The science world is abuzz with the announcement of a life form on planet earth that does not contain what had been previously believed were the essential six compounds.
While I realize that science is based on "facts" that can be studied and replicated, I don't view this discovery as revolutionary at all. I see no reason not to believe that there could be a multitude of life forms based on criteria that humans have not and probably cannot fathom. There could easily be hundreds, thousands or millions of life forms around us every second of every day and, because of the limitations of our senses and imaginations, we simply don't know it.
In my mind's eye, since we still can't explain what life itself entails, why do we think then that life must meet the parameters that only we can conceive?
I'm just saying...
All life on Earth - from microbes to elephants and us - is based on a single genetic model that requires the element phosphorus as one of its six essential components.This discovery is being heralded because it means that other life forms may be present here on earth as well as on other planets.
But now researchers have uncovered a bacterium that has five of those essential elements but has, in effect, replaced phosphorus with its look-alike but toxic cousin arsenic...
While I realize that science is based on "facts" that can be studied and replicated, I don't view this discovery as revolutionary at all. I see no reason not to believe that there could be a multitude of life forms based on criteria that humans have not and probably cannot fathom. There could easily be hundreds, thousands or millions of life forms around us every second of every day and, because of the limitations of our senses and imaginations, we simply don't know it.
In my mind's eye, since we still can't explain what life itself entails, why do we think then that life must meet the parameters that only we can conceive?
I'm just saying...
Agreed, though it is very interesting to find actual evidence of the variation.
ReplyDeleteBut then, with the Gaia hypothesis, where the whole world is alive, it's perhaps not such a revolution. We've never really defined "life" very well anyways, I think because science is trying to be objective and "external," ignoring consciousness and subjectivity, which we all experience as the center of life. So trying to reduce everything to chemicals might be missing the point entirely...
Scientists eh. Not my flavor.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that life is much more fascinating if you just sit in awe of it rather than awaiting evidence to prove awe.