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

[PruePhillip]

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.

You are not reading Genesis properly, if at all.
It says that life emerged on the land, first
then the sea
and only "man" received "breath" which I suppose means a soul.

First life existed without oxygen.
Viruses are a form of life that don't breathe anything.

 

[MJFlores]

When I got gas burnt mind/brain irradiated attacked, and suffered what I believe is the term crown of thorns effect. Brain prickling in the radiation burning, intense pain, but I did not unnaturally bleed. I could not breathe properly.

If you knew by the study/research of Planet Earth that it owned a UFO mass irradiation metallic fusion of the core, and it did not convert into Satan God O black holes as the theme of your study. Then you knew.

Why he prophecized by his own male DNA Genetic evolution that a Destroyer male psyche would emerge who would once again try to achieve it.....right in the moment where we live in modern times. Knowing that when we get irradiated, we lose our conscious spiritual life mind/psyche. Then we re evolve over a future of non science irradiation...and when the higher male aware conscious self re emerges he does it again.

Dinosaur life is after technology and radiation change/Earth conversion...so where did they come from?

I'm totally lost for words.

 

[rational experiences]

I'm totally lost for words.

Breathing to talk about scientifically it has to exist first in its natural state.

To not be enabled to breathe, it was caused by nuclear ground fission using up the Nature water and oxygen mass. In science because of science....whose machine caused that reaction....knowledge of which is why a machine can apply the exact same reaction yet updated it from a Nature ground attack burning to a reaction in a new machine model.

The pyramid built in the Nature environment never owned that form of protective cooling.

Males in science are, always were liars who own a personal conscious spiritual memory history that is just about their own selves, why it was taught in the conscious model of the story Biblical for conscious reasoning. For it was actual to a life realization in radiation sciences what liars and Destroyers male scientists actually are.

Fact of your theme, reason to teach consciousness as a concept to save humanity from their own scientific deceit.

 

[74x12]

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.

Ok?

According to strict reading of the verse "breath" would only apply to animals that actually breathe anyway. "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life" (Genesis 7:22)

They have actual breath. You know ... air going in and out of your nose?

Note that it doesn't say "oxygen" just breath. So if it doesn't breathe then the verse shouldn't apply. At least according to some people's view of it.

 

[tas8831]

Science is man made. It's only facts to those who does not believe in the spiritual. Spirituality comes from the nature it self.

No it doesn't.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Ok?

According to strict reading of the verse "breath" would only apply to animals that actually breathe anyway. "All in whose nostrils was the breath of life" (Genesis 7:22)

They have actual breath. You know ... air going in and out of your nose?

Note that it doesn't say "oxygen" just breath. So if it doesn't breathe then the verse shouldn't apply. At least according to some people's view of it.

Is there anything anywhere in the bible where non breathing animals are mentioned?

 

[Rise]

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

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

Please quote the scripture you think this discovery disproves. You won't find it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Please quote the scripture you think this discovery disproves. You won't find it.

Genesis 1:30

New International Version
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.

 

[Rise]

Genesis 1:30

New International Version
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.

Look at the context. He's talking about what He has given to eat every green plant for food.

So, does this lifeform eat green plants?
No. It's a parasite inside Salmon.

No contradiction with what the Bible says.

And we don't even need to get into whether or not this qualifies as a "creature" based on what the Hebrew word there implies. I doubt if the Isrealites were aware of cellular parasites they would have even chosen to use the same word to describe them as they do for animals or bugs (all of which are powered by the air). We certainly don't classify these simple cellular organisms as "animals". Which is absurd that you, or the article, would even called it an "animal" in your post.

Nevermind that the claim in that article might not even be true! They state the results aren't conclusive.
I'm curious how they even came to this conclusion that it can survive without oxygen.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Look at the context. He's talking about what He has given to eat every green plant for food.

So, does this lifeform eat green plants?
No. It's a parasite inside Salmon.

No contradiction with what the Bible says.

And we don't even need to get into whether or not this qualifies as a "creature" based on what the Hebrew word there implies. I doubt if the Isrealites were aware of cellular parasites they would have even chosen to use the same word to describe them as they do for animals or bugs (all of which are powered by the air). We certainly don't classify these simple cellular organisms as "animals". Which is absurd that you, or the article, would even called it an "animal" in your post.

Nevermind that the claim in that article might not even be true! They state the results aren't conclusive.
I'm curious how they even came to this conclusion that it can survive without oxygen.

What makes it an animal, is that it's a multicellular organism. What's even more amazing is that this animal does not breathe, yet is still alive.

According to the Bible every living thing has the breath of life with breath being a keyword hence the requirement of breathing in order for something to be alive.

This animal does not breathe, yet is alive which is why I say the Bible is not a science book nor is it a book that can be used to dispute science.

 

[Rise]

What makes it an animal, is that it's a multicellular organism.

By that definition, plants and fungi would be "animals" too.

You also missed the point. How modern academics choose to sort and classify things has no bearing on what God meant when he talked about, and what the Hebrew words mean, in Genesis 1:30.

What's even more amazing is that this animal does not breathe, yet is still alive.

You don't even know if that's the case. They themselves said the results aren't conclusive.

According to the Bible every living thing has the breath of life with breath being a keyword hence the requirement of breathing in order for something to be alive.

You're trying to force conditions and conclusions into that verse that the context and Hebrew don't support.

Let's look at the New Living Translation to help you better understand where you're going wrong:
And I have given every green plant as food for all the wild animals, the birds in the sky, and the small animals that scurry along the ground—everything that has life.” And that is what happened.

Or the JPS Tanakh 1917:
and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, [I have given] every green herb for food.' And it was so.

There are a few errors of fact and logic you're making:
1. Assuming that the "breath of life" means "requires oxygen".
2. Assuming that the Hebrew language, and God, defines an animal with "the breath of life" as "anything with more than one cell".
3. Thus erroneously concluding that this verse implies all multi-celled organisms must require oxygen, and therefore the Bible must be wrong if a multi-celled organism doesn't require it.

Your conclusion is wrong because your assumptions are wrong.

Reasons why:

1. The Hebrew words don't lend themselves towards concluding that bugs and micro-organisms are included in this sentence. But they require oxygen. So your theory doesn't work then. But even if you wanted to say the Hebrew did support that reading, there are other reasons why your assumptions fall apart...

2. Plants respire and require oxygen to live too. But they aren't included in this verse as "having the breath of life". We also know from Scripture that plants are not considered alive in the same way animals or man is because the plants were created as food. The reason we know this makes them different is because in the Bible animals and man originally were not designed to eat each other, and when Jesus returns we see they will stop eating each other. Yet they are specifically given the plants to eat. We can thus conclude that the "breath of life" is therefore something different from merely "requires oxygen to live".

3. "Breath" is synonymous with the spirit in Hebrew. Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit onto the disciples. The Spirit of God elsewhere is likened to a wind.
To say something has the "breath of life" in it could be another way of simply saying it has a spirit or soul. It doesn't have to have anything to do with oxygen requirements.

4. We also know that, Scripturally, being multi-celled doesn't automatically mean something is considered having "the breath of life", otherwise plants and fungi would be included there. This shoots down your claim that a cellular parasite needs to be considered to have the breath of life just because it's multi-cellular. Which disproves your claim that the Bible is wrong if we find something that doesn't require oxygen. No, you're the one that invented that standard and tried to impose it on the Bible. The Bible never told you that a cellular parasite had to be considered to have the breath of life in it, let alone that the trait of having the "breath of life" was defined as requiring oxygen.

 

[paarsurrey]

Science is man made. It's only facts to those who does not believe in the spiritual. Spirituality comes from the nature it self.

I understand Science is man-made, nature is created/made by G-d and Spirit/Soul is also created/made by G-d. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Spirit of Light]

I understand Science is man-made, nature is created/made by G-d and Spirit/Soul is also created/made by G-d. Right, please?

Regards

I do agree with you on this

 

[paarsurrey]

The observations made by science, suitably confirmed, are facts, about nature.
It is the theories that are models, rather than facts.

The natural word "fact" has nothing to do with what one has described above.
What one has described is a later term used by philosophy/science, not a natural word, please. Right, please?

Regards

 

[exchemist]

The natural word "fact" has nothing to do with what one has described above.
What one has described is a later term used by philosophy/science, not a natural word, please. Right, please?

Regards

Er, no. I don't think so.

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

"Well, bacteria are 'simple cells' "

I understand, humans evolved from some bacteria- the simple cells.
But why other bacteria stopped evolving and still exist, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
The natural word "fact" has nothing to do with what one has described above.
What one has described is a later term used by philosophy/science, not a natural word, please.

Er, no. I don't think so.

"fact (n.)
1530s, "action, anything done," especially "evil deed," from Latin factum "an event, occurrence, deed, achievement," in Medieval Latin also "state, condition, circumstance," literally "thing done" (source also of Old French fait, Spanish hecho, Italian fatto), noun use of neuter of factus, past participle of facere "to do" (from PIE root *dhe- "to set, put"). Main modern sense of "thing known to be true" is from 1630s, from notion of "something that has actually occurred."

Compare feat, which is an earlier adoption of the same word via French. Facts "real state of things (as distinguished from a statement of belief)" is from 1630s. In fact "in reality" is from 1707. Facts of life "harsh realities" is from 1854; euphemistic sense of "human sexual functions" first recorded 1913. Alliterative pairing of facts and figures is from 1727"

fact | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

 

[Polymath257]

"Well, bacteria are 'simple cells' "

I understand, humans evolved from some bacteria- the simple cells.
But why other bacteria stopped evolving and still exist, please?

Regards

They didn't stop evolving. They just evolved in a way that kept them simple cells.

 

[paarsurrey]

They didn't stop evolving. They just evolved in a way that kept them simple cells.

Can we say that those bacteria whom G-d destined to be human, they under the process of evolution set by G-d became humans, please?

Regards

 

[Polymath257]

Can we say that those bacteria whom G-d destined to be human, they under the process of evolution set by G-d became humans, please?

Regards

Since I do not believe there is a God, and I do not believe in destiny, then no.

Destiny and God are not the concern of science. If you wish to believe in them, that is your choice, but science has no say in those.