New Life Form:Transhumanism

New Life Form and Transhumanism, both covered by the newsletter
Coast to Coast newsletter, December 3, 2010
Source, NY Times, Henry Bortman

Felisa Wolfe-Simon takes samples from a sediment core she pulled up from the remote shores of 10 Mile

Beach at Mono Lake in California.
Published: December 2, 2010

In the first half of Thursday's show, the surprising scientific announcement about the discovery of an arsenic eating life form in Mono Lake, CA was discussed. After a brief report from Linda Moulton Howe, with audio from NASA astrobiologist Pamela Conrad, space researcher Robert Zimmerman joined the program.

He characterized the Mono Lake microbe as an extremophile-- an organism that thrives in conditions that would be detrimental or impossible to survive for most other life forms. Also of interest was the journalistic hype that surrounded the pre-release of the story, he commented, with too much speculation and misinformation being spread by reporters. For more, see Zimmerman's blog entry, When journalism runs wild.

In the second hour, Richard C. Hoagland posed the question-- "Is it possible that this is an actual extraterrestrial life form which happened to find its right niche in Mono Lake after falling down from the skies?" He further suggested that today's announcement could be part of NASA's plan to lay out a foundation before declaring the existence of extraterrestrial life. (VN: Remember again, the big plan for globalizing according to the murdered Bill Cooper, is aliens attacking our planet and they have been experimenting with creating alien like creatures that are part human and part animal.)


In the latter half of the show, researcher Tom Horn discussed the blistering pace of genetics and transhumanism, and how the technology could usher in a new genetic arms race. Over the last 2 years, statements by the Pentagon have described the "human enhancement revolution" as being right around the corner.

He expressed concern over how biotech and robotics are transforming today's military, comparing the development to a new era of the Nephilim-- the beings written about in the Bible, who were involved in what he called the "contamination of human genetics."

Horn cited the work of the late Terence McKenna who foresaw a technological singularity in which human brains would be altered, creating a permanent pathway for contact with other-dimensional beings. A war is coming between "a new species of unrecognizably superior humans" and the current humans, as well as havoc created by the building of synthetic deities, known as artilects, he added.

(VN: Here is the text of the NY Times story on the new life form.)

Scientists said Thursday that they had trained a bacterium to eat and grow on a diet of arsenic, (VN:  And exactly what does that do to the food chain and how do we know they didn't create this abomination?) in place of phosphorus — one of six elements considered essential for life — opening up the possibility that organisms could exist elsewhere in the universe or even here on Earth using biochemical powers we have not yet dared to dream about.

The bacterium, scraped from the bottom of Mono Lake in California and grown for months in a lab mixture containing arsenic, gradually swapped out atoms of phosphorus in its little body for atoms of arsenic.

Scientists said the results, if confirmed, would expand the notion of what life could be and where it could be. “There is basic mystery, when you look at life,” said Dimitar Sasselov, an astronomer at the Harvard- (VN:  remember, this is the neocon training facilities for the psychos ruining our nation, just remember who came from there, like Obama)   Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and director of an institute on the origins of life there, who was not involved in the work. “Nature only uses a restrictive set of molecules and chemical reactions out of many thousands available. This is our first glimmer that maybe there are other options.”

Felisa Wolfe-Simon, a NASA astrobiology fellow at the United States Geological Survey in Menlo Park, Calif., who led the experiment, said, “This is a microbe that has solved the problem of how to live in a different way.”

This story is not about Mono Lake or arsenic, she said, but about “cracking open the door and finding that what we think are fixed constants of life are not.”  (VN:  In the hands of the wrong people, its a dangerous notion).

Dr. Wolfe-Simon and her colleagues publish their findings Friday in Science.

Caleb Scharf, an astrobiologist at Columbia University who was not part of the research, said he was amazed. “It’s like if you or I morphed into fully functioning cyborgs after being thrown into a room of electronic scrap with nothing to eat,” he said. (VN:  Another neocon controlled institution, Obama again as student and Zbig as his poli sci teacher/handler)

Gerald Joyce, a chemist and molecular biologist at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif., said the work “shows in principle that you could have a different form of life,” but noted that even these bacteria are affixed to the same tree of life as the rest of us, like the extremophiles that exist in ocean vents.

“It’s a really nice story about adaptability of our life form,” he said. “It gives food for thought about what might be possible in another world.”

The results could have a major impact on space missions to Mars and elsewhere looking for life. The experiments on such missions are designed to ferret out the handful of chemical elements and reactions that have been known to characterize life on Earth. The Viking landers that failed to find life on Mars in 1976, Dr. Wolfe-Simon pointed out, were designed before the discovery of tube worms and other weird life in undersea vents and the dry valleys of Antarctica revolutionized ideas about the evolution of life on Earth.

Dr. Sasselov said, “I would like to know, when designing experiments and instruments to look for life, whether I should be looking for same stuff as here on Earth, or whether there are other options.

“Are we going to look for same molecules we love and know here, or broaden our search?”

Phosphorus is one of six chemical elements that have long been thought to be essential for all Life As We Know It. The others are carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen and sulfur.

While nature has been able to engineer substitutes for some of the other elements that exist in trace amounts for specialized purposes — like iron to carry oxygen — until now there has been no substitute for the basic six elements. Now, scientists say, these results will stimulate a lot of work on what other chemical replacements might be possible. The most fabled, much loved by science fiction authors but not ever established, is the substitution of silicon for carbon.

Phosphorus chains form the backbone of DNA and its chemical bonds, particularly in a molecule known as adenosine triphosphate, the principal means by which biological creatures store energy. “It’s like a little battery that carries chemical energy within cells,” said Dr. Scharf. So important are these “batteries,” Dr. Scharf said, that the temperature at which they break down, about 160 Celsius (320 Fahrenheit), is considered the high-temperature limit for life.

Arsenic sits right beneath phosphorus in the periodic table of the elements and shares many of its chemical properties. Indeed, that chemical closeness is what makes it toxic, Dr. Wolfe-Simon said, allowing it to slip easily into a cell’s machinery where it then gums things up, like bad oil in a car engine.

At a conference at Arizona State about alien life in 2006, however, Dr. Wolfe-Simon suggested that an organism that could cope with arsenic might actually have incorporated arsenic instead of phosphorus into its lifestyle. In a subsequent paper in The International Journal of Astrobiology, she and Ariel Anbar and Paul Davies, both of Arizona State University, predicted the existence of arsenic-loving life forms.

“Then Felisa found them!” said Dr. Davies, who has long championed the idea of searching for “weird life” on Earth as well as in space and is a co-author on the new paper.

Reasoning that such organisms were more likely to be found in environments already rich in arsenic, Dr. Wolfe-Simon and her colleagues scooped up a test tube full of mud from Mono Lake, which is salty, alkaline and already heavy in arsenic, and gradually fed them more and more.

Despite her prediction that such arsenic-eating organisms existed, Dr. Wolfe-Simon said that she held her breath every day that she went to the lab, expecting to hear that the microbes had died, but they did not. “As a biochemist, this stuff doesn’t make sense,” she recalled thinking.

A bacterium known as strain GFAJ-1 of the Halomonadaceae family of Gammaproteobacteria, proved to grow the best of the microbes from the lake, although not without changes from their normal development. The cells grown in the arsenic came out about 60 percent larger than cells grown with phosphorus, but with large, empty internal spaces.

By labeling the arsenic with radioactivity, the researchers were able to conclude that arsenic atoms had taken up position in the microbe’s DNA as well as in other molecules within it. Dr. Joyce, however, said that the experimenters had yet to provide a “smoking gun” that there was arsenic in the backbone of working DNA.

Despite this taste for arsenic, the authors also reported, the GFAJ-1 strain grew considerably better when provided with phosphorus, so in some ways they still prefer a phosphorus diet. Dr. Joyce, from his reading of the paper, concurred, pointing out that there was still some phosphorus in the bacterium even after all its force-feeding with arsenic. He described it as “clinging to every last phosphate molecule, and really living on the edge.”

Dr. Joyce added, “I was feeling sorry for the bugs.”

The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.


Anonymous said...

Go back and do some research, e.g., a GOOGLE search perchance? You have a decent site. Please do a better job in the future.

Thank you in advance for your prompt consideration.


Vatic said...

Anonymous, EOM, would you mind terribly explaining what you are talking about? I haven't got a clue. Google what? You didn't even have the courtesy of telling us what to google or where we were wrong in our presentation or article.

Thank you for the compliment on this being a decent site. However, any disparaging should be accompanied by information if the criticism is genuinely well meaning. So, why not prove to us its well meaning and give us what bothered you so we can do further work on it. Or show you were we have already. OK???

Anonymous said...


Thank you for your reply.

Kindly consider the following links:


RE: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2010/12/01/science.1197258

A Bacterium That Can Grow by Using Arsenic Instead of Phosphorus

F. WOLFE-SIMON, J. Switzer Blum, T.R. Kulp, G.W. Gordon, S.E. Hoeft, J. Pett-Ridge, J.F. Stolz, S.M. Webb, P.K. Weber, P.C.W. Davies, A.D. Anbar and R.S. Oremland (2010). A bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus.


Now, some thoughts from real scientists on real science:


Scientists poke holes in NASA’s arsenic-eating microbe discovery

Here's a start …

"I was outraged at how bad the science was," University of British Columbia microbiology professor Rosie Redfield told Slate's Carl Zimmer. Redfield also posted a scathing critique of the report on her blog.

Redfield and other detractors point out that when NASA scientists removed the DNA from the bacteria for examination, they didn't take the steps necessary to wash away other types of molecules. That means, according to the critics, that the arsenic may have merely clung to the bacteria's DNA for a ride without becoming truly ingrained into it.

The report's detractors also note that the NASA scientists fed the bacteria salts that contained trace amounts of phosphate, so it's possible that the bacteria were able to survive on those tiny helpings of phosphate instead of the arsenic.

"This paper should not have been published," University of Colorado molecular biology professor Shelley Copley told Slate's Zimmer.

So why would NASA scientists make such a big deal out of a discovery that, according to critics, they must have suspected was questionable?

"I suspect that NASA may be so desperate for a positive story that they didn't look for any serious advice from DNA or even microbiology people," UC-Davis biology professor John Roth told Zimmer.

A NASA spokesperson brushed off the criticism. The paper's authors have not responded to the firestorm. Needless to say, that posture, too, has drawn the ire of critics. "That's kind of sleazy given how they cooperated with all the media hype before the paper was published," Redfield said.

N.B.: See … “As in this type of game changer, some people will rightly want more proof,” says microbiologist Robert Gunsalus of the University of California, Los Angeles. “There is much to do in order to firmly put this microbe on the biological map.” [http://www.ironlisa.com/gfaj/Wolfe-Simon-news-12-03-10.pdf]




Then there's …


Doubts Brew About NASA’s New Arsenic Life

… The bacteria continued to grow despite the poisonous diet, prompting the researchers to assert that the microbes had successfully swapped arsenic for phosphorous. The team, led by NASA astrobiologist Felisa Wolfe-Simon, published their results in Science Dec. 2, accompanied by a very excited NASA press conference.
But other biologists started raising red flags almost immediately, questioning the methods the team used to purify the DNA and asking why the researchers skipped certain tests.

“It seems much more likely that the arsenic they’re seeing is contaminating arsenic that’s going along for the ride,” biologist Rosie Redfield of the University of British Columbia told Wired.com.

Redfield posted a biting critique Dec. 4 on her research blog. As of today, the post has received more than 40,000 hits.

She points out that the team didn’t properly clean their DNA before or after running it through a standard device for separating DNA and RNA from other molecules, a technique called gel electrophoresis.

Cleaning the samples would require “a little kit that costs $2 and takes 10 minutes, and then you have pure DNA that you can analyze,” Redfield said. The researchers used this method elsewhere in the paper, but not in the critical experiment that was supposed to show arsenic was incorporated into the bacteria’s DNA.

“That’s just asking for contamination problems,” she said. The arsenic they found could have been hanging around in the gel, not in the cells, she added. “It’s as if they wanted to find arsenic, so they didn’t take a lot of trouble to make sure they didn’t find it by mistake.”

In a guest post on the blog “We, Beasties,” Harvard microbiologist and geochemist Alex Bradley raised another issue.

The NASA team immersed the DNA in water, where arsenic compounds quickly fall apart. If the DNA was really built from arsenate, it should have broken into pieces, Bradley wrote. But it didn’t. That suggests the molecules were still using stronger phosphate to hold themselves together.

A thorough review on Slate.com by science writer Carl Zimmer raises a host of other problems with the paper. Zimmer spoke with nearly a dozen outside experts for the story (and more for ongoing updates on his blog), nearly all of whom think the NASA team failed to support their claims. …





Now, in the take it or leave it pile …


NASA Arsenic Life Paper Is Fraud?

… "This Paper Should Not Have Been Published" ... Scientists see fatal flaws in the NASA study of arsenic-based life ... On Thursday, Dec. 2, Rosie Redfield sat down to read a new paper called "A Bacterium That Can Grow by Using Arsenic Instead of Phosphorus." ... Redfield, a microbiology professor at the University of British Columbia, had been hearing rumors about the papers for days beforehand. ... As soon Redfield started to read the paper, she was shocked. "I was outraged at how bad the science was," she told me. – Slate


Coup de Grace or off with Wolfe-Simon's kopf …



This is just a brief summary of what's already out here. Look for more. Wolfe-Simon has something approaching an explanation - Nay, Plea! - hoping that this paper, all the data, her web site and the internet all go away really, really, really soon … "

Wolfe-Simon et al Comment: 08 December 2010 [ZZZhttp://www.ironlisa.com/gfaj/]

"My research team and I are aware that our peer-reviewed Science article has generated some technical questions and challenges from within the scientific community. … [ … sigh … but with an upcoming chat at the Royal Society [London] I suspect it can't go away fast enough. Oh, well. I also like this bit:] "Our manuscript was thoroughly reviewed and accepted for publication by Science [http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2010/12/01/science.1197258]; we presented our data and results and drew our conclusions based on what we showed. But we welcome lively debate since we recognize that scholarly discourse moves science forward [How precious, precious our darling is. How grateful I am. Thank you.]. We've been concerned that some conclusions have been drawn based on claims not made in our paper. [OK, now I'm really, really puzzled about why she felt the need to get chatty, chatty about artifacts, crap methodology, crap data and illegitimate conclusions with scientific illiterates on the web.]"

Hope this helps. With best wishes for your Holiday Season.

Perseus Aryan