File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Another hypothetical biology thread!

Would it be possible for any kind of life to make space its ecosystem? I know some kinds of life from Earth can go into space without dying, but what would an animal need to make space its habitat?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I dunno, but they'd probably fuck our shit up
>> Anonymous
It'd have to survive on minerals...
>> Anonymous
1.Wouldn't the ecosystem have to be there first?

2.Breathable atmosphere.
>> Anonymous
OP needs to state his question/premise more clearly. Are you asking if a form of life could evolve in and inhabit the vacuum? Or if something from, say, a planet with an atmosphere could adapt to those conditions?
>> Anonymous
>>189520
I'm referring to the vacuum of space.
>> Anonymous
>>189518
Who has to breathe when volatiles could be broken down and stored rather than using the mechanic of breathing? Could be simple chemistry or storing up when encountering a comet.
>> Anonymous
Quick logic and simple knowledge of what kind of habitats can support life, I'd say no, logically, no, not at all possible for such a being to exist or if it did, it wouldn't for very long

>>189517
Even if that could happen, it would either have to orbit (or...float?) in a mineral rich spot, and would probably never move from that spot, just absorb the minarls until it was all gone, and then die...orrrr, have to move at an unbelievable rate of speed and have a reeeeally long lifespan and ability to go without uh..food.. for a long time...

this is starting to sound like a living planet, actually...If I interpreted this right, OP is talking about living planets, i.e. - earth that is if you consider earth a living -ism.
>> Anonymous
Space has a pretty wide variety of environments, you know. Also, "life" = instant semantics war, just add water.

Right. Well. Let's see. Energy you can just handwave away with "the stars". The real problem is finding the physical materials needed to make life. An organism can survive hard vacuum, sure, maybe even live in hard vacuum, but it has to come from somewhere with enough marbles to make the great Rube Goldberg machine of life.

One of the cool things about Earth is that there's a lot of solids and liquids on it. The molecules in solids and liquids are a lot closer together than they are in gases, a lot more constrained, and a lot more likely to bump into each other and form an amino acid just for the hell of it than they will be in something like a big old cloud of gas. The scientific community can't say much for sure about abiogenesis, but we all know that it at least requires an awful lot of molecular coincidences, which you're not likely to get on any time scale in a cloud of gas.

If you want to talk about evolving somewhere sane and going into space, "all" it needs is the ability to maintain an effectively closed physiology (none of this nutrient and waste crap) with light as the sole or basically-sole energy input. Also needs to be able to maintain normal internal pressures in hard vacuum, obviously.
>> Anonymous
if a life form could survive the cold (which some can) and didn't have to breath... somehow... And could some how survive on minerals, I guess something could live in asteroid fields
>> Anonymous
I think if anything, life would most likely live in globs of hydrogen (not sure how common these are) or on asteriods. Would have to feed off of minerals, gases, and light. Anything close enough to a star to get significant energy from it would most likely be dragged into it by its gravity.
>> Anonymous
>>189527
Doesn't understand gravity.
>> Anonymous
Spaceships.
>> Anonymous
If life were to exist in the vacuum it'd most likely be more similar to a plant than an animal. Taking in sunlight for nutrients and the minerals in large asteroids.
>> Anonymous
>>189526

There are already microorganisms on Earth eating minerals
>> Anonymous
It would be difficult to imagine any space life hardened enough to survive space environment wouldn't be anything much more complex than bacterial.

Also, its structure may not be cellular.
>> Anonymous
>>189528
How's that.
>> Anonymous
>>189525
Something like a plant that didn't need water...or oxygen

-not OP
>> Anonymous
>>189532
Now that would be interesting to see, I'm dumb, are there any organisms on earth that are noncellular?
>> Anonymous
>>189536

Viruses
>> Anonymous
Asteroids have two big problems. First one: they're space rocks. Okay, so what's wrong with that? Even if you have a space rock made of all the same basic cooking ingredients as our primordial soup, our soup was made the way it is by pressure (hi atmosphere!) and heat (hi sun and atmosphere and core and god only knows what else).

It's not impossible to imagine an organism harvesting vital nutrients from asteroids, but I don't think what you'd get would be nearly enough for a proper life form to evolve there.

I said there was a second problem, but I forget what it is now. Something to do with local gravity and movement, so it couldn't just laze about and get nutrients like our good-for-nothing protobiotic ancestors did.
>> Anonymous
>>189536
Almost. Bacterial life doesn't have a cellular membrane or nucleus, but it is still a cell. Noncellular life wouldn't have any cellular characteristics. (Hard to imagine what that would be like.)
>> Anonymous
>>189538
Listen to this guy.
>> Anonymous
>>189540
Bacteria have cell membranes. All cells have cell membranes. That's what makes them cells.
>> Anonymous
>>189538
On earth there are starting to become super viruses that are even far more complex than the common virus, and they are obviously noncellular, but would a supervirus be able to survive in space? and would you call that life at all?
>> Anonymous
>>189542
Bacteria = plasma membrane
>> Anonymous
>>189543

Viruses depend on other cells for replicating, so even though it would "survive" in space it wouldn't be able to replicate. And a virus is just a bunch of proteins with a DNA/RNA molecule in the middle, whether you call that life or not is a matter of definition.
>> Anonymous
>>189544

cell membrane = plasma membrane
>> Anonymous
>>189545
think a virus could evovle to live without replication, I know, waay far fetched but you know, we are talking about space creatures here.

a new question, does OP mean a being that survives any condition of deep space (between stars, galaxies, etc) or something that would reside within a solar system or even orbiting a planet?

and how the fuck would the latter work.
>> Anonymous
>>189534
Something like that.. the main thing isn't so much the ingredients as that virtually nothing can go in or out. Even when not in hard vacuum, like when it's in a nebula or on an asteroid or something, our theoretical organism would have very little opportunity to pick up nutrients or exchange gases.

So something like a space plant stapled to an aspid's guts. Only more efficient.
>> Anonymous
>>189552

The density of a nebula is about the same as hard vacuum.
>> Anonymous
s/aspid/aphid/

>>189551
There is no life without replication, according to our current definition of life.

I get your idea, I do, but this really is the critical distinction between a puddle of organic chemicals and a protobiont. If you want a giant floating self-repairing space castle, you can have it, but you'll have to remember all the marvelous and complex things cosmic objects do by themselves with longer "lifespans" than anything on this planet.
>> Anonymous
Other impossibilities aside, it is very, very cold in space.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>189514
You know, normally I'd be all up for continuing creating our little theoretical virus/amoeba/noncellular plant, leech...whatever but I feel there's simply not enough science to be put into that could make such a being that OP is looking for.

so, uh... pic completely related.
>> Anonymous
>>189553
It might not make any difference to a hypothetical exploding human, but in this case it's the dividing line between no chemical exchange and very, very little chemical exchange. A ridiculously diffuse cloud of dust beats two hydrogen atoms every cubic meter or whatever it is.
>> Anonymous
OP here

I wasn't really thinking of life evolving in space, more so life surviving in space. Sort of like a 'let's pretend life magically existed in space, what would it need in order to survive there?'
>> Anonymous
>>189564

It would need a space ship.
>> Anonymous
>>189564
Spaceships.
>> Anonymous
>>189564
See>>189529
>> Anonymous
I say no, because something about shit being able to survive in a vacuum implies to me that space isn't really a vacuum. Our coincidental existence within said vacuum notwithstanding.

In my opinion, other lifeforms would be more adapted to living in the opposite of a vacuum or something... I think. I haven't quite fleshed the thought out yet.
>> Anonymous
>>189570
...
>> Anonymous
>>189570

dude wtf
>> Anonymous
>>189570
Not enough facepalm in the world
>> Anonymous
>>189574
>>189572

... Uh... disregard that, I must suck cocks.
>> What cat species is this? Anonymous
The water bear, right here on Earth, can survive the vacuum of space

http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artjun00/mmbearp.html
>> Anonymous
>>189582

It can survive the vacuum, but it can't live in vacuum permanently.
>> Anonymous
>>189582
So can various forms of fungus and even TOMATOES.
>> Anonymous
>>189564
Nothing that fits Earth's version of "life" could survive in space. Even a virus needs a host to actually survive. Perhaps a virus in a space ship...
>> Anonymous
stars/galaxies/planets
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Answer depends on definition of life. Biological life needs protene and liquid water or something similar (perhaps methane). This requires some pressure and a narrow range of tempeture. If any solvent escapes, it will be lost and must be replaced. Maintaining these conditions without a planet is likely not practical; you can live in a spaceship as an indivdual for a time but surviving as a species forever would be tough.
A more open definition of life as information that copies itself and evolves would include robot-like critters made of larger and more solid components. These would handle the low pressure, wide tempeture ranges, and radiation of outer space better.
Its life, Jim, but not as we know it.
>> Anonymous
>>189726
...Ugh.
>> Anonymous
>>189564

Would need some CP
>> Anonymous
I think you are all forgetting a very important little environmental factor in space: radiation. Or well, you did remember light, but there's a lot more kinds of radiation to worry about, the absolutely lethal kind, which is everywhere. A spacefaring lifeform would need some way to protect its hereditary information, no matter what kind of chemistry it is based on, from being shot full of holes by cosmic rays. On Earth we have this nice immense magnetic field keeping us safe, but I fail to imagine how a space organism could create a magnetic field of any use. Nor could it afford to have a lead shielding, if it has to move every nanogram of its weight accross astronomical distances. If it tried to survive just by constantly repairing the damages caused by rays hitting it, that would take up most of all the energy it can hope to gather.
>> Anonymous
>>189752
The lifeform could use a different molecule on which to store it's genetic information. Not everything is as susceptible to radiation as DNA.
>> Anonymous
>>189799
You can't biologically resist or adapt to radiation. It's the scrambling of freaking atoms.
>> Anonymous
>>189827
Radiation is electromagnetic energy or high energy subatomic particles. Radiation can cause damage to some molecules; DNA is one of the molecules that can be damaged by it. Life on earth has not adapted to radiation because it is (basically) not present in the environment, however some life on earth is remarkably resistant to its effects despite this. There is no reason to assume that an organism of extraterrestrial origin would use DNA as its genetic carrier molecule, or indeed would use a genetic carrier molecule in the same way as terrestrial life.
>> Anonymous
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanobe
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>189827
O RLY?
>> Anonymous
But Zerg Overlords and mutalisk are able to fly in space and even go into a warp hole
>> Anonymous
actually, there are rare bacteria, found in and around nuclear plants, that have adapted to resist extremely high doses of radiation.

so, yes, life CAN evolve to resist radiation. Even DNA-based life.

:p
>> Anonymous
>>190177
Yeah, but they need to continuously fix their DNA. On a nice, warm planet full of the necessary chemicals and nutrients, where they can afford a rapid metabolism. Try doing that in an environment where the ambient temperature is near absolute zero and you've got maybe 100 hydrogen ATOMS per square yard.

Also, if you happen to be as close to a sun as Earth, but without the atmosphere to filter the rays, sunlight is lethal.
>> Anonymous
I dunno.. can anyone here really say they understand every facet of "life"...hell we don't even understand Deep Sea organisms on Earth, how could we even begin to say anything about anything outside this planet.
>> Anonymous
>>189514
"I know some kinds of life from Earth can go into space without dying,"

...what life forms would those be? and dont include humans please
>> Anonymous
Certain microbes can survive in space in spore form (that is, biologically inactive) and be revived, as long as they have been shielded by, say, a big chunk of rock. Hypothetically the rocks blasted off by asteroids that have hit Earth can have spread Earth bacteria to other planets in the solar system. Or vice versa.
>> Anonymous
>>190177
There are schrooms and fungus that not only can survive high radiation dosages, but also get energy from it!