scientist theory proved wrong?

Question

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/12/nasa-finds-new-life/

original theory life consists of 6 components: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur

new bacteria has arsenic something thought to never exist

so do we really evolve from monkeys

Answer 1

"Scientist theory proved wrong."



I've always been of the belief that every generation of humans think they have it "right." In about a century from now (and this is hypothetically speaking, because chances are humanity will be wiped out in the next few years)--humans will look back and say "wow, they sure had it wrong!"



The cycle never ends. God has the answers, we don't.

Answer 2

That bacteria uses arsenic in the place of phosphorus in the 6 components. Also, it was NASA that made the discovery. If you don't think that NASA consists of scientists (or that a scientific discovery somehow proves science wrong), then I've got some bad news for you.



You may not realize this at the moment, but this does bring up some serious religious implications (particularly for the fundamentalist types). Since this new life form is unlike anything else on earth, it's basically evidence that life has began from scratch not once, but TWICE (if not more) here on earth..... As I recall, there wasn't a sequel to genesis in the Bible, so some religions do have some 'splainin' to do to their followers.

Answer 3

I don't see any reference to any existing science being disproven - could you point that out?



Science has never claimed that life is restricted to 6 elements, only that all the life we knew of depends on those 6. This discovery just extends that, not disproving anything.



Similarly we might find more life elsewhere that depends on different elements.



So no - you seem to have misinterpreted what this actually means.



Edit:

"so do we really evolve from monkeys"



No. Science has never claimed that. There is only a claim that monkeys and humans share a common ancestor. This new finding has no bearing on that.



It may contribute towards the research into abiogenesis i.e. the natural beginning of life.

Answer 4

What theory?

No theory say life ONLY consist of C,H,O,N,P,S. Every sources I know say MAIN, that is, they don't wanna bring the whole periodic table in, okay? Do you know you have some GOLD inside ;)? So in short, no theory is proved wrong by that :D

The fact that there's new arsenic bacs doesn't prove evolution is wrong. In my opinion, we've always thought that evolution on Earth is the big tree whose root is the phosphorus unicellular 1st organism; but in fact, the whole evolution tree we've known is only a branch, and the arsenic bacs are on the other that share with us an even more ancient ancestor; or arsenic bacs maybe even a whole new tree, a whole new path of evolution!. They can even prove abiogenesis and evolution more! Because we can be sure that whatever it takes, life will find a way!

Answer 5

What is the big shock? Science has been saying, since we started space exploration, that we may find life forms based on other substances than our own. Where were you a few months ago when life forms were found in the lips of active volcano's on the ocean floor? This has been going on since at least 1977.



"Deep, under perpetual ice cover, with reduced photosynthesis and thus little organic matter coming from above, the sea floor of the central Arctic Ocean is a marine desert, its life more sparse than in other ocean basins. But photosynthesis is not the only basis for life: locally, methane and hydrogen sulfide seep from the ocean floor, supporting dense oases of organisms that depend on bacteria able to consume these chemicals. Such "chemosynthetic" life does not directly depend on sunlight and can thrive even at great ocean depths."



http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MBqdQZniHcUJ:www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_vogt.html+Life+Volcanow+Ocean+floor&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk



http://io9.com/5517847/life-in-an-undersea-volcano

Answer 6

What you are quoting is not a theory of life, it is a definition of know life forms. Scientists have been well aware and actively searching for other types of life. Why do you think this new one was found? Not because of the writings of Bronze Age goat herders.



Oh, and the strength of science is that when they are proved wrong, it is considered a breakthrough, and they learn from it, unlike theists, who stick their heads in the sand and say 'This is not happening, this is not happening...'

Answer 7

The DNA record (with admitted holes) has shown that we have evolved from a common ancestor with "monkeys". That which makes up life has nothing to do with evolution, per se.



And we have never evolved from monkeys. That's a common fable of sectarian preachers and preaching.



TDs expected for my comment about preachers.

Answer 8

Well, arsenic and phosphorus are chemically similar. If you look on the Periodic Table, Phosphorus is on the row above in the same column.

Answer 9

no theory was proved wrong, it's just a new discovery. it's possible an organism evolved that substitued sulphur for phosphorus in it's dna and was successful in a sulphur rich environment

Answer 10

Speelling aside , science is in the business of proving itself wrong that is what scientific method is dear, you might call it discovery

Answer 11

You may be better served posting this in another forum. Religion and biological evolution are two different disciplines. I'm truly sorry that reality is infringing on superstition, but this is your problem, not the scientific community's.

Answer 12

thank you for pointing out a discovery which leaves no doubt whatsoever that evolution does indeed occur. You really should get a little better education--you look foolish making my point for me.

Answer 13

No. And this has no implication on evolution which, from the way you phrased it, you have no understanding of. This will probably strengthen evolutionary theory.

Answer 14

We also have sodium, potassium, calcium, and iron in our bodies, so I don't see your real point here, aside from a lame attempt to stir the pot.

Answer 15

Scientists always is willing to correct itself as new credible and reliable evidence is presented.

Whereas "religious" evidence still dates back to 6234 B.C.

Answer 16

So what is your question? Science makes progress by finding new evidence - there's nothing new in that.

Answer 17

"so do we really evolve from monkeys"



You're a retard. This finding has nothing to do with common descent, nor does it "disprove" evolution or anything else for that matter.



PS: Humans didn't evolve from monkeys, dumbass. We share a common ancestor.

Answer 18

No, we don't evolve from monkeys



Therefore, God exists!

I have seen the light(!)

Answer 19

I have yet to hear of the Scientist Theory.



If it's proved wrong, do we cease to have scientists?

Answer 20

We did NOT evolve FROM monkeys, BUT ALONGSIDE them.

Answer 21

Yay for OP not understanding what science is.



Side note: This is a scientific BREAKTHROUGH. And it's not good for theists.

Answer 22

Yes: you are a moron.

Answer 23

If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys. God created us from the dust of the earth and breathed into us and we became a living soul. He didn't do that for monkeys.