Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Are Aliens Living Among Us?

Journal written by pickens (49171) and posted by Zonk on Tue Nov 20, 2007 01:22 PM
from the talk-to-one-at-the-post-office-regularly dept.
pickens writes "In recent years scientists have begun to view the existence of life outside of our solar system as ever-more likely. If life does emerge readily under terrestrial conditions, then perhaps it formed many times on our home planet. To pursue this tantalizing possibility, scientists have begun searching deserts, lakes and caverns for evidence of earth-bound 'alien' life-forms, organisms that would differ fundamentally from all known living creatures because they arose independently. Microbes have already been found inhabiting extreme environments ranging from scalding volcanic vents to the dry valleys of Antarctica. Other so-called extremophiles can survive in salt-saturated lakes, highly acidic mine tailings contaminated with metals, and the waste pools of nuclear reactors. Although 'alien' microbes might look like ordinary bacteria, their biochemistry could involve exotic amino acids or different elemental building blocks so researchers are devising tests to identify exotic microbes. If shadow life is confined to the microbial realm, it is entirely possible that scientists have overlooked it."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • What about us (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ArcherB (796902) * on Tuesday November 20 2007, @01:24PM (#21423521) Journal
    We ARE the Aliens!

    • I don't know about you, but I'm pretty normal.
      • Re:What about us (Score:4, Interesting)

        by ArcherB (796902) * on Tuesday November 20 2007, @01:36PM (#21423777) Journal
        I don't know about you, but I'm pretty normal.

        What is normal?

        I've read reports that say that Earth could have been populated (seeded) by life that survived on meteors or other objects from space. I like to call it not-so-intelligent-design. Either way, if these theories are accurate, then that really would make us the "aliens" along with all other life on Earth.

        • by nschubach (922175) on Tuesday November 20 2007, @02:16PM (#21424513) Journal
          I say we start holding people under water. If they survive they are obviously alien and then we can burn them at the stake. I read it in a book once and it seemed like a good idea then.
          • by why-is-it (318134) on Tuesday November 20 2007, @03:29PM (#21425853) Homepage Journal

            I say we start holding people under water. If they survive they are obviously alien and then we can burn them at the stake.

            No, no - that's completely wrong!

            Let's approach this scientifically:

            • If aliens can be burned, they must be made of wood.
            • All thing that are made of wood float upon water
            • Ducks also float upon water
            • So logically, anything that weighs as much as a duck must be made of wood

            So, the true test of whether (or not) a person is an alien is to see if they weigh as much as a duck. Anyone who does is obviously made of wood, and therefore a witch^D^D^D^D^Dalien!

            Anyone failing this simple test can safely be burned at the stake, as their extra-terrestrial nature has been conclusively demonstrated.

            • Anyone who does is obviously made of wood, and therefore a witch^D
              Sorry man, you couldn't read anything after that, did you get disconnected from your terminal?
          • Re:What about us (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Elemenope (905108) on Tuesday November 20 2007, @04:44PM (#21427141)

            For more fun, Google "Hitler AND Vegetarian". Seriously, associating an idea with some of its kookier followers says nothing significant about the truth or falsity of the idea itself. For heaven's sake, Pythagoras thought that BEANS were EVIL, and yet we don't bring that up every time we try to analyze a triangle, do we?

            Panspermia may be right. It may be wrong (I tend to think, gut instinct, it is wrong). However, the truth of the matter does not depend on how many kool-aid drinking idiots latch onto one side or the other.

      • Re:What about us (Score:5, Interesting)

        by PietjeJantje (917584) on Tuesday November 20 2007, @04:19PM (#21426729)

        I don't know about you, but I'm pretty normal.

        One of the extraordinary things about life is the sort of places it's prepared to put up with living. Anywhere it can get some kind of a grip, whether it's the in toxicating seas of Santraginus V, where the fish never seem to care whatever the heck kind of direction they swim in, the fire storms of Frastra where, they say, life begins at 40,000 degrees, or just burrowing around in the lower intestine of a rat for the sheer unadulterated hell of it, life will always find a way of hanging on in somewhere.

        It will even live in New York, though it's hard to know why. In the winter time the temperature falls well below the legal minimum, or rather it would do if anybody had the common sense to set a legal minimum. The last time anybody made a list of the top hundred character attributes of New Yorkers, common sense snuck in at number 79.

        In the summer it's too darn hot. It's one thing to be the sort of life form that thrives on heat and finds, as the Frastrans do, that the temperature range between 40,000 and 40,004 is very equable, but it's quite another to be the sort of animal that has to wrap itself up in lots of other animals at one point in your planet's orbit, and then find, half an orbit later, that your skin's bubbling.

        Douglas Adams - Mostly Harmless

    • So your ancestors came to earth on the B-Arch then?
      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 20 2007, @01:38PM (#21423807)
        >So your ancestors came to earth on the B-Arch then?
        Looks like yours came on the B Ark...

    • by empiretrade (574120) on Tuesday November 20 2007, @01:34PM (#21423733)
      aliens can file federal form 485 for adjustment of status with the INS
    • by niceone (992278) * on Tuesday November 20 2007, @02:23PM (#21424671) Journal
      I'm not.

      But they are living among us. And they have mod points.
    • Re:What about us (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Remus Shepherd (32833) <remus@panix.com> on Tuesday November 20 2007, @02:25PM (#21424713) Homepage
      Yeah, that was Eric Von Daniken's [wikipedia.org] theory. Aliens came to earth, mated with dumb animals and gave birth to us, then they helped their children build pyramids or some such nonsense.

      I'm more interested in the possibility that some species of dinosaur became sentient, built a technological civilization, and then erased all traces of themselves from the planet (causing mass extinctions in the process) before moving out into space. It's no more likely than ape-humping pyramid-building aliens, but sentient space dinosaurs would be a lot cooler.

      We're not going to be able to say anything useful about our past until we find something with which to compare it. Finding life on just one other planet would give us enormous amounts of data to compare with Earth's biohistory. Wish more resources were being put into doing that.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Yeah, that was Eric Von Daniken's [wikipedia.org] theory. Aliens came to earth, mated with dumb animals and gave birth to us, then they helped their children build pyramids or some such nonsense.

        Well, Eric Von Daniken...and about 75,000 other science fiction authors.

        Or wait...maybe the aliens were really the ancient Gods of mythology...

      • I'm more interested in the possibility that some species of dinosaur became sentient, built a technological civilization, and then erased all traces of themselves from the planet (causing mass extinctions in the process) before moving out into space. It's no more likely than ape-humping pyramid-building aliens, but sentient space dinosaurs would be a lot cooler.

        And then, in a few hundred years, after a really bizarre sequence of events, a load of humans meet up with them and get caught up in some iffy alien politics?

        Yeah, Star Trek's done it. [tv.com]

          • Let's be honest. If humankind went out into space and found dumb animals on another world, our inter(stellar)nets would be filled with 'Hot Alien Bestiality' as fast as we could relay the signal.
  • ALFs? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ackthpt (218170) * on Tuesday November 20 2007, @01:26PM (#21423549) Homepage Journal

    I think we have enough problems with ourselves, to worry about aliens living among us. As a matter of fact, what sort of superiour intelligence, which could get here, would use earth as anything other than their own Botany Bay Colony?

  • by A beautiful mind (821714) on Tuesday November 20 2007, @01:26PM (#21423569)
    ...and Eeeenglishman in New York... (Sting lyrics in post and in my sig)
  • Spiders (Score:4, Insightful)

    by neo-mkrey (948389) on Tuesday November 20 2007, @01:28PM (#21423615)
    Spiders have got to be extraterrestrial. I'm just sayin' -- they are really freaky looking compared to everything else.
        • Re:Spiders (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Retric (704075) on Tuesday November 20 2007, @02:26PM (#21424715)
          But, how could you tell? The first new life forms would probably become food long before they started to evolve the 2nd time around. Let's face it the world is a harsher place now than it was before life started up. It's like trying to start up a new search engine after Google vs. before yahoo.

          PS: Yea, its biology might be different so harder to digest edible but when you eat a poisonous plant it's still dead.
  • by Bombula (670389) on Tuesday November 20 2007, @01:29PM (#21423631)
    The headline and the article both muddily imply that the identification of life on earth fundamentally different than what we are already familiar with would, in itself, be evidence that the life was of 'alien' origin. I can't help but think this is deliberate in order to hype the story. Is there a chance that there is weird terrestrial life on earth we haven't yet discovered? Of course. Is there a chance there is alien life on earth? Yes. But which of the two would be a more likely explanation for the origin of something unusual? I think the answer is obvious, and I think it's exceedingly disingenuous to state or imply otherwise.
    • by ChrisA90278 (905188) on Tuesday November 20 2007, @02:47PM (#21425119)
      Did you read it? "alien" in this context does NOT mean it came from some other place. It simply means it does not share any common ancestor with us. Even if you only read the summary you can see they are looking for "alien" life that arose hear on Earth.

      Finding it means that life arose here twice (at least) and would a be revolutionary discovery. If life is common in the universe and likely to arise on any Earth-like planet then why would it not arise twice on any Earth-like planet? Or three times or 100? Science is about asking questions and this is a good question, good because it is both interesting and (maybe) possible to answer by direct observation.
  • by protolith (619345) on Tuesday November 20 2007, @01:29PM (#21423643)
    So there's a bunch of INS biologists asking bacteria and small plants for their green cards?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 20 2007, @01:30PM (#21423647)

    What a ridiculous idea. I'm sure we humans can all agree it's completely absurd to even wonder if there are extraterrestrials living amongst us humans. I suggest that we all ignore this article, and waste as little time as possible entertaining the laughable notion of aliens living on earth. On with your lives, fellow human friends.

    :)

  • Who won the race? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Harmonious Botch (921977) * on Tuesday November 20 2007, @01:30PM (#21423651) Homepage Journal
    Here we have candidate #1: the home-grown favorite, familiar with the local chemistry, which has to propagate a maximum of 13,000 miles to cover every last spot on the globe, a jaunt that is relatively well protected from cosmic rays.

    And here is candidate #2: the extraterestrial, which has to make a journey of at least 10^13 miles ( and probably one or two orders of magnitude more to give it a reasonable chance of existing ) through interstellar space, subject to cosmic rays. It has to travel fast enough to get here before the sun goes nova, yet enter the atmoshere at a slow enough speed to avoid burning up. And if it gets here, it has to adjust to a foreign chemistry, and it has to avoid being eaten by all the decendants of #1.

    Those are phenomonal odds in favor of #1.
    • Bacterial infection of lunar landing sites [cambridge.org] is a serious concern. Here, read this. [panspermia.org]

      Here's an excerpt:

      I always thought the most significant thing that we ever found on the whole goddamn Moon was that little bacteria who came back and lived and nobody ever said shit about it. -- Pete Conrad

      On April 20, 1967, the unmanned lunar lander Surveyor 3 landed near Oceanus Procellarum on the surface of the moon. One of the things aboard was a television camera. Two-and-a-half years later, on November 20, 1969, Apollo 12 astronauts Pete Conrad and Alan L. Bean recovered the camera. When NASA scientists examined it back on Earth they were surprised to find specimens of Streptococcus mitis that were still alive. Because of the precautions the astronauts had taken, NASA could be sure that the germs were inside the camera when it was retrieved, so they must have been there before the Surveyor 3 was launched. These bacteria had survived for 31 months in the vacuum of the moon's atmosphere. Perhaps NASA shouldn't have been surprised, because there are other bacteria that thrive under near-vacuum pressure on the earth today. Anyway, we now know that the vacuum of space is not a fatal problem for bacteria.

      • by russ1337 (938915) on Tuesday November 20 2007, @02:03PM (#21424295)
        And I counter your offer with This [wikipedia.org]

        Excerpt:

        It is widely claimed that a common bacterium from the human mouth, Streptococcus mitis, survived for two and a half years on the Moon inside the Surveyor 3 camera, to be detected when the camera was returned to Earth on board the Apollo 12 capsule. However, this claim cannot be sustained in the light of several lines of evidence:
        * Streptococcus mitis lives in the mouth; there is no evidence that it can survive for long even in terrestrial environments outside the human body.
        * Streptococcus mitis, like other oral streptococci, is a mesophile; it cannot survive outside of a narrow temperature range centered on human body temperature. It is not an extremophile nor does it produce endospores. It could not survive on the moon.
        * Even extremophiles are unlikely to survive the extremes of temperature on the surface of the Moon (mean surface temperature day 107C; mean surface temperature night -153). Surveyor 3 would have gone through over thirty day-night cycles on the Moon, each one provoking freeze-thawing of bacteria. Applying multiple cycles of freeze-thawing is a commonly used technique for breaking open bacterial cells.
        * There is evidence to suggest ................(read the wikipedia article for the rest)

  • by 2TecTom (311314) on Tuesday November 20 2007, @01:30PM (#21423655) Journal
    Sure, Hollywood loves to portray aliens as weird, mostly very ugly and very different, meanwhile, I think that actually real aliens are more likely to be quite similar to terrestrial life. After all, we evolved into these forms as a matter of effectiveness and survival. We reflect our conditions more than I think we understand. Therefore, given that physics is physics no matter where in the universe you are, I think people will look like people, horses like horses, fish like fish and so on ...

    of course, more highly evolved beings likely have more style too ...
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I think you are mistaken.

      I'm with you that we are product of our environment. But you are ignoring the implications a tiny terrestrial change would have on ALL terrestrial life.

      For instance, assume the earth contained .001% more nitrogen. So for billions of years, life would have evolved around this alternate condition. To assume that life would have rolled out the exact same way on the earth in this environment seems a bit of a leap.

      Heck, even within our earth's periods we've seen incredibly different p
      • by tompaulco (629533) on Tuesday November 20 2007, @02:20PM (#21424603) Homepage Journal
        Basically I'd agree with you if Earth 2 existed and had a COMPLETE MIRROR IMAGE of our planet's history.
        I would disagree. Even given the exact same environmental settings, if a woolly rhino on Earth had a longer horn and was statistically more likely to survive predation actually did survive, while on Earth 2, the same woolly rhino happened to get killed by a freak accident, then longer horns may never have become a trait. Woolly rhinos may have died out earlier, or developed a different defense mechanism.
        I think that given even a minor change to the luck of the draw, Earth's species would have turned out looking much differently than they do today.
  • Correction (Score:5, Funny)

    by Eradicator2k3 (670371) on Tuesday November 20 2007, @01:32PM (#21423681)
    FTS: "Other so-called extremophiles can survive in salt-saturated lakes, highly acidic mine tailings contaminated with metals, and the waste pools of nuclear reactors.

    Other so called extremophiles can survive in their parents' basements, the only light source emanating from an LCD screen, gorging themselves with Cheez-Its and Mountain Dew.

    There...fixed that for you. No need to thank me.
  • by pottymouth (61296) on Tuesday November 20 2007, @01:33PM (#21423713)

    "In recent years scientists have begun to view the existence of life outside of our solar system as ever-more likely"

    Oh yeah, I'm sure we all agree with that statement!

    After 50 years of listening and looking we have, let's see, ONE suspicious signal that never repeated. Well if you consider that good reason for belief I'm not so sure why so many of you have trouble believing in God.... Having worked with several groups that are committed (and some should be) to the search of ET I'm less convinced than ever. Twenty years ago I was certain, now, not so much....
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      The universe is really big, mmkay? And 50 years is a really, really, short time. For the most part we can still just hear things that are being shouted directly at us, in order to get it above the noise. Likely no one else out there knows we are here to shout at us.

      At the same time, the universe is really, really big. The odds are very good that the right combination of environment and events occurred many, many times. The odds just happen to be very bad that it happened a second time anywhere near our
    • by Jason Levine (196982) on Tuesday November 20 2007, @01:43PM (#21423901) Homepage
      Those are two different (though tangentially related) topics. Life outside of our solar system could mean anything from simple microbes, to primitive animals, to advanced intellects superior to humans. The SETI project was only looking for advanced intellects using a narrow detection scheme. One would think that a sufficiently advanced culture would advance past the use of radio waves. Especially if intra-stellar or inter-stellar communication was needed.

      I think the probability of detecting intelligent life is rather low using SETI (though worth a shot). However, the possibility that life in some form exists out there is, I think, very high.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Life is a set that is likely to be considerably larger than the set of advanced civilizations.

  • It's a compelling idea, but what metric would be used to determine if a form of life arose independently? Wouldn't this suffer from the same problem as proving "Intelligent Design" - there is no metric for determining whether something is too complex to have arisen naturally, or too different to by related to known lifeforms. From TFA itself, life as we know it has been found everywhere on the globe, in radically different conditions than ours, which to me suggests that the related lifeforms on earth not only come in a huge variety of forms, but also will probably dominate any system they are in, including the hardest-to-reach ones that we can think of.

    It raises an interesting question, however: if life can start, then it can have started more than once. In terms of probability, does this also mean that is has probably started more than once? And if life can start and stop, then does this also mean that life has probably started and stopped?

  • by sam_handelman (519767) <skh2003@@@columbia...edu> on Tuesday November 20 2007, @01:36PM (#21423759) Homepage Journal
    As the article mentions, bacteria - conventional, non-alien bacteria, which share a common ancestor with other conventional life like you, me and a tree - are found everywhere on earth.

      Living things are, in general, very competitive, and very effective competitors. Otherwise, they wouldn't still be here. So the odds that a new abiogenesis event, if one occurred, would produce a lifeform that would actually be viable in the face of a billion years of evolution by the competition are, I think, remote.

      Also, while living things may thrive under extreme conditions (for example, in a bath of deadly oxygen gas) this does not mean that abiogenesis can occur under such conditions.

      Finally, while it is true that many lab techniques are specific to detecting conventional terrestrial life, others are not. So, unless this non-conventional life is *restricted* to some remote environment - which conventional life certainly is not, so this again seems unlikely - we would be expected to have seen it.

      There are some exotic coincidences which might allow for this to be true - maybe this exotic life looks just like a bacterium under the microscope, but for whatever reason cannot be cultured at all. Maybe it can't live on sugar - maybe it requires some other exotic organic nutrient which is found out in the wild but no-one has thought to add to culture medium. All possible, but also all unlikely.

      Nonetheless, problems of detection of this kind remain a serious and useful direction for inquiry, in preparation for serious efforts to locate alien life on other worlds, where we will need a wide array of avenues for detection to allow for a completely-unknown level of chemical diversity.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      this does not mean that abiogenesis can occur under such conditions.

      exactly. It seems that life is very difficult to get started, even though once it does start it's very tenacious and can survive anywhere. In The Blind Watchmaker Dawkins suggests that running water and clay crystals may be some of the things that are required. In other words, you have organic chemicals laying about (actually, falling from the sky due to comet bombardment) and then being eroded by water. As they travel downstream they ar
  • by digitaldc (879047) * on Tuesday November 20 2007, @01:39PM (#21423819)
    Since most organic matter originated from Stardust falling to Earth, I would say we are ALL aliens in some way, shape or form.

    The best evidence for this is Star Jones.
  • it's also amazing how different forms of life can be reinvented

    whales reinvented what fish do. bats reinvented what birds do

    you can go down into deeper and deeper levels of reinvention of life processes too. for example, horseshoe crabs don't have iron-based red blood, they have copper-based blue blood [horseshoecrab.org]. go deeper than that: there are bacteria that have completely reinvented photosynthesis from scratch according to an alternative methodology [splammo.net]

    of course the basest differences this article talks about is exotic, alternative forms of energy in superhot environments, superacid environments, weird chemical/ metal concentrations, etc. by necessity then, these animals have very exotic and bizarre biochemistry, but tehy are still in our family tree, because of the way they store their genes

    so the deepest alternatives to life as we know it is to find some bugger somewhere who stores its genes in ways other than dna/ rna

    find that bugger on earth, win the nobel prize
  • by Tarlus (1000874) on Tuesday November 20 2007, @01:56PM (#21424137)
    I live less than 100 miles from the southern border of the US, and there are aliens all around.
    But damn, their restaurants make some of the best damn enchiladas in the world.
  • Oh oh... (Score:5, Funny)

    by nick357 (108909) on Tuesday November 20 2007, @01:56PM (#21424147)
    So aliens may already be living in the tinfoil that I make my hats with!?!?!?!?
  • by Lord Ender (156273) on Tuesday November 20 2007, @02:04PM (#21424301) Homepage
    Life has evolved more than once on Earth! Mitochondrian and cells were separate creatures until they formed this symbiotic relationship and out-competed both of their non-hybrid ancestors.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Nah, mitochondria are like tapeworms (but more useful); they pass all the tests for being 'regular' life—they even have DNA. It's the fact that they do have their own DNA that's interesting, in fact; that's the strongest evidence for their having once been independent organisms. But we share a fairly recent common ancestor—they're just bacteria.
  • by ChrisA90278 (905188) on Tuesday November 20 2007, @02:35PM (#21424911)
    This is almost a text book example of the scientific method isn't it? Some one has a theory "Life is very likely to arise on any Earth-like planet." You can test this and prove it right or wrong by observation. All you need are a large number of earth-like planets you lok at each one and see if there is life. OK darn we can't test this theory. So we have a usles untestable theory. Oe so we thought for for year it was untestable.

    What they are saying here, is that if life is likely then maybe here on Earth it started, was wiped out, started again, wiped out again and then we are the product of the 3rd or 100th try. Each of the others being wiped out by some natural disaster like a comet impact or whatever. So here finally is a way to test the theory that life is "likely" if we can show that it happen not once but many times on Earth then it was not a one in a trillion chance but a certainty.
    To prove this they only need to find one microbe that is not decedent from the same common ancestor is we are. The microbe does not even have to be living. A fossil would be as good if it could be shown not to share an common ancestor with us.

    The odd thing is that there could be 100's of these right in plain sight and we'd never know it and even if we did find it how can we be sure.