Talk:Shadow biosphere

Notability

I am removing the {{Notability|neologisms|date=July 2009}} template b/c the term has 3,000 Google hits"shadow+biosphere" and even if that's not enough, the subject of the article is definitely notable and so per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms#Articles wrongly titled as neologisms the article should only be moved, not deleted. Nikola (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Not just microbial

I only recently encountered the term "shadow biosphere" but from what I've been reading it potentially encompasses a wider range of theorised lifeforms than just microbes - it can include any form of life that is resident on Earth and that science doesn't currently recognise as life, either due to radically different biochemistry, or because, say, it's simply so small (or indeed so large) that it lies outside the range of sizes we are normally capable of perceiving. I'll try to dig out some refs. Quaestor23 (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Virus Warning

When I clicked on the external link for more information, I got a virus warning. --217.86.74.133 (talk) 08:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

"While life on Earth is relatively well-studied?" Relative to what?

This seems like the fabled incomplete comparative of advertising lore. Compared to remote planets, of course life on earth is relatively well studied, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.83.142.46 (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Cryptic desert varnish/life reference

Is there any evidence to back up the idea that anyone has ever claimed 'desert varnish' is (or even could be) a life-form? It is not even mentioned in the WP article on 'desert varnish'? 86.134.117.67 (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Artificial life

I am not sure I have got a firm grasp on the definition of a shadow biosphere. It seems like evolutionary steps displacing older ones are not what we are talking about, and that the "origin" seems really important. But isn't it so that some major steps in the evolution may involve different origins working in a low-level symbiosis? Or are these "origins" all actually descendents of the same true origin?

Can one say that human technology as it displaces most of life on earth may comprise a new major biosphere, leaving "life as we know it" as a shadow biosphere? At least taken to the extreme of an AI revolution? Even though the origin of the technology is in humanity, which again originates from the origin of all "life as we know it"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.250.198 (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Shadow biosphere. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101214063212/http://www.ffame.org/sbenner/cochembiol8.672-689.pdf to http://www.ffame.org/sbenner/cochembiol8.672-689.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090320001019/http://spot.colorado.edu/~cleland/articles/Cleland_Copley.pdf to http://spot.colorado.edu/~cleland/articles/Cleland_Copley.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407081517/http://archived.thebioblog.com/2010/02/alternate-life-styles-scientists-predict-the-possibility-of-a-shadow-biosphere/ to http://archived.thebioblog.com/2010/02/alternate-life-styles-scientists-predict-the-possibility-of-a-shadow-biosphere/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Ribosomes

"if organisms based on RNA once existed, they might still be alive today, unnoticed because they do not contain ribosomes". This statement is surprising –ribosomes are made of RNA, so why shouldn't a RNA-based organism have them? – and so needs a reference. But the source cited leads to a 404. Maproom (talk) 07:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

"The term was coined ... "

I looked through the cited paper. The term "shadow biosphere" doesn't appear in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A2800276 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Only biochemical and molecular processes?

Not-also sub-atmoic indirects?

Id be surprised. 120.21.137.7 (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)