←back to thread

Astronomers Detect a Possible Signature of Life on a Distant Planet

(www.nytimes.com)
168 points julienchastang | 2 comments | 16 Apr 25 23:20 UTC | HN request time: 0.411s | source
Show context
ianpenney ◴[17 Apr 25 06:09 UTC] No.43713598[source]▶
The detection of dimethyl sulfide on an exoplanet is an exciting development, ok. And DMS on Earth is almost entirely biologically sourced, but that doesn’t make it an exclusive biosignature. There are plausible abiotic pathways for DMS formation, such as in geochemistry we can’t know entirely about because we live on earth.

I’m not sure a journalist for this exalted American newspaper here knows anything about this and frankly the excited language of this article is dumb af. Probably because excited people keep paying for subscriptions to this trash.

It took my amateur self nearly 10 mins to ask around to qualified friends and research some counter ideas.

replies(3): >>43713690 #>>43713838 #>>43726726 #
1. John7878781 ◴[17 Apr 25 06:26 UTC] No.43713690[source]▶
The article isn't overly excited imo. It clearly states nothing has been proven for certainty, which is in alignment with what you're saying.

> Astronomers Detect a Possible Signature of Life on a Distant Planet

> Further studies are needed to determine whether K2-18b, which orbits a star 120 light-years away, is inhabited, or even habitable.

It's not fair to call it "trash"

replies(1): >>43713723 #
2. ianpenney ◴[17 Apr 25 06:32 UTC] No.43713723[source]▶
“Remotely possible” sounds like a neat editorial compromise. A bit tongue in cheek. A pun. Fun.

Otherwise? Clickbait.