Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 00:22:48 UTC No. 16302615

Can bacteria? I don't think they could, at least I've never heard of it.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 00:32:21 UTC No. 16302625

Stupid dumbfuck spider just sits there and drowns in sap, why didn't it just walk away?

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 00:45:45 UTC No. 16302636

>>16302625
>why didn't it just walk away?
Clinical depression

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 00:59:31 UTC No. 16302645

>>16302636
:(

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 02:12:09 UTC No. 16302712

>>16302615
https://www.bioprocessonline.com/doc/250-million-year-old-bacterial-spore-comes-ba-0001

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 02:33:05 UTC No. 16302732

>>16302542
scientists are LYING.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 03:08:41 UTC No. 16302773

>>16302712
Oh, neat.
The trick there is probably that the living organism continues to self regulate and repair DNA where the dead bugs are dead, and their cells don't work on repairing the DNA
That's just a guess, so not gospel.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 06:58:19 UTC No. 16302903

>>16302542
>How can bacteria survive trapped in amber or ice for hundreds of millions of years
Source, please.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 06:59:19 UTC No. 16302904

>>16302712
>from a salt crystal
that's not amber

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 07:02:28 UTC No. 16302906

>>16302904
>The oldest specimen previously found was a 25–30 million year old bacteria—a youngster compared to the latest finding—extracted from an extinct bee trapped in ancient amber.

>>16302542
I guess bacteria are just simpler (being procaryotes) and therefore much more resilient than eukaryota.
But at some point, someone's going to have to answer "we don't know yet" to your questions anon, because that's just the truth. This is dabbling in the limits of our biology knowledge, literally leading-edge science.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 08:08:44 UTC No. 16302948

>>16302542
You've got an entire group of microorganisms that thrive in extreme conditions, Archaea. As far as bacteria surviving that long, it's being suspended within conditions that keep it from having to use energy. Bacterial cells aren't as complex as whole organisms that are made up of eukaryotic cells. There are a lot more components that can and do degrade over time instead of just the one cell. Bacteria are pretty neat, though. They can have a few different mechanisms to trade buffs that give them an edge in survival. One of those buffs is creating toxins as a product of being damaged or killed. Say you freeze some tendies that you left out on the counter the whole day, then go back and heat them back up to a temperature that would safely kill bacteria on them. If the bacteria that were on those tendies were able to make toxin, your name goes up as a death note while that bacteria dies and you get brutal food poisoning.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 05:13:23 UTC No. 16304233

>>16302906
Yes, the question would be how the trapped bacteria was able maintain its physical integrity against environmental changes for so long without having any materials to repair itself. Heat, pressure, mineralization, and background radiation should've destroyed it.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 18:18:58 UTC No. 16304846

>>16302625
Shit's sticky, dude

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 18:19:42 UTC No. 16304847

>>16304846
You're supposed to flush it, not manhandle it.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 21:49:21 UTC No. 16305040

>>16302542
The more complex something is, the more fragile it will be. We're seeing this with microprocessors right now.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 22:02:48 UTC No. 16305051

>>16304847
Sap, not feces, dude

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 07:03:44 UTC No. 16305602

>>16305040
Intel's processor problems are due to a design flaw. It's not so much complexity as much as the ability to recover from problems. Bacteria are simple but not invincible.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 10:26:17 UTC No. 16305698

>>16302542
The bacteria have adaptations that allow them to go in to a dormant spore form and some of those adaptations probably include internal cellular chemistry that's less likely to damage DNA over very long periods. Also the fact that the cell is staying intact and isn't actually dead.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 13:14:38 UTC No. 16305801

>>16302542
Endospores. Look it up.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 05:28:28 UTC No. 16306646

>>16302542
>bacteria
Not compatible with the CTMU

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 05:30:38 UTC No. 16306648

>>16306646
Then the CTMU is false.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 05:34:37 UTC No. 16306651

>>16306648
>falsity
Not compatible with the CTMU
>Verification not required.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 07:34:32 UTC No. 16306710

>>16302712
>words on the internet
>must be true!
I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you, pal.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 10:37:23 UTC No. 16306852

>>16302948
Ok, I have an addendum/question. Could the dead genetic material of extremophile bacteria be introduced to highly pathogenic strains of bacteria to make them more hazardous? Something that thrives in highly alkaline or acidic environments?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 22:24:30 UTC No. 16307736

>>16302625
He was gooning

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 23:02:32 UTC No. 16307769

>>16306852
Most extremophiles are specialists, so they’d only be able to be successfully pathogenic in extreme alkaline conditions

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 00:35:54 UTC No. 16307827

>>16307769
But say you took the genetic material from a dead extremophile, and then set conditions for a pathogenic bacteria that weren't an extremophile to encounter it and take up that genetic material. Is there a possibility that further reproductions are now going to code for being able to survive both conditions? Like how you've got aerotolerant and facultative bacteria that can survive in conditions with or without oxygen.