The principle theological implication this discovery has for me is that it sufficiently shakes the foundation of scientific "surety" around the most basic ideas of our existence and reveals an order, a working, a God above and beyond human understanding. If anything, it "hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts" that we humans have any idea what's going on.

I couldn't find Tom Faber's comment on the Facebook page, but I agree with him about the accuracy of the article. My two cents is here: http://tinyurl.com/352eqbm

I think the theological implications are still there and still significant, but this "discovery" doesn't force the issue in the way that it would have had the Gizmodo piece been accurate.

I hope, Patrick, you're not suggesting (as did a commenter on the "Wired" article) that "Darwin is dead", and in favor of [sic] "Intelligent Design"?

It's always dangerous to say "[Famous Dead Person] would [action that agrees w/ my POV]" . . . but I think that it's safe to say that Darwin would happily dig in the dirt
at Mono Lake (a seriously trippy place I've driven past several times, FWIW), and stick it under the microscope. Those committed to the scientific method LOVE new, different, interesting evidence, and how it shatters previous assumptions!

This is a story I can't wait to hear more about, as it unfolds...

JC Fisher

One immediate result of this report, if true, is to add confirmation to the already fairly well established position that we can infer (not know, of course) God likes diversity, from Canadian shale to the humans of today. If we can find something this remote from us (does it take phosphorus to keep its beauty?) here on earth,just think what the billions of other planets hold and have held! (Skipping over the uniqueness of Christ's sacrifice for now.)

All we need do is read or listen to any contemporary political discourse to realize that long ago some humans learned how to replace phosphorous (light) with arsenic (poison) in their fundamental makeup.

Well, this is all very exciting, but having skimmed the actual paper, there is much less to this than there appears in the news. Despite breathless headline writers, this isn't "new life". This is a typically adaptable extremophile bacterium that does something that we know is theoretically possible: replaces phosphate PO(4) with the chemically similar arsenate AsO(4).

It remains to be seen how complete the exchange is. They grew it under positive selection for arsenate incorporation, but it's almost impossible to eliminate trace phosphorous from all their reagents.

Bacteria of various types are remarkably adaptable to harsh environments--a sort of "if you can't beat it, defeat it." Think of the ones living on thermo vents on hydrogen sulfide, which is toxic as all get out to most life forms. There are acidophiles that live in conditions that would melt metal. Then there's D. radiodurans, which pays no attention to massive doses of radiation and is one of the most bizarre extremophiles out there. This doesn't "defeat Darwin" in any way. Rather, it is a prime example of evolutionary selection in action.

It's not really a surprise that some adept microbe figured out how to make use of a harsh compound: that's what microbes do.

Not clear why people are invoking theology.

More at Friends of Jake.

Susan L Forsburg PhD