Onasi]

Archaebacteria are very cool. I'm sure we'll find more little creatures as our ability to reach these areas improves. I'd love to see if there's life in other places, but there's so much to do here 'at home' that I think we won't be able to divert resources to a comprehensive research program for quite some time.

[jonathan7]

Link

Apparently we have a new record for extremophiles!

 

Impressive... Most Impressive.

 

The most important part of the article is this:

This makes me even more excited about the prospect for sending life-seeking probes to other potential candidates within our solar system, such as Europa.

 

I remain sceptical as to if any life exsists within our solar system, and would hypthesize that life in general is a rarety in the universe, however given thare are some 58 trillion other planets out there, I would think it extremely long odds for us to be alone.

 

I think Europa could well provide to be a good colonization opportunity in the future.

[Ray Jones]

Excellent!

[Arcesious]

Cool! Those bacteria 'boldly go where no bacteria has gone before.'

 

On an off-topic yet related note: (I named the Dalasians in my 'The Great Dark War' story by a wierd scientific name I made up: Extremophilious Reptillious Aquaticus Decallia Predator Sentiente, )

[*Don*]

This makes me even more excited about the prospect for sending life-seeking probes to other potential candidates within our solar system, such as Europa.

 

I agree.

 

In fact, I have long harbored a feeling that extreme lifeforms (similar to the ones on earth) exist deep in Mars. The Mars Rovers kind of confirmed this, but not thoroghly.

[Achilles]

Mind you, there is still the fact that Earth's conditions are unusually hospitable, so it still seems unlikely to me.

An extremophile is an organism that thrives in and may even require physically or geochemically extreme conditions that are detrimental to the majority of life on Earth.

"Unusually hospitable" eh? Alright

 

I agree with Salzella, but playing devil's advocate... while Earth's conditions are "unusually hospitable", that hospitality doesn't extend to a mile below the ocean floor.

Or next to ocean floor vents or under tons of ice, etc. That's why these organisms are so cool. Conventional wisdom told us that these conditions were not capable of sustaining life, yet when we went to look, life was teeming. So guess what happens to the hypothesis that life is only possible within a certain set of conditions?

 

However, if the life forms that exist there started on the Earth's surface and evolved to be able to live that far below the surface, which seems likely, that would make it tougher to believe life exists below the surface of any other known planet.

What makes you think it started up here and moved down there?

 

I remain sceptical as to if any life exsists within our solar system, and would hypthesize that life in general is a rarety in the universe, however given thare are some 58 trillion other planets out there, I would think it extremely long odds for us to be alone.

If you don't mind me asking:

 

1) How did you get 58 trillion?

2) What makes you think the odds are long?

 

If the science is not pointing to life being more resilient (rather than less so), wouldn't that increase the possibility of life elsewhere rather than decrease it? I guess I'm not understanding how you came to that conclusion.

 

I think Europa could well provide to be a good colonization opportunity in the future.

For us? Probably not (no land ), however there are other places that could work. The purpose of sending geological probes there wouldn't be for colonization though.

 

I agree.

 

In fact, I have long harbored a feeling that extreme lifeforms (similar to the ones on earth) exist deep in Mars. The Mars Rovers kind of confirmed this, but not thoroghly.

If nothing else, they did confirm that liquid water was present at some point in Mars' past. I'll be sad to see them go

[Gurges-Ahter]

What makes you think it started up here and moved down there?

I'm not an expert, but from what I've learned, in order for life to have begun on the surface of the Earth, only a couple of possibilities exist. One - it was brought here from another place, perhaps by a meteorite. Two - life spawned from what was existing on Earth at the time, with just the right mix of temperature, water, air, enzymes, etc.

 

If you believe the first example (life arriving by meteorite), then of course life would have started on the surface (or in the oceans) and moved down.

 

If you believe the second example (life spawning from the perfect mix of elements), it seems that is much more likely to occur on the surface, rather than a mile below the ocean's floor.

 

Of course there are other possibilities for the start of life on the planet, and I'm sure I'm leaving some of the conventional ones out, but from what I've learned it just seems much more likely that life started on the surface and worked its way down.

[jonathan7]

If you don't mind me asking:

 

Yeah I do

 

1) How did you get 58 trillion?

 

I thought that was the number of estimated planets in the universe? Though last time I had checked ther were only around 300 confirmed planets out there. Please correct me if I'm wrong....

 

2) What makes you think the odds are long?

 

Miscomunication; I was saying that I don't think we are alone, given the number of planets, I think it would be long odds if we are the only life in the universe. I think several of those dots up their must have life of some sort on them, though we could very well be the most technologically advanced.

 

If the science is not pointing to life being more resilient (rather than less so), wouldn't that increase the possibility of life elsewhere rather than decrease it? I guess I'm not understanding how you came to that conclusion.

 

See above

 

For us? Probably not (no land ), however there are other places that could work. The purpose of sending geological probes there wouldn't be for colonization though.

 

Could we not build something ontop of the ice? I was also thinking it had the added advantage of having a water source.

[Achilles]

I'm not an expert, but from what I've learned, in order for life to have begun on the surface of the Earth, only a couple of possibilities exist.

First, what do we mean by "surface"? The current hypothesis point toward the first self-replicating chemical strings existing inside a particular type of clay. Clay can be found under water, under ground, etc, so I think we need to be very specific with what we mean by "surface".

 

Nevermind that we could be artificially constraining our range of possibilities by limiting the example to "in order for life to have begun on the surface of the Earth"

 

One - it was brought here from another place, perhaps by a meteorite.

This doesn't answer the question so much as temporarily move it elsewhere. If life came here via a meteor, then we know how it got here, but then we're still stuck answering how it started where ever it came from.

 

Two - life spawned from what was existing on Earth at the time, with just the right mix of temperature, water, air, enzymes, etc.

Yes and no. Yes, that's essentially what abiogenesis suggests. No, those aren't the actual "ingredients" required. The whole point of the article is that we're still adding to and subtracting from "the shopping list".

 

If you believe the first example (life arriving by meteorite), then of course life would have started on the surface (or in the oceans) and moved down.

Maybe yes and maybe no. Clearly, the newly arrived ingredients would start out up here, but erosion, seismic activity, etc may have been responsible for taking them elsewhere (where the process started). We just don't know.

 

If you believe the second example (life spawning from the perfect mix of elements), it seems that is much more likely to occur on the surface, rather than a mile below the ocean's floor.

Why is that? If all you need are xyz conditions, then why does it matter if those conditions are at the surface or a mile underground? What if, at the end of the day, the science suggests that one of those conditions is being a mile underground?

 

Of course there are other possibilities for the start of life on the planet, and I'm sure I'm leaving some of the conventional ones out, but from what I've learned it just seems much more likely that life started on the surface and worked its way down.

Okay.

 

Thanks for reading.

 

Yeah I do

Thought you might

 

I thought that was the number of estimated planets in the universe? Though last time I had checked ther were only around 300 confirmed planets out there. Please correct me if I'm wrong....

I'm not aware of any firm estimates, which is why I was curious.

 

Miscomunication; I was saying that I don't think we are alone, given the number of planets, I think it would be long odds if we are the only life in the universe.

Ah, gotcha. Yes, I absolutely agree.

 

(sorry about that )

 

Could we not build something ontop of the ice?

Perhaps.

 

I was also thinking it had the added advantage of having a water source.

Liquid water does not equal fresh water.

[mur'phon]

Liquid water does not equal fresh water.

 

But it makes it a damn sight easier for us that there is water, even if it is contaminated than if we had to bring it from earth/have hydrogen react with oxygen

[Achilles]

But it makes it a damn sight easier for us that there is water' date=' even if it is contaminated than if we had to bring it from earth/have hydrogen react with oxygen [/quote']I didn't mean "fresh" as in "uncontaminated". The liquid water that they think existed on Mars would have been pink or brown, highly acidic, and very corrosive. Who knows what the water under the surface of Europa is like? So it's not a matter of boiling it to make it potable, it's a matter of chemically altering it so that it's more similar to what we think of when it comes to "water".

[mur'phon]

My terrible english strikes again (you said what I meant by contaminated) I would think it would be easier to get drinkable water out of it than mixing hydrogen and oxygen, and at least easier than transporting it from somewhere else. Besides it might be used as a source of oxygen.

[Gurges-Ahter]

First, what do we mean by "surface"? The current hypothesis point toward the first self-replicating chemical strings existing inside a particular type of clay. Clay can be found under water, under ground, etc, so I think we need to be very specific with what we mean by "surface".

By "surface", I meant on the crust of the earth, not a mile below it (whether below the ocean floor or land).

This doesn't answer the question so much as temporarily move it elsewhere. If life came here via a meteor, then we know how it got here, but then we're still stuck answering how it started where ever it came from.

That's fine, but if it did come via meteorite, the life would have had to move down or else start on its own, mutually exclusive from the life provided by the meteorite. Possible? Yes, but highly unlikely.

Why is that? If all you need are xyz conditions, then why does it matter if those conditions are at the surface or a mile underground? What if, at the end of the day, the science suggests that one of those conditions is being a mile underground?

You're making my point for me. I agree that all that is needed is xyz conditions, but stipulated that those conditions, as we currently know them, are significantly more likely to occur on the surface of the planet, not a mile beneath it.

[Pho3nix]

This makes me even more excited about the prospect for sending life-seeking probes to other potential candidates within our solar system, such as Europa.

Awesome, and indeed I hope I'm alive when we do find extra-terrestrial life.

..so it still seems unlikely to me.

NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE.

 

windu6, anyone?

 

You forgot the RAINBOW letters. --Jae

[Achilles]

By "surface", I meant on the crust of the earth, not a mile below it (whether below the ocean floor or land).

A mile beneath the surface is still the crust

 

Beneath the crust is the mantle (a.k.a. "lava").

 

Link

 

That's fine, but if it did come via meteorite, the life would have had to move down or else start on its own, mutually exclusive from the life provided by the meteorite. Possible? Yes, but highly unlikely.

Why?

 

You're making my point for me.

I don't see how considering that we are saying completely different things.

 

I agree that all that is needed is xyz conditions, but stipulated that those conditions, as we currently know them, are significantly more likely to occur on the surface of the planet, not a mile beneath it.

Based on what? It really does sound as though you're just guessing.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

Those are great news. And it borders idiotic to not seek for life further if it's not immediately found at the surface.

 

Are there any estimates on how old those archaea are?

[Achilles]

Are there any estimates on how old those archaea are?

I would hope that info would be in the Science article (which was published yesterday). I don't have a subscription, but perhaps someone else here does.

[Rev7]

Wow, life nearly a mile below the sea floor! That is pretty amazing...

[Gurges-Ahter]

A mile beneath the surface is still the crust Beneath the crust is the mantle (a.k.a. "lava").

I said on the crust, not in it. I think you're arguing now just for the sake of arguing.

Why?

Do you really disagree? Do you really think it's equally as likely that life formed below the Earth's surface, on it's own, mutually exclusive from the life brought from a meteorite?

I don't see how considering that we are saying completely different things.

I won't respond to this since it doesn't stand alone, and you did respond to the following statements.

Based on what? It really does sound as though you're just guessing.

I am guessing, certainly, since I am not anywhere near an expert in this field; but I'm using common sense while doing so. One of the most important factors of "primordial soup" or abiogenesis is photosynthesis, which requires sunlight. There's no sunlight a mile below the Earth's surface.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Honestly, I'll only care if there's life on other planets if they have awesome technology or can be easily subjugated and made to do my bidding.

[Achilles]

I said on the crust, not in it.

Saying "a mile below it" indicated to me that you were confused about what the crust was. *shrugs*

 

Do you really disagree? Do you really think it's equally as likely that life formed below the Earth's surface, on it's own, mutually exclusive from the life brought from a meteorite?

Please don't answer my questions with questions. You said it was highly unlikely. Please explain why.

 

I won't respond to this since it doesn't stand alone, and you did respond to the following statements.

I absolutely did. You even quoted my reply in your response and offered a response of your own.

 

I am guessing, certainly, since I am not anywhere near an expert in this field; but I'm using common sense while doing so.

I'm sure all the biochemists studying abiogenesis will be deeply troubled to learn that they wasted all that time and effort acquiring advanced degrees when all they need was "common sense" and a little guesswork.

 

One of the most important factors of "primordial soup" or abiogenesis is photosynthesis, which requires sunlight.

Source please?

 

*wonders how is the food-making process for plants is related to the evolution of self-replicating strands of chemicals*

 

(hint: "primordial soup" and "abiogenesis" are not the same thing. One is a set of conditions and one is a process)

 

There's no sunlight a mile below the Earth's surface.

Nope, but since sunlight isn't a requirement, I don't see how that has much relevance.

 

Honestly, I'll only care if there's life on other planets if they have awesome technology or can be easily subjugated and made to do my bidding.

Don't forget hawt.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Don't forget hawt.

Whatever, God invented paper bags for a reason.