Slashdot Mirror


Ingredients of Life Found Around Sun-Like Star

smooth wombat writes "NASAs Spitzer Space Telescope has detected the basic organic building blocks of life in a ring orbiting in the 'habitable zone', that area where Earth orbits the Sun and where water exists on the borderline between gas and liquid, in a nearby stellar nursery. When acetylene and hydrogen cyanide combine with water they form adenine, one of the four bases of DNA. The detection supports the widely held theory that many of the molecular building blocks of life were present in the solar system even before planets formed, thus assisting the initial formation of complex organic molecules and the start of life itself." Though it was a little shakier than this observation, we've discussed the possibility of life elsewhere in the galaxy before.

38 of 366 comments (clear)

  1. Ingredients of Life Found Around Sun-Like Star by gowen · · Score: 5, Funny

    What, you mean concrete evidence of an Intelligent Designer?

    Love,
    Kansas Board of Education

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    1. Re:Ingredients of Life Found Around Sun-Like Star by ahsile · · Score: 5, Funny

      I do believe there is evidence of "His Noodly Appendages" visible from Earth.

    2. Re:Ingredients of Life Found Around Sun-Like Star by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 4, Funny

      The correct spelling is Kansas Board of "Education"

    3. Re:Ingredients of Life Found Around Sun-Like Star by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 3, Funny

      Kansas Bord of Edyookashun

    4. Re:Ingredients of Life Found Around Sun-Like Star by Golias · · Score: 4, Funny

      The debate between ID and anti-ID zealots doesn't really interest me all that much, but every time the "flying spaghetti monster" argument gets invoked, I get really hungry for pasta.

      Is that just me?

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    5. Re:Ingredients of Life Found Around Sun-Like Star by ozydingo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Funny thing is, whenever I ask a "why" question, regarding the origins of life, God's intentions, etc, to one who professes that religion contains all the answers, the answer I typically get when my questions get deep enough is always along the lines of "we cannot profess to know or understand the motive of God and His infinite wisdom; for to do so would be to place ourselves on His level. We must only have faith in His divine plan." Doesn't seem to answer much of anything, in my opinion.

      42 purple monkey dishwashers!

    6. Re:Ingredients of Life Found Around Sun-Like Star by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Religion provides a made-up "why" by assuming an anthromorphic made-up "person whose will is why". I believe the open source analogy is actually the other way around: religion is the closed-source "here's how it is and this is the answer and be a good sheeple and don't ask questions" M$ organization where science is in principle the peer-reviewed, open source, verify results for yourself.

      Why presume that there are things that science not only doesn't know, but can't? Who's to say that in the future it will always be impossible for us to figure out what was before the Big Bang? As we know it now, no, we don't know what may have been before, but that's why we continue on attempting to discover and learn. We may end up discovering some as-of-yet unknown fundamental principle of reality that illuminates the very questions that we think are unanswerable. Or that quantum mechanics only appears random and probablistic because we currently lack the ability to probe where we need to be able to figure it out, but in the future we may discover how to do it. Making up an answer of "God did it and that's all we need to know so stop asking" helps exactly nothing.

      Live long and prosper.

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    7. Re:Ingredients of Life Found Around Sun-Like Star by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nothing is "wrong" with this arguement. The argmuement is falls outside the boundries of science (unscientific), however, because the exist of supernatural entities us unfalsifable.

      The possibility of gods existing is not concidered by science since the question is one of religeon or philosohpy, not science.

    8. Re:Ingredients of Life Found Around Sun-Like Star by PriceIke · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ramen!

      --
      It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
  2. Intelligent Design by setirw · · Score: 5, Funny

    Definitive proof that the building blocks of life were purposefully placed here by a space alien :-)

    --
    This message printed on 100% post-consumer recycled electrons.
    1. Re:Intelligent Design by hesiod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Billions of years ago, some alien creature was reading a news story about organic molecules discovered in the dust of our solar system. They've been watching us ever since...

      Actually, since they are billions of light-years away, they just noticed last week.

  3. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ingredients for bleu cheese found in my bathroom... but that doesn't mean it is bleu cheese or that I'd want to eat it even if it were.

    1. Re:In other news by sam_handelman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here's the best story available at the moment:

        First came RNA, which combines the catalytic properties of proteins and the hereditary properties of DNA in a single molecule. So RNA can provide a template for new RNA (by base complimentarity) and also catalyse the polymerization of RNA onto itself. The odds of randomly assembling such an RNA are of course excruciatingly low - but we have a hundred million years and many, many RNA polymers floating around during that period. Furthermore, if we were on a planet where this had never occurred - would we be here to talk about it?

        RNA molecules form spontaneously in conditions like those on the early earth, given the right organic ingredients (i.e. in the presence of the molecules we see in that gas cloud, if they were on a planetary surface).

        Phospholipids (or other molecules, with similar charge properties) also form spontaneously, and arrange spontaneously into lipid bilayers.

        Since these lipid bilayers would have a strong tendency to concentrate whatever was in them when they floated away, the insides of these lipid bilayers would be ideal locations for these self-replicating RNA to congregate. I will refer to these proto-cells as "collectives of RNA molecules".

        Over time, these RNA molecules evolve new catalytic activities. It has been well established - in experimental studies - that randomly varied RNA can, indeed, evolve new catalytic activities. It takes a while, but we've got an aeon to burn.

        Three new RNA activities are key:
      a) Creating a "template" version of themselves/eachother consisting of DNA, rather than RNA. This will eventually become the inherited genome - but originally, this would confer a selective advantage because DNA molecules are more stable than RNA. Even today, no organism can synthesize DNA without first synthesizing a little RNA as a "primer" to get synthesis started.
      b) Making proteins as an aid to catalysis. The first proteins were probably non-informative polymers (like starch). Most likely, they served as bound cofactors (like heme iron in hemoglobin) and the like for RNA enzymes. Since proteins are almost universally superior catalysts to RNA, the first collective of RNA that had the ability to synthesize protein would have a great advantage. Even today, the fundamental reaction of protein synthesis is catalyzed by the RNA component of the Ribozome, although modern Ribozomes have a great many proteins that "help" the process.
      c) Synthesising additional phospholipids to make more membrane. As time goes on and the amount of free phospholipid floating in the water declines, this becomes a great selective advantage to any proto-cell, since it can reproduce more proto-cells limited only by available energy and reduced carbon.

        With these three - perfectly understandable - adaptations, you have evolved from a soap bubble full of RNA into a cell.

        ---

        Obviously, this story need not be true, and there are many details missing (or incorrect.) At the moment, however, it is the best explanation we have, and it is certainly possible.

      --
      The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
  4. Dupe?! by lawpoop · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Though it was a little shakier than this observation, we've discussed the possibility of life elsewhere in the galaxy before."

    Oh, so you've bourght us another dupe, huh? Well, thanks, Slashdot mods, thanks! FOR NOTHING!

    --
    Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
    -- Pablo Picasso
  5. Drake equation by tpjunkie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'd say this would definitely incresase the probability of the drake equation resulting in a non-zero answer. Complex organic molecule formation is one of the biggies that you need for development of life.

  6. DNA in space? by lawpoop · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I just thought of something while looking at the graphic -- what if RNA and DNA originally assemble in the pre-planetary cloud and hang around, falling into condensing planets and so forth?

    I think the current popular theory, IIRC, is that RNA molecules somehow stack up in a tidal pool, where they are gently rocked back and forth. Some correct me please.

    So how hard would it be to get DNA to link up in microgravity? Sure, there's more radiation around to blast things apart, but that might be a good thing -- you could get molecules you might not get otherwise without the blowing apart. Also, in microgravity, molecules can float around in 3 dimensions.

    --
    Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
    -- Pablo Picasso
    1. Re:DNA in space? by Hiro+Antagonist · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, radiation is the first problem; there's a hell of a lot of organic-molecule-shattering 'waves of doom' in space, way more than on the surface of a planet that has the shielding of both an atmosphere and a magenetosphere[1].

      Second, tidal pools on a planet keep everything nicely together in the same general area, courtesey of Our Friend Gravity. Tidal pools, at least on Earth, also provide a very necessary solvent for the whole organic chemistry process -- water. No water, and pretty much all of the organic processes that we know about stop working; in fact, when you look at the chemistry, it almost seems that an oxygen atmosphere is optional, but that water is a base requiremet for life because of its properties as a solvent.

      So, no, it's doubtful that complex molecules like Keith Richards will form outside of a suitable gravity well, and doubly doubtful that complex organic molecules (e.g., DNA) will form without liquid water.

      [1] That's a magnetic field around a planet, not a hamster ball for Sir Ian McKellen.

      --

      --
      I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy .sig.
    2. Re:DNA in space? by LordKazan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is no such thing as "ludacrously improbable" when it comes to cosmology - real world probabilities are tried in parallel not in serial.

      They worked out the probabilities for life as we know it occuring randomly - they were small per trial however you must apply the Law of Extremely Large Numbers - ie a huge ammount of trials. Turns out the number of stars likely to have planets in the habital zone overwhelmed the probability by about 10,000 planets likely to have life of some form.

      Don't try to fathom real world probabilities in terms of serial trials of flipping a coin.

      --
      If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
    3. Re:DNA in space? by lawpoop · · Score: 3, Informative

      "it almost seems that an oxygen atmosphere is optional,"

      In fact, Earth's atmostphere originally had no oxygen, until the first anaerobic microbes began producting oxygen as a by-product of their metabolism.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    4. Re:DNA in space? by lawpoop · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm gonna have to disagree with your comment. Oxygen is not 'optional' ,as you say, rather it's detrimental to the formation of life. Some have speculated that DNA-based life could not arise in an aerobic environment. It's just too desctructive.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    5. Re:DNA in space? by Rick.C · · Score: 3, Funny
      There is no such thing as "ludacrously improbable"

      IIRC, that was one of the speed settings on the Heart of Gold's throttle lever.

      --
      You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
      "Math in a song is good."-Linford
  7. After further consideration... by mister_llah · · Score: 3, Interesting

    """
    The detection supports the widely held theory that many of the molecular building blocks of life were present in the solar system even before planets formed, thus assisting the initial formation of complex organic molecules and the start of life itself.
    """

    Wait, so finding organic molecules around a planet supports this how? Can we tell the age of those particles, or that stellar nursery? If we are to believe a lightning strike can create life from amino acids and things of this nature... why would this support that conclusion in particular?

    Maybe I'm missing the point. Perhaps someone can explain things to me?

    --
    MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
    http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
    1. Re:After further consideration... by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are two points to this discovery. On the one hand, it demonstrates that organic precursor molecules can form in environments we simply thought impossible, or hadn't even thought of. Second, it means that such molecules could hitch a ride to a proto-Earth on comets and meteors, and thus be the source of the organic stew. What it really tells us is that the building blocks of life, if not life itself, are probably quite common, which raises the possibility that life itself may be relatively common. Even if it isn't life as complex as that which we find on Earth, one can probably safely assume that there are any number of planets out there where some pretty complex organic interactions are occuring.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  8. Re:"the borderline between gas and liquid" by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Informative

    " Shouldn't it be where water exists on the borderline between gas and solid?"

    No. Liquid water doesn't exist at the temp and pressure where there is a borderline between gas and solid, you get direct sublimation from solid to gas under those conditions -- unless you happen to be at exactly the triple point.

    Conversion between gas and liquid would help in the formation of life precursors, since the phase changes could help concentrate compounds in acqueous solution, resulting in greater rates of reaction. I'm sure there are other reasons why acqueous phase changes would help formation of complex organic molecules.

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  9. Re:Wait - so Moby had it right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
    We are all made of stars?
    The Big Bang produced very little but hydrogen and helium, with some lithium (Thielemann et al. 2001). Various other elements (heavier than carbon but lighter than iron) are produced by fusion in the red giant stage of stars (Table 3). ... most of the elements that make up the computer you're using to view this article, the world around you, the solar system and your body, were originally produced in a supernova (Cameron & Truran 1977; Harper 1996).
    In short, yes.
  10. Life is software, not hardware by dtjohnson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Life is not the presence of particular molecules. Life is the plan by which the molecules are constructed into a living organism. Molecules without the plan by which they operate are no different than computer hardware without any software installed on it. Finding hydrogen cyanide and acetylene present around another star is more a comment on the improving ability to detect molecules at a distance than it is on the presence of the 'building blocks of life.' It would have been much more remarkable if they had NOT found those substances since they are composed of carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen which we would expect to be ubiquitous in the universe, based on our present knowledge. Claiming to have found the 'building blocks of life' around another star is just hype to help pump up the budget for next years work.

  11. Re:Wait - so Moby had it right? by pnewhook · · Score: 3, Interesting
    We are all made of stars?

    Actually, even the bible tells us this is so. "Ashes to ashes... dust to dust...".

    Could interpret this literally and say that we (the Sun, Earth and life on it) are made from interstellar dust initially, and that's where we end up when the solar system ends its life and turns back to ashes and dust when the sun explodes.

    --
    Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  12. ingredients for life by revery · · Score: 4, Funny

    To inhabitants of the T'nsha'grlsk galaxy this is hardly surprising. Scattered across their saucier-pan-shaped galaxy are planets containing the ingredients for Fetucinni Alfredo, Pork Tenderloin, Chicken Cacciatore, and in what will most likely result in a lawsuit should humans develop interstellar space travel, the McRib.

    When asked about the ingredients for Life, Ss's'krpwjdnq waved his third-dimension-bound tentacles wildly and secreted an information packed protein strand. While there is no English equivalent for his communique, a rough translation would be "Given the chance to eat a human, I would."

  13. So? Quaker Oats has know for years ... by joelsanda · · Score: 3, Funny

    The ingredients of Life.

    Sure as hell don't have to go that far out to get it - local supermarket has it!

    --
    The Luddites were ahead of their time.
  14. Re:tis the season by Enzo+the+Baker · · Score: 3, Informative
    Donald Knuth is a Lutheran, or at least goes to the First Lutheran Church of Palo Alto now and then. See his news page for his occasionally scheduled appearances to have informal talks about Bible verses.

    I suggest you look into two of his books, "3:16 Bible Texts Illuminated" and "Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About".

    He gave some lectures about how he wrote "3:16", his motivations for doing so, and various thoughts about God. These lectures were the basis for "Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About"

    --
    I may twist orthodoxy to partly justify a tyrant. But I can easily make up a German philosophy to justify him entirely.
  15. Re:Wait - so Moby had it right? by saider · · Score: 3, Informative

    Carbon dating measures the ratio of C14 to C12. C14 is radioactive and decays over time. When an organism is alive it is constantly ingesting outside sources of carbon and so the C12-C14 ratio is the same as that of the environment. The environment gets C14 when cosmic rays interact with C12 in the upper atmosphere. When the organism dies, it stops ingesting carbon, the C14 decays and the ratio changes. The change in this ratio can tell you how long ago something stopped ingesting C14 (when it died).

    You are not really measuring the age of the carbon atoms, just the ratio of a certian short-lived version of Carbon.

    --


    Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
  16. Carbon Dating by qeveren · · Score: 4, Informative

    Carbon-14 (the radioactive isotope of carbon used in carbon dating) is continuously generated on Earth at a fairly constant rate, by the interaction of neutrons (from cosmic rays) with nitrogen (and occasionally oxygen and carbon) atoms. So, 'new' carbon-14 atoms are being made all the time.

    Because it has a relatively constant abundance in nature, living things should also maintain the same ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in their tissues... until they die, at which point they're no longer taking in new carbon from the environment. Then the carbon-14 starts to decay (with a half-life of ~5700 years), but the carbon-12, which is stable, remains. Measuring this ratio can give an approximation of the length of time since the creature died.

    The carbon-12 in your body is stable, and could very well pre-date the solar system. Carbon-14 doesn't hang around very long, in astronomical timescales. :)

    --
    Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
  17. Re:statistical black hole by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The smallest human chromosome is a chain of 50 million base pairs (over an alphabet of 4: ACGT). 4^1,000,000 is roughly 10^608,000.

    No one has ever suggested that a fully formed human chromosome could just pop into existance out of constituant elements. Your example is a straw man.

    No explanation has yet been demonstrated of how the initial
    chemical constituents formed to produce a DNA/RNA based life form.....No, a lightning strike/spark on an early 1950's high scholl science project that produces some organic slime is not the same thing.


    Yes it danm well is, sunshine. That experiment proved that these elements, amino acids etc, were almost guaranteed to have existed in abundance in the early earth. These elements ARE the building blocks of life.

    Take a look a a model where a soup of these elements exists, add in factors, look at the probabilites, then multiply by the collasal timescales and particle counts involved and you'll quickly realise that not only was it likely that life evolved out of slime or pools around geysters, it was practically inevitable.

    Go back to Kansas and take last years flu vaccine, and go pray to whatever straw man is up there in the sky. We'll be over here in the Age of the Enlightenment if you'd care to join us.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  18. It is agreed in all probability by Dark+Coder · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'll point out the criteria to a successful adenine (a component of DNA) creation as I recall from various scientific sources (Intelligent Design not withstanding):

    1. Gravity of at least 0.4 G is a requirement (micro-gravity need not apply here as a recent ISS scientific experiement shown with regard to catalyst of acytelene/water/hydrogen under electric sparks/shocks)

    2. Swirling motions (tidal pool is nature's best liquid/air agitators)

    3. Minimal radiation (asinine will not remain cohesive for long under gamma bombardments)
            This means a heavy shielding must be in place, which means dense air and/or planet

    4. Lightning... the very most improbable of all aspect of the building block starter. It's gotta strike at the right place and the right time, preferably near the tidal pool.

    I'd gotta hand it to mother nature and God, we are one lucky fools on this unqiue planet, Earth.

  19. Re:Complexity of DNA by joeldg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not particularly directed at the parent post..

    I think what some of the posters here fail to understand is the entire thing with :

    infinite time
    infinite space
    infinite possibilities

    given those variables, I think it is entirely possible that we might be more "normal" than one would think considering we are made up of the this stuff and the fact that these things have a tendency to fall into place in certain ways naturally.

    I actually think it is an thought-cop-out to just declare a "designer" did something instead of coming to grips with the idea of trillions and trillions of stars and infinity.

  20. Re:It's all in Xenu! by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 3, Funny

    My! What DO they teach you young Scientologists these days?

    Where to send the checks?

  21. Re:Some issues by Pedrito · · Score: 3, Informative

    Or our detection methods simply slant the results to systems like that.

    Our detection methods slant towards larger planets, definitely. But the fact that most of those large planets are in highly eccentric orbits or close to their stars has nothing to do with the detection method. It appears to be the predominate result of solar system formation. Ours appears to be the exception, not the rule.

    Our detection methods could find Jupiter like planets in Jupiter like orbits, and they do. They're just few and far between.

  22. Re:statistical black hole by rbanffy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Your post implies the simplest viable life form is DNA based with highly specialized structures like ribosomes when, in fact, they are not required to form from the primordial soup.

    Life can start simple. A single molecule that reacts with other molecules around it and makes imperfect copies of itself is enough. Given time, all suitable molecules will be used and live, even if primitive, will be everywhere.

    Since the copies are not perfect, mutation does happen and you will have a lot of different "copiers" in your soup, some better that the others, some building more complex structures that can, in turn, copy themselves.

    I agree with you. Expecting cell based lifeforms in the first week of a biosphere is ludicrous, but you are wrong. Cells, nuclei and DNA are only one way of life to express itself. It happens to be the way we know because once a certain kind of life dominates, there is little space left for other forms. It happened here.

    There are sure other forms of organization that happened all over the place. Remember: billions of places over billions of years make a lot of attemps on life.