Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 29 Aug '13 16:37
    http://phys.org/news/2013-08-soil-beneath-ocean-harbor-bacteria.html

    “...They report having found bacteria, fungi and viruses living a mile and a half beneath the ocean floor—such specimens, they report, appear to be millions of years old and reproduce only every 10,000 years. ...”

    If they reproduce just once every 10,000 years, it must have taken an EXTREMELY long time for them to reach their current numbers and reach such depths in the ocean floor crust!

    “...
    ...The team reports that they found just 10,000 bacteria specimens in a teaspoon-sized sample of dirt retrieved from deep below the ocean floor.
    ….
    ….
    their metabolism is extremely slow—likely accounting for their longevity. Some of the researchers on the team aren't sure they're even willing to classify the organisms as live creatures—suggesting they exist in a sort of zombie-like state.
    ….”
  2. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    29 Aug '13 18:41
    Originally posted by humy
    http://phys.org/news/2013-08-soil-beneath-ocean-harbor-bacteria.html

    “...They report having found bacteria, fungi and viruses living a mile and a half beneath the ocean floor—such specimens, they report, appear to be millions of years old and reproduce only every 10,000 years. ...”

    If they reproduce just once every 10,000 years, it must have taken an EXT ...[text shortened]... fy the organisms as live creatures—suggesting they exist in a sort of zombie-like state.
    ….”
    How do they come up with the reproduction every 10K years idea?
  3. 29 Aug '13 19:18 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    How do they come up with the reproduction every 10K years idea?
    I wish I knew. I would like to know that. They said they "appear" to reproduce only every 10,000 years but didn't say according to what observations. Perhaps they estimated from their extremely slow metabolic rate and estimates on how long it would take them to absorb enough energy and nutrients from their extremely nutrient-starved environment to be able to complete their life cycle?
  4. 30 Aug '13 15:27 / 1 edit
    Just had a thought;
    These microbes must age extremely slowly! So if we can learn how it is they live so long without deteriorating significantly with age over a thousand years, we may be able to use that knowledge to modify ourselves so that we age just as slowly?
    ( -but without the ultra-slow zombie-like metabolism that would make us move around slower than a snail! )
  5. 30 Aug '13 16:00 / 7 edits
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    That 10K wasn't about evolution and you just trying to drag into your religious rhetoric in this Science forum yet again.
    You obviously have NO genuine interest in science let alone the OP of this thread so you should not be here.

    [off topic]

    Anyone;

    I wanted to go to the modulator to have his post removed but couldn't because I see no 'Alert Moderator' link below any post including his.
    So where do I click to alert the moderator?

    TO THE MODERATOR;

    Whoever you are, please remove his post above because it is obviously an attempt to bring his religion (his anti-evolution rhetoric is just all part and parcel of his religion so don't be fooled by that! ) into this thread and NOT an attempt to being science into this thread and we find his post offensive (like most of them )

    [off topic]
  6. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    30 Aug '13 16:47
    Originally posted by humy
    That 10K wasn't about evolution and you just trying to drag into your religious rhetoric in this Science forum yet again.
    You obviously have NO genuine interest in science let alone the OP of this thread so you should not be here.

    [off topic]

    [b]Anyone;


    I wanted to go to the modulator to have his post removed but couldn't because I see no 'Alert ...[text shortened]... science into this thread and we find his post offensive (like most of them )

    [off topic][/b]
    I am just stating my opinion that the microbes don't age that slowly and they are looking at it from a bias.

    The Instructor
  7. 30 Aug '13 18:12 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I am just stating my opinion that the microbes don't age that slowly and they are looking at it from a bias.

    The Instructor
    I am just stating my opinion that the microbes don't age that slowly

    really? With “It is just more evilution crap.“ ? Come off it, you cannot fool anyone here with that.
    and they are looking at it from a bias.

    -according to your religious belief that evolution is false. This is RELIGION. It doesn't belong here. Your post should be removed.
  8. 30 Aug '13 19:24
    Originally posted by humy
    That 10K wasn't about evolution and you just trying to drag into your religious rhetoric in this Science forum yet again.
    You obviously have NO genuine interest in science let alone the OP of this thread so you should not be here.

    [off topic]

    [b]Anyone;


    I wanted to go to the modulator to have his post removed but couldn't because I see no 'Alert ...[text shortened]... science into this thread and we find his post offensive (like most of them )

    [off topic][/b]
    It is the ! next to the thumbs up and down.
  9. 30 Aug '13 21:44 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by biffo konker
    It is the ! next to the thumbs up and down.
    I see the thumbs up and down along the top-right of each post But, unless I am being both blind and stupid here, I cannot see any ! character around there nor anywhere except in the main body of the posts as the occasional part of the text of the post.
    Are you seeing on your computer the ! around the thumbs? If so, not sure if the problem would be at my end or at the forum end.
  10. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    30 Aug '13 21:54
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I am just stating my opinion that the microbes don't age that slowly and they are looking at it from a bias.

    The Instructor
    I wasn't aware that microbes aged at all. They have circular DNA so that there is no fraying of chromosomes like there is in multi-cellular organisms. If a cell is damaged to the point where it is malfunctioning then it dies.
  11. 30 Aug '13 22:08 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    I wasn't aware that microbes aged at all. They have circular DNA so that there is no fraying of chromosomes like there is in multi-cellular organisms. If a cell is damaged to the point where it is malfunctioning then it dies.
    Are yes, they don't age like us humans in that way but all cells, including those of microbes, should accumulate mutations over time, especially over a long time, and those mutations should cause it to weaken and then die eventually if they don't divide so that natural selection has a chance to constantly weed out those mutations in future generations of cells.
    This is another way to 'age'.
  12. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    31 Aug '13 01:33
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    I wasn't aware that microbes aged at all. They have circular DNA so that there is no fraying of chromosomes like there is in multi-cellular organisms. If a cell is damaged to the point where it is malfunctioning then it dies.
    Well, at least you agree with me.

    The Instructor
  13. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    31 Aug '13 01:37
    Originally posted by humy
    Are yes, they don't age like us humans in that way but all cells, including those of microbes, should accumulate mutations over time, especially over a long time, and those mutations should cause it to weaken and then die eventually if they don't divide so that natural selection has a chance to constantly weed out those mutations in future generations of cells.
    This is another way to 'age'.
    You are getting ridiculous on here. I am going to leave you to your ignorance. If you want to learn something, you know where to find me. Goodbye.

    The Instructor
  14. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    31 Aug '13 02:57 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by humy
    Are yes, they don't age like us humans in that way but all cells, including those of microbes, should accumulate mutations over time, especially over a long time, and those mutations should cause it to weaken and then die eventually if they don't divide so that natural selection has a chance to constantly weed out those mutations in future generations of cells.
    This is another way to 'age'.
    I had a thought. Strange but true So these microbes were under what, a mile of rock? Not sure what grounds I have here, but a mile of rock would shield the microbe gene pool from cosmic rays so there would be less attacks than on us and all surface dwellers.

    That leads me to wonder if there is a smaller mutation rate for deep underwater, say bottom of the mariana trench deep. I am thinking there would be no radiation to speak of, for instance the microbes buried in rock would still have some amount of radiation from the rocks themselves so there would be a second source of radiation but maybe less than being on the surface and exposed to cosmic rays.

    I remember having to deal with iron 60, a highly radioactive substance we used to measure the thickness of a 500 angstrom deep layer of titanium in on optics modulator we used to build and as a result we had to measure the radiation with a counter.

    Iron 60 has a half life of 2.6 million years and its daughter isotope is cobalt 60.

    We had to record the background count as well and check that against the residual radiation leaking through the iron 60 shield. I was surprised there WAS a count measurable through the shielding, which was not known to the team at Lucent where I worked.

    I caused a BIG stir finding out that little tidbit, I can tell you. They did NOT want to hear about stray radiation in a cleanroom! But I came out of that little research project with a good feel for the background count.

    It went right through the ceiling of several feet of concrete and of course some of that background count came from the concrete itself so you would have to discount a bit of the background to get the real cosmic ray input in that exact location.

    It would have been a lot easier to get a real count if you had a counter on a helium balloon 40 kilometers in the air and I am sure that has been done a couple hundred thousand times but I got a feel for it back then.

    So the surface count can effect mutation rates but deep inside an ocean, cosmic rays would pretty much be ruled out. That would only leave neutrino hits which do happen but less frequently, what neutrinos lack in energy they make up for in quantity since we are 1 AU from a humungus neutrino generator.

    I wonder if there has been a study of mutation rates on life forms deep in the ocean and radiation studies of the rocks where the microbes were found. Sounds like a nice Phd thesis study....
  15. 31 Aug '13 09:21
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I had a thought. Strange but true So these microbes were under what, a mile of rock? Not sure what grounds I have here, but a mile of rock would shield the microbe gene pool from cosmic rays so there would be less attacks than on us and all surface dwellers.

    That leads me to wonder if there is a smaller mutation rate for deep underwater, say bottom of ...[text shortened]... tion studies of the rocks where the microbes were found. Sounds like a nice Phd thesis study....
    Given that each of these microbe cells takes so long to complete its life cycle, it has occurred to me that it may not be so much radiation that causes most of their mutations (in between each life cycle ) but random thermal motions of their DNA molecules that, on the rare occasion, causes such a random jolt that it damages them? I have no idea how to calculate the mutation rate caused by that so it may account for much less than 99.9% of their mutations for I know. I do know that such random thermal motions of protein molecules definitely do degrade them over time so it wouldn't seem too unlikely that the same would apply to DNA although I have never heard of this effect applying to DNA.