First known animal that does not require oxygen to survive. So much for "breath of Life".

[nPeace]

A similar article from 3 years ago on other specie that live without oxygen.

"
At the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea, in one of the most extreme environments on Earth, one research team found evidence of an animal able to live its entire life without oxygen.

Not one of the other million or so known animal species can do that. Oxygen, in some form, is often assumed to be vital for animal life. Yet the existence of these creatures seemed to blow a hole in this theory, with far-reaching implications for our understanding of life on Earth.

The tiny Mediterranean animals belong to a group called the loriciferans – an animal group so unusual that it was not discovered until the 1980s."

There is one animal that seems to survive without oxygen

The thing about all of these articles, is that obvious element of uncertainty. In this one... "seemed". In other words, "We really don't know, but here is what we think... [and if they are honest...] based on the little knowledge we have."

 

[Samantha Rinne]

H. salminicola: Scientists discover first animal that doesn't breathe

Yet another example to show that the Bible is not a science book.

All the same, it's quite an amazing find and opens the possibility for life elsewhere in the universe even outside environments with oxygen atmospheres.

Nature itself is a lot more fascinating and amazing then running around with conceived religious beliefs.

I figured if some religious had their way, this information would have been suppressed.

Wow.

Either that is very out of date, or they are dredging up "new discoveries" that actually aren't .

Look up anaerobic bacteria. And what do you think a virus is, but something that barely does any normal functions? They typically don't even define it as "alive"!

Anaerobic organism - Wikipedia

Today's "scientists" are actually politicians, pushing a godless secular religion that favors things like " climate change". Gone are real experiments with control and repeated tests. Now, one guy finds something, and if it supports the agenda, no further tests are needed! Amazing. Meanwhile, any idea that is unpopular will be refused, even if such things fly in the face of observable data and previous scientific laws.

Now when you're done being stupid, explain to me where in the Bible it claimed it WAS a science book. What it claimed was that it was a guide to a moral life. Maybe not not the best guide, but probably not the worst.

Let's review the kind of life an average atheist has.

Read about Molech and child sacrifice.

Then read Ecclesiastes. The entire book.

Then read about Lady Wisdom and Lady Folly. And what happens when those pursue their own wisdom at odds with God.

You see, the end result of a life fighting God is self-destruction. Because, to paraphrase Game of Thrones, "you can't shoot the three-eyed crow because it's you." The Bible teaches that there is no curtain separating God and self. So what are you trying to do?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Wow.

Either that is very out of date, or they are dredging up "new discoveries" that actually aren't .

Look up anaerobic bacteria. And what do you think a virus is, but something that barely does any normal functions? They typically don't even define it as "alive"!

Anaerobic organism - Wikipedia

Today's "scientists" are actually politicians, pushing a godless secular religion that favors things like " climate change". Gone are real experiments with control and repeated tests. Now, one guy finds something, and if it supports the agenda, no further tests are needed! Amazing. Meanwhile, any idea that is unpopular will be refused, even if such things fly in the face of observable data and previous scientific laws.

Now when you're done being stupid, explain to me where in the Bible it claimed it WAS a science book. What it claimed was that it was a guide to a moral life. Maybe not not the best guide, but probably not the worst.

Let's review the kind of life an average atheist has.

Read about Molech and child sacrifice.

Then read Ecclesiastes. The entire book.

Then read about Lady Wisdom and Lady Folly. And what happens when those pursue their own wisdom at odds with God.

You see, the end result of a life fighting God is self-destruction. Because, to paraphrase Game of Thrones, "you can't shoot the three-eyed crow because it's you." The Bible teaches that there is no curtain separating God and self. So what are you trying to do?

You obviously didn't read the post made by @exchemist explaining what's amazing about this discovery that differs from the rest of articles involving life-forms in harsh environments, which is that it's this time around, actually a multicellular animal.

It's not even a virus or strictly anaerobic life that is being talked about, so you're pretty ignorant on the article on what it says which makes me doubt you even read it or at least digested what it says and made for all practical appearances, an emotional response in its stead in defense of what amounts to a lackluster and clearly erroneous religious book inspired by a supposed deity.

The funny thing about the science aspect involving the Bible, is that it has a lot of Christians thinking it is a science book and attempting to use it that way. if it wasn't regarded as a science book you wouldn't have this creationist intelligent design nonsense directly contesting scientific finds and discoveries as well as the scientific field itself.

This discovery is just another venue that may be enough for some people to finally begin waking up to the facts, and start looking at life for what it is and where it actually comes from and how it develops instead of relying on some ancient texts that are well past their expiration date to be used in any challenges to to the findings made by modern-day science.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

The point of the matter is not that it is first, or that it is complicated. The point is that we have scientists splitting hairs over the "breath of life." The breath of life, is spirit (ruach) not oxygen. In fact, if you ask any REAL scientists, they will tell you that pure oxygen isan actual poison. Does it inhale nitrogen? Carbon? Nothing at all?

Do I care?

You're damned right I ignored most of the OP. They tried to make something matter that has no bearing. The title says "First known animal that does not require oxygen to survive. So much for 'breath of life'." Okay, so I suppose you mean animal, as in actual animal. Animal also means creature, as any living thing. In terms of this, nah you lose. But you still suck, if you define oxygen as the breath of life. The breath of life, is the Holy Spirit, that which makes all things live, and move, and have their being.

And all of this is is supposed to imply something about how "we don't need you God!" Maybe if you scream it loud enough, the rest of us will believe it?

The ancient Jews likely did not understand how fish breathe. To all intents and purposes, that fish had no air, yet it breathed. Did any of this cause them to doubt in a Breath of Life? Hell no! What about things like worms and clams (neither of which they could eat)? They seemed to have no space for breathing, dwelling in dirt as they did. Still believed in God giving things life.

You accuse me of not listening, but you need to understand that listening is a two-way street. Was my point actually whether it was single celled or not?

Or was my point that the "church of what's happening now" whether it poses as the church or whether it poses as science (it is neither religious nor scientific, but actually political, a tight mindset meant to exclude and ostracize those who aren't drinking the Kool-Aid), effectively tries to justify itself as a new alternative to those dusty old books.

Did the New Math last 30 years? Did most totalitarian regimes last more than 50? If a system works, it is still relevant today as it was 1000 years ago. Chaucer is centuries old. Shakespeare is also old. Most old books, the average person cannot name. Guess what? I seriously doubt that Twilight will last 30 years in people's minds.

The Jews had cults of the new too, as the Bible immediately points out, they fell again and again and again for repackaged cults. "Oh no, this deity is not like Moloch, this is Baal the storm and fertility deity." And yet, even if the finer details ( like it's a big critter vs a bacteria) are different, actually it's the same old crap. They adopt foreign cults, they get foreigners in to build foreign temples, they lose their country.

Kool-Aid sucks, and won't drink it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

H. salminicola: Scientists discover first animal that doesn't breathe

Yet another example to show that the Bible is not a science book.

All the same, it's quite an amazing find and opens the possibility for life elsewhere in the universe even outside environments with oxygen atmospheres.

Nature itself is a lot more fascinating and amazing then running around with conceived religious beliefs.

I figured if some religious had their way, this information would have been suppressed.

The breath of life thing was for humans, so this isn't a suitable spot for attacking biblical scientific illiteracy.
But, screw the oxygen thing, the no cellular respiration and no mDNA is mind. blowing

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What about this little one? I think it feels cheated!!

That little critter is probably the most durable things out there. That we know of. But truly a critter that changes show much of what we think of life, because it's razed the walls of what we thought life could survive to the ground.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

H. salminicola: Scientists discover first animal that doesn't breathe

Yet another example to show that the Bible is not a science book.

All the same, it's quite an amazing find and opens the possibility for life elsewhere in the universe even outside environments with oxygen atmospheres.

Nature itself is a lot more fascinating and amazing then running around with conceived religious beliefs.

I figured if some religious had their way, this information would have been suppressed.

Good thing that the true understanding of "breath of life" has nothing to do with "oxygen" (air).

 

[Thief]

H. salminicola: Scientists discover first animal that doesn't breathe

Yet another example to show that the Bible is not a science book.

All the same, it's quite an amazing find and opens the possibility for life elsewhere in the universe even outside environments with oxygen atmospheres.

Nature itself is a lot more fascinating and amazing then running around with conceived religious beliefs.

I figured if some religious had their way, this information would have been suppressed.

yeah right

and you think that's air you're breathing

 

[Thief]

Science does not deal in fact.

pop this up as an op

oh oh

 

[MJFlores]

H. salminicola: Scientists discover first animal that doesn't breathe

Yet another example to show that the Bible is not a science book.

All the same, it's quite an amazing find and opens the possibility for life elsewhere in the universe even outside environments with oxygen atmospheres.

Nature itself is a lot more fascinating and amazing then running around with conceived religious beliefs.

I figured if some religious had their way, this information would have been suppressed.

Genesis 1:30 New International Version (NIV)

And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

Henneguya salminicola: Microscopic parasite
It is not a beast of the earth
It is not even a bird in the sky
It is not even a creature that move along the ground
Heck it isn't even food to eat

 

[Samantha Rinne]

So then, all of us here beg the question, why is it even relevant? Doesn't fit any categories listed.

It was probably created in a lab by some scientist to "disprove Intelligent Design." Nevermind that intelligent life (human) designed it.

 

[Polymath257]

So then, all of us here beg the question, why is it even relevant? Doesn't fit any categories listed.

It was probably created in a lab by some scientist to "disprove Intelligent Design." Nevermind that intelligent life (human) designed it.

Ignoring the argument about the Bible (which is just silliness--why even bring up the Bible in this?), this discovery is fascinating because it goes against many of our assumptions about how some sorts of life will be.

This is an animal: it has complex cells (so is not a bacterium), no cell walls (so it is not a plant), is multicellular, and is related to jellyfish (which are a type of animal).

Yet, it does not have one of the otherwise universal components of complex cells: mitochondria. But mitochondria perform one of the absolutely essential roles in life: producing the 'energy' for the cell. And that is what drives most of the chemical reactions of life.

Now, as speculated in the article, I would expect this organism gets its energy from being parasitic on the salmon it infects. But even that leads to many questions.

The usual 'energy currency' in cells is a molecule called ATP. This is what mitochondria make so much of and what is lacking if oxygen is not used in metabolism. And ATP is the catalyst for many reactions across the cell. So this leads to a 'big question':

Where does this organism get its ATP? Or does it just use less ATP?

How does it get the ATP from inside of the hosts cells to inside of its own cells?? Or does it need to? Is anaerobic metabolism enough for this species (which I find unlikely, but possible)?

So, if you aren't interested in this, don't worry about it and go play with something you are interested in. But *I* find this little creature *very* interesting (although not for any theological reasons).

 

[Twilight Hue]

So then, all of us here beg the question, why is it even relevant? Doesn't fit any categories listed.

It was probably created in a lab by some scientist to "disprove Intelligent Design." Nevermind that intelligent life (human) designed it.

it didn't fit any categories listed because it was made by ancient goat herders and fisherman.

A God of course would know better and you would think that the Bible would have been more accurate had it been the case to reflect knowledge that only a God would have had at the time, and make sure it was included in some way so future generations wouldn't be able to contest it.

Otherwise you would have to admit that the Bible was just a book made for ancient goat herders and fisherman. ;0)

 

[Twilight Hue]

Genesis 1:30 New International Version (NIV)

And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

Henneguya salminicola: Microscopic parasite
It is not a beast of the earth
It is not even a bird in the sky
It is not even a creature that move along the ground
Heck it isn't even food to eat

The Bible also states that God breaths through nostrils.....

I think God would have a bit of a difficult time with this creature to make it come alive....

 

[Twilight Hue]

So then, all of us here beg the question, why is it even relevant? Doesn't fit any categories listed.

It was probably created in a lab by some scientist to "disprove Intelligent Design." Nevermind that intelligent life (human) designed it.

I know. Satan did it.

 

[shmogie]

H. salminicola: Scientists discover first animal that doesn't breathe

Yet another example to show that the Bible is not a science book.

All the same, it's quite an amazing find and opens the possibility for life elsewhere in the universe even outside environments with oxygen atmospheres.

Nature itself is a lot more fascinating and amazing then running around with conceived religious beliefs.

I figured if some religious had their way, this information would have been suppressed.

The breath of life in the Bible is only referenced for mankind, not any other animal.

Thinking one knows what is Biblical is not always what actually is Biblical.. There is no reason why your unique creature does not fit within the the Biblical framework.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The breath of life in the Bible is only referenced for mankind, not any other animal.

Thinking one knows what is Biblical is not always what actually is Biblical.. There is no reason why your unique creature does not fit within the the Biblical framework.

Genesis 7:15

Apparently the "the breath of life" includes animals.

 

[sealchan]

As @exchemist has pointed out, there are many known anaerobic bacteria (bacteria that do not need oxygen to survive). There are even obligate anaerobes: bacteria for which oxygen is poisonous.

What is remarkable about this article is two-fold: first, that it is multicellular and an animal.

But more remarkable, to be, is the fact that it is a eucaryotic cell without mitochondria.

OK, what does that mean?

Well, bacteria are 'simple cells'. They don't have nuclei, they don't have internal organelles, their DNA is not organized via histones into complex structures, etc. Bacteria are said to be procaryotes.

Complex cells, like those in all animals and plants *do* have these structures. So the cells from this new animal are complex cells.

Next, there are two standard stages of 'respiration': The first part (kreb's cycle) does not require oxygen, is fast, but doesn't give a lot of energy. The second (electron transport chain) is slower, requires oxygen, and gives a LOT more energy out. Some bacteria work with only the Kreb's cycle. Others have both. All eucaryotes up to now have both.

The electron transport chain in eucaryotes happens in an organelle called the mitochondrion. This is the 'energy powerhouse' of these cells.

Well, this new animal has cells without mitochondria. That, to me, is shocking.

It isn't new is it? Just new to us, right?

My first thought when I read this article is that, "Well, that is interesting...but!...the creature is "epiphytic" on an oxygen producing organism"...so it is like an epiphytic plant that does not need soil.

I am sure that more such creatures will be found.

To me this also shows how evolution is in play at even the most basic levels of life. I would say it is continuous back into the dynamics of the development of organic chemical systems in its various real-world environments.

 

[Polymath257]

It isn't new is it? Just new to us, right?

My first thought when I read this article is that, "Well, that is interesting...but!...the creature is "epiphytic" on an oxygen producing organism"...so it is like an epiphytic plant that does not need soil.

I am sure that more such creatures will be found.

To me this also shows how evolution is in play at even the most basic levels of life. I would say it is continuous back into the dynamics of the development of organic chemical systems in its various real-world environments.

Yes, there is an analogy. The big thing, like I had said, is the absence of mitochondria, which are present in most eucaryotic cells. Since the merger of some precursor bacterium, that became the mitochondrium, was a major step to the development of eucaryotic cells, this is a biggie.

 

[sealchan]

Yes, there is an analogy. The big thing, like I had said, is the absence of mitochondria, which are present in most eucaryotic cells. Since the merger of some precursor bacterium, that became the mitochondrium, was a major step to the development of eucaryotic cells, this is a biggie.

So that would point to an event in the evolution of the cell itself, correct? Multi-cellular organisms don't all arise from the development of one type of cell but there have been multiple types of cells that have evolved as the potential platform for multi-cellular evolution.