Most efficient ways to conquer earth

[kerbiloid]

Cats can into this, too.

Spoiler

 

[Flibble]

On 5/31/2019 at 7:22 AM, kerbiloid said:

The light of red dwarves compared to the sunlight is too "soft", it lacks green photons but full of weak red ones. So, as presumed, it is bad for photosynthesis, so it's hard to expect same crop production under the red sun.

Why does it need green photons? Chlorophyll is green because it reflects green not because it absorbs it. Plants need blue and red light.

[micha]

A small interjection on the "they're slow, so what" premise.

Taking a step back from the biological aspects, physics, at least, is the same everywhere.

So even assuming something slow has a long enough and stable enough environment to evolve into a sentient species, how will they ever interface with the physical world?  If it takes them a (n earth) year to say "hello" or lift an appendage, how would they ever be able to point a telescope at a spot in the sky let alone pilot a spacecraft? To their slow senses they wouldn't even be able to see stars, the entire sky would just be a uniform grey smear, for example.

So yeah, slow is no problem for life in general, but for life to develop some semblance of sentience and start building (or growing, or whatever) technology to interface with and adapt the physical world to their desires? Slightly more difficult to imagine.

[kerbiloid]

6 hours ago, Flibble said:

Why does it need green photons? Chlorophyll is green because it reflects green not because it absorbs it. Plants need blue and red light.

It doesn't need exactly green ones, and originally there were green and purple algae, until the oxygenation left the first ones.
But the light of a red dwarf lacks both green and blue, mostly red ones, and has an excess of useless infrareds. So, afaik they presume that it wastes more energy than any other, as the low-energy photons activate the reaction more rarely.

***

Another aspect of no biology without geology are mountains and rivers.
When the geological processes stop, the mountains still keep being destroyed by the same erosion processes like now. Wind, water, temperature variation keep scratching them.
All known mountains are tens-hundreds million years young. If give them several billions more, the existing mountains will get erased, while there is no process to create new mountains instead of them.
The same with coast lines. Billions years later a geologically dead planet will be a flat land surrounded by the ocean.
(Mars and Venus are just too young, their geological process were active not long ago, so they still have their mountains. Billions years later they should look different.)

No mountains - no barriers, no local weather systems.
No mountains - no fast mountain rivers, only random pattern of slow rivers and bogs.
No mountains - no altitude zoning of ecosystems (when you have even subarctic life in tropics if getting up in the mountain districts). Degradation of ecosystems, extinction of high-organized species.

So, the biosphere is just a volatile chemically active part of the lithosphere, and should stop together with the geological processes.
This limits the lifespan of any life on an Earth-sized planet with ~10 bln years (5...6 until the geology stops + several more after that), regardless of the star lifespan.
So, the yellow dwarf (whose lifespan is almost the same) is a "take everything from life" type of stars, while a red dwarf is just a lantern for a wasteland.

Edited June 3, 2019 by kerbiloid

[DDE]

On 6/2/2019 at 2:58 AM, Spacescifi said:

Are they willing to save us EVERYTIME we goof up from now on until eternity?

No.

Which is why you must bow before your benevolent alien overlords... or your own compatriots shall slaughter you for the Greater Good.

The promise of a utopia has always been pretty compelling. Especially when other means of persuasion are applied.

[Flibble]

5 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Another aspect of no biology without geology are mountains and rivers.
When the geological processes stop, the mountains still keep being destroyed by the same erosion processes like now. Wind, water, temperature variation keep scratching them.
All known mountains are tens-hundreds million years young. If give them several billions more, the existing mountains will get erased, while there is no process to create new mountains instead of them.
The same with coast lines. Billions years later a geologically dead planet will be a flat land surrounded by the ocean.
(Mars and Venus are just too young, their geological process were active not long ago, so they still have their mountains. Billions years later they should look different.)

Surely there would be no land, just ocean, depending on the amount of surface water obviously. In Earth's case if we had no significant terrain variation the planet would be entirely covered by water to a depth of a couple of km.

[kerbiloid]

14 minutes ago, Flibble said:

Surely there would be no land, just ocean, depending on the amount of surface water obviously. In Earth's case if we had no significant terrain variation the planet would be entirely covered by water to a depth of a couple of km.

Until the UV which is no more stopped by the ozone layer, splits this ocean water into H and O and has turned the oceanic bottom into a dry plain.
The greenhouse effect helps to make this faster by raising the evapourated water closer to the sky.

Edited June 3, 2019 by kerbiloid

[Flibble]

5 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Until the UV which is no more stopped by the ozone layer, splits this ocean water into H and O and has turned the oceanic bottom into a dry plain.

Why would it do that? Water is a rather poor absorber of UVC light in the first place, and any split H and O would recombine pretty quickly anyway.

[kerbiloid]

39 minutes ago, Flibble said:

Why would it do that? Water is a rather poor absorber of UVC light in the first place, and any split H and O would recombine pretty quickly anyway.

It works on Mars, why shouldn't in other places.

https://books.google.ru/books?id=plZoDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq=planet+split+water+uv&source=bl&ots=AlHLQsLvnG&sig=ACfU3U3xQA8XFLCmY38PotECb3zKCWGUWA&hl=ru&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi71Ivagc3iAhUnzqYKHRy-AaUQ6AEwCHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=planet split water uv&f=false

Above the water ocean there anyway should be some pressure of water vapor, corresponding to the current temperature.
So, the gaseous water layer will anyway extend to the upper armosphere, exponentially decreasing with altitude.
The higher - the less concentrated. So when in the upper atmosphere an H2O molecule gets splitted by an UV photon, there is a probability that fast and quick H will escape into space before it meets an HO^- ion.
But the water ocean anyway keeps the vapor pressure constant, so the splitted H2O molecule will be replaced by the next one, evaporated from the ocean surface.

So, the continous hydrogen leakage in the upper atmosphere permanently sucks water from the ocean. When the ocean gets depleted, from the atmosphere. Then we have Venus with no water at all.

Upd.
Btw as the current oxygen atmosphere and ozone layer are produced and are being supported by the algae and other plants, i.e. by the life forms, this is a sample of biology affecting geology.
Another sample - the rivers and coastlines protected by the soil appeared from the rotten plants and covered with alive plants which decrease the wind erosion of the rock beneath them.
While the life exists, it keeps stable the hydrosphere. And the hydrosphere directly affects the upper tens kilometers of lithosphere.
So, a puny organic film of life covering the planet effects much greater amount of inorganic material below. It's like a glue covering the stone ball with a protective layer.

Edited June 3, 2019 by kerbiloid

[Mikki]

...Another nice strategie to conquer the earth would be simply, "corrupt, distract, derail."

How to do?

1. Show up incognito to a major government with strong economic and high-end warfare caps.
2. Pretend to be friendly.
3. Show some power, lure them in.
4. Pretend to share knowledge in exchange for submission.
5. Let the corrupted government go crazy on earth and all the other nations.
6. After letting the corrupted government rage for certain time, show up as "Good Guys", "end" tyranny, let the world know you are now "King of the Hill".
7. Force humanity to clean up and recycle all infrastructure made by them, back to cavemans.
8. When the planet is recovered and free of any human traces of civilisation, get rid of the caveman.
9. Enjoy a fully conquered, as clean as possible planet earth, rename it.

Short version (Derail):

1. Show up as "King of the Hill".
2. Continue with step 7 as mentioned above.
...
10. Leave the planet with a good feeling in the gut.

Edited June 3, 2019 by Mikki
Derail

[Spacescifi]

1 hour ago, Mikki said:

...Another nice strategie to conquer the earth would be simply, "corrupt, distract, derail."

How to do?

1. Show up incognito to a major government with strong economic and high-end warfare caps.
2. Pretend to be friendly.
3. Show some power, lure them in.
4. Pretend to share knowledge in exchange for submission.
5. Let the corrupted government go crazy on earth and all the other nations.
6. After letting the corrupted government rage for certain time, show up as "Good Guys", "end" tyranny, let the world know you are now "King of the Hill".
7. Force humanity to clean up and recycle all infrastructure made by them, back to cavemans.
8. When the planet is recovered and free of any human traces of civilisation, get rid of the caveman.
9. Enjoy a fully conquered, as clean as possible planet earth, rename it.

Short version (Derail):

1. Show up as "King of the Hill".
2. Continue with step 7 as mentioned above.
...
10. Leave the planet with a good feeling in the gut.

Namin a planet Romulus because of it having native romulans actually makes sense in Star Trek. Given how many fictional races there are and how many homeworlds. Plus the fact that likely every race calls their world Earth because Earth just means dirt or land.

Post-contact we are no longer alone Earth needs another name, for aliens to call it of nothing else. Since you can be positive they won't call our earth Earth because it was never their home.

How about humana?

Edited June 3, 2019 by Spacescifi

[Mikki]

45 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

Namin a planet Romulus because of it having native romulans actually makes sense in Star Trek. Given how many fictional races there are and how many homeworlds. Plus the fact that likely every race calls their world Earth because Earth just means dirt or land.

Post-contact we are no longer alone Earth needs another name, for aliens to call it of nothing else. Since you can be positive they won't call our earth Earth because it was never their home.

How about humana?

Sounds okay.

When finished conquering, "Lush Paradise".
While conquering, "Contaminated Hellhole".

[Spacescifi]

25 minutes ago, Mikki said:

Sounds okay.

When finished conquering, "Lush Paradise".
While conquering, "Contaminated Hellhole".

 

Hmmm... that depends how often the aliens conquer worlds and transform rhem into utopias where they and others can live.

I think a human identifier would be appropriate, assuming enough are allowed to remain. Just so that any future alien visitirs or tourists know who lives here.

 

Otherwise, if complete and utter destruction of humanity is what they want, then they can name it whatever, since they will have consigned humanity to oblivion. Out of sight, out of mind.

[Terwin]

On 6/1/2019 at 12:28 AM, kerbiloid said:

The red dwarves of course live long, almosr eternally compared to the Sun.
But:
1) This is eternal instability of sunlight, climate, weather, temperature; poor abilities to store energy from the soft red light.
Even more important is that this is unpredictable, not regular, cyclic.

We have systems similar to this on earth:

Desert regions where seeds wait for the rare rains(sometimes decades apart) before bursting into a profusion of life for a short period to create more seeds before they dry out and die until the next rain.

I think the reproduction of some species of flamingo also rely on rain that may only come once per decade.

Lots of types of microbes can enter a dormant state waiting for the right conditions to 'wake up' so I see no reson to think they could not do this under a red dwarf as well.

 

Frankly a luminosity change of only 2-3x does not seem all that big of a deal, cloud cover causes a bigger change than that.

 

And there will always be the 'edge case' of the border of the illuminated area, where colonies will survive if the red dwarf gets too bright at some point and manages to kill the directly illuminated portions.

(I kind of wonder what sorts of plants would evolve in a situation where there is occasionally too much sunlight, perhaps something similar to how some ferns close up at night, but on a grander scale...) 

[kerbiloid]

39 minutes ago, Terwin said:

We have systems similar to this on earth:

Desert regions where seeds wait for the rare rains(sometimes decades apart) before bursting into a profusion of life for a short period to create more seeds before they dry out and die until the next rain.

I think the reproduction of some species of flamingo also rely on rain that may only come once per decade.

Yes, but none of them have Westeros-like climate when you don't know if summer and winter will last for two months or for several years.
Mostly the desert is bad all year long, and these species are not mainstream, they depend on the species living in more predictable places.

Sometimes they call several-years long winter a nuclear or a volcanic winter, and tell how devastating it is every time for dinosaurs and humanity.

39 minutes ago, Terwin said:

Frankly a luminosity change of only 2-3x does not seem all that big of a deal, cloud cover causes a bigger change than that.

If the cloud cover lasts for months, it's a problem. As well as a sudden hot summer in the middle of the winter, with the winter suddenly returning back.

39 minutes ago, Terwin said:

And there will always be the 'edge case' of the border of the illuminated area

Spoiler

Not the best place for vegetation.
(And notice, the life on photo appeared in much warmer conditions, it is just surviving there).

Of course, hurricanes on the border of the day and night hemispheres are normal, and the band of the surface is not very wide, it's just a terminator.

As well, notice the angle of the falling rays. Most part of the energy will be lost.

P.S.
So, I guess many of red dwarves should have life, but just microbes deep in the ocean, even not aware of their sun.

Edited June 4, 2019 by kerbiloid

[Terwin]

 

52 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Yes, but none of them have Westeros-like climate when you don't know if summer and winter will last for two months or for several years.
Mostly the desert is bad all year long, and these species are not mainstream, they depend on the species living in more predictable places.

I fail to see how Westeros has anything to do with it, you claimed that life could not handle being dependent on highly random events and I gave a couple of examples of just that.

52 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

If the cloud cover lasts for months, it's a problem. As well as a sudden hot summer in the middle of the winter, with the winter suddenly returning back.

In the Ohio/Illinois area(mid-west?), months of cloudy skies is called 'winter'.

I never claimed that all life on earth is well adapted to life under a red dwarf, only that we do have examples of life here on earth that have evolved to handle highly random availability of things critical for their life-cycle.

52 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

P.S.
So, I guess many of red dwarves should have life, but just microbes deep in the ocean, even not aware of their sun.

If you have microbes living in the depths, then you will have them expanding again and again when the flares occur, until some of them manage to survive between the flares.

If anything, such randomness should spur evolution and encourage very hardy organisms.

[kerbiloid]

30 minutes ago, Terwin said:

I fail to see how Westeros has anything to do with it, you claimed that life could not handle being dependent on highly random events and I gave a couple of examples of just that.

Random events, but not random seasons. Yes, it can survive.
But which crops grow in random summer/winter climate, which fishes and birds migrate in two/seven/five/three/three/eleven/two months mode?
Can bears and rodents sleep in such mode and getting/spending fat with such random intervals?
Will the evolution have enough material for experiments, especially when only a small band of surface is habitable?
Will the evolution rate be comparable to the Earth value, if we remember that even in the Earth paradise it took 4 bln years of 6 bln available? And the Earth seasons are very certain in most places, and its surface is almost totally habitable. So plants, bears, rodents, birds, fishes, etc. usually may not care of that, they are optimized for a year calendar. When it gets bad n one place, most of them either sleep or migrate, then back, and their biological processes are well synchronized with seasons.
The certain seasons just automate a lot of processes, while random seasons make either to process everything in manual mode, or to have the processes primitive and the specimens expendable (so, in turn, primitive).
Automated processes work faster.

30 minutes ago, Terwin said:

In the Ohio/Illinois area(mid-west?), months of cloudy skies is called 'winter'.

Is Ohio/Illinois isolated from other parts of the biosphere?
Does their winter last for random number of month every year, say from two to  ten?
Is their population aware of what is the "year" at all?

30 minutes ago, Terwin said:

If you have microbes living in the depths, then you will have them expanding again and again when the flares occur, until some of them manage to survive between the flares.

When the star makes random flares every several months, unlikely a lot of photosynthetic life will survive every time.

Also is it even possible to have a Moon-sized moon for the tidally locked planet next to the star? What will make the tides?
How (and what for) can the life get onto ground? On the Earth the coastal line gets above/beneath the water twice per day, so the stromatolites have appeared where this happens.

Spoiler

Puny prehistorical gnats just had no choice getting above the seawater and hiding in the wet algae slime to survive. Happily, this happened with regular intervals, so they successfully adapted and at last became humans.

While there is nothing predictable and periodic under the red dwarf except guaranteed uncertainty.

Can the tidally locked planet close to the star have a magnetosphere?

30 minutes ago, Terwin said:

If anything, such randomness should spur evolution and encourage very hardy organisms.

Rather tough guys:

Spoiler

It's a pity that even 4 bln years later they are stil archaea, even not algae.

Also not that tundra and desert can say they have produced some really hard organisms.
Just a little bit harder than others, and mostly migrated from other regions and just surviving there.

Edited June 4, 2019 by kerbiloid

[Terwin]

@kerbiloid are you trying to argue that complex life could not evolve around a red dwarf, or that the environment on earth has not produced anything that could easily thrive in the radically different environment of a tidally locked planet around a red dwarf?

Your arguments are centered around it being impossible for bears and fish to survive in an environment where their circadian rhythms are detrimental instead of beneficial(like  a short summer in the middle of winter).

A big part of the argument for life around a red dwarf is that it would not be very similar to what we are familiar with.

The environment is radically different than here on earth, so the forms that best take advantage of the environment should also be radically different than what we are familiar with.

Perhaps around a red dwarf, Red algae or Purple bacteria would win out over green bacteria.  Perhaps even something else that can't even survive on earth.

But your arguments about the randomness of flares of a red dwarf are not in and of themselves a sufficient argument that complex life could not evolve on a planet around such a star, only that very little in the way of earthly life could thrive after being transplanted there.

[kerbiloid]

37 minutes ago, Terwin said:

are you trying to argue that complex life could not evolve around a red dwarf, or that the environment on earth has not produced anything that could easily thrive in the radically different environment of a tidally locked planet around a red dwarf?

I'm trying to say that the probability of a complex life near the red dwarf is dramatically lower (if even exists) than near a yellow dwarf.

So, if we ever meet another complex life (enough complex to eat it, to pet it, or to speak with it, not just to look at it under a microscope), we can be almost sure that it has evolved near a Sun(+/-25%)-like star, on an Earth(+/-25%)-like planet with a Moon(+/-25%)-like moon. Much more probable than near a dwarf, even if there are a lot of reds.

Also, I'm trying to say that the red dwarf own lifespan which is often mentioned as an argument pro life, is negligible, because after ten billion years of the planet existance, any planet is a dead stoneball covered with dust and probably vacuum, so the red dwarves have no benefit at all in this sense. The yellow dwarf, and the red dwarf biological lifespan is same - ~10 bln years, so the long-living red dwarf is just wasted fusion fuel. And as a yellow dwarf is absolutely more comfortable for the life, this in turn also makes to think that a yellow-based is much more probable than a red-based one.

Of course, we should reserve "one chance per hundred" for miracles, but any galaxy (including Milkie) is not very life-friendly, so probably the most probable place for a life evolution is exactly where we are: enough far from the center, still far from the edge, aside from major arm and from star clusters. So, a region about 1000 ly around the Sun and several similar spots between other arms.

As this means that the number of potential life evolutions is limited, we probably may be sure that any another complex life has evolved on an Earth-like planet near a yellow dwarf.
So, they will be oxygen-breathing, water-drinking, 600nm-seeing, 10 m/s² walking creatures with individual intellect (and probably artificial hiveminds or hivemind symbionts, but this doesn't matter).

This doesn't limit the set of potentially inhabited planets, as a million years of stable conditions looks absolutely enough for a human colony.
So, there can be a lot of colonies near stars of any type. But still built by the yellowdwarvers.
Of course, such colonies can be oases full of adapted terrestrial species, and no doubt that a bear will try its best to withstand random winters.
But these species will not be endemic for that planet, they will have no chance to evolve near a red dwarf, they will be manually brought from a Sun/Earth-type place.

P.S.
Also due to the low probability of a complex life even near the yellow dwarves, there should be not many civilizations available for use, we + maybe 1..2 (inside 1000 ly and far from the star clusters).
This in turn probably means that any two civs faced each other will be rather different in their techlevels. And unlikely will be fellows.
More likely, one of them will be pets for landscape design.

So, I find much more probable that there are thousands of stars of various types inhabited by kidnapped humans, cats, and horses, with medieval culture like in space operas,, than non-humanoids from red dwarf or white subgiant.
Like a fishtank with castle or a zoo with artifical caverns.

Edited June 4, 2019 by kerbiloid

[KerikBalm]

On 5/30/2019 at 7:45 AM, kerbiloid said:

Just a primitive standalone gravity trap with a tiny droplet of glue.

Venus fly traps are more than that, they have actively movign parts

On 6/2/2019 at 11:45 PM, Flibble said:

Why does it need green photons? Chlorophyll is green because it reflects green not because it absorbs it. Plants need blue and red light.

But there are limits to what wavelengths can drive usable chemical reactions, particularly for carbon based chemistry. Carbon based ciochemistry is likely the only biochemistry. Water might not be the only solvent, but no other element comes close. Beyond that you have to get into really exotic stuff that doesn't even use chemicals, but plasmas and magnetic fields, and .. far too speculative IMO.

Physics is a limit here

18 hours ago, Terwin said:

Frankly a luminosity change of only 2-3x does not seem all that big of a deal, cloud cover causes a bigger change than that.

I've skimmed through a lot of this... but 2-3x is huge depending on the context, are we talking from 1 planet to another, or 1 planet that experiences 2-3 fold changes throughout its orbit?

Anyway, to the topic... WHY?

1) Slaves? give me a break. If they are that advanced: #1) they'll have robots... #2) The environment we need and the environment they need are different, so we wouldn't even be good household pets.

2) Resources? there's plenty of rock out there with a much lower gravity well. Same for water. Earth has nothing special from a resource perspective.

3) To live here? they'd need to replace the whole biosphere. They'd bombard us from orbit into extinction. They wouldn't care about our submission

4) Because we pose a potential future threat? I suppose... its an alternative to the outcome seen in "The killing star"... they could be nicer and subjugate us instead of wipe us out without warning so we have no chance to retaliate.

 

I've thought that a fun concept for a sci fi novel would be: Aliens show up. They are so advanced, they don't see any need for a planetary biosphere. They'd rather get metals from asteroids, and hydrogen/helium by skimming from ice/gas giants. They can construct all their habitats. Mars is fine for them, ceres is fine for them, orbit around any of the gas giants is fine for them. Generally, they arrive in a system, set up interplanetary infrastructure to get volatiles, metals, and light gasses, and then send additional colony ships. At 0.2c they'd have the galaxy colonized in a million years or less. A blink of the eye on a geological time scale.

They show up in the system and realize there's an intelligent civilization on Earth. Its a rather large gravity well with nothing special, so they don't care too much about it much more than as a curiosity. Then they realize that we can send interplanetary spacecraft with nuclear warheads, and are a bit of a threat to their recently arrived colony ship (which will lead to an exponentially growing alien presence in our solar system. They upgrade their tracking systems and defensive lasers (that they'd already have as micrometeor defenses and such), and don't worry too much.

Contact is made, and the aliens lay claim to the entire solar system beyond Earth orbit. Humanity has to cope with the idea that the moon is as far as we'll ever get. The rest of the solar system, nay the galaxy, is now closed to us. We're all caged up on Earth, and a massive X ray laser will shoot anything leaving it. How do we react to such an event? An option that most of the world mostly ignored has been taken from us. Does the world now care about what it didn't before?

Perhaps one enterprising alien decides this whole solar system colonization thing can be accelerated using the extensive manufacturing facilities on Earth.

Do they try to make a deal: We'll give you all kinds of technology to improve your lot on Earth, but you've got to use that tech to build some stuff for us. Only the stuff delivered to us as per contract can leave Earth, the rest gets destroyed?

And no, the stuff is not actually delivered to the alien colony ship (no trojan horse possibility), but rather it goes to orbit, downloads a computer program that the aliens transmit, and does what the aliens want. The aliens of course use a lot of encryption to ensure we can't fake it, by having our own software on it that knows what the alien software is supposed to do, but is really under our control.

Or do they use force or the threat of force: Build this stuff to jump-start our colony in your solar system, or we'll fling a comet at you!

I think they'd go with the deal, and also arrange for use to study our own world for them, that way they don't need to deal with any biohazard concerns.

[kerbiloid]

51 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

Contact is made, and the aliens lay claim to the entire solar system beyond Earth orbit. Humanity has to cope with the idea that the moon is as far as we'll ever get. The rest of the solar system, nay the galaxy, is now closed to us. We're all caged up on Earth, and a massive X ray laser will shoot anything leaving it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_City_and_the_Stars

(though, a subversion)

[KerikBalm]

hmmm, but that seems to deal with the (alleged) aftermath in the distant future...

How would the world react to that situation right now?

Musk would sure be liquided.

[kerbiloid]

3 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

Musk would sure be liquided.

He has flamethrowers and special spacesuits.

Also, an underground train for covert attacks.

The slogan of the Tesla Electric-Power Rangers should be: "Resistance and Capacity!"

Edited June 5, 2019 by kerbiloid

[RocketSquid]

As for the “how exotic can it get” debate, there is a species of bacteria (not archaea, bacteria) known as Desulforudis audaxviator. It lives at a depth of 2.8 kilometers below the ground, in groundwater. It is entirely isolated from the outside ecosystem, and has been for millions of years. It obtains 100% of its energy from ionizing radiation by way of radiolysis and subsequent chemical reaction and chemosynthesis. 

[kerbiloid]

2 hours ago, RocketSquid said:

and has been for millions of years

One tick of geological clock. It just still hasn't got extinct.

If it was still alive abillion years later, that should mean abscence of progress.

What are evolutionary perspectives of this bacteria?

Edited June 6, 2019 by kerbiloid