Slashdot Mirror
Organic Matter Found In Canadian Meteorite
eldavojohn writes "From what sounds like the opening of an X-Files episode, Canadian scientists have reportedly found in a meteorite organic matter older than the sun at Tagish Lake in Canada. From the article: '"We mean that the material in the meteorite has been processed the least since it was formed. The material we see today is arguably the most representative of the material that first went into making up the solar system." The meteorite likely formed in the outer reaches of the asteroid belt, but the organic material it contains probably had a far more distant origin. The globules could have originated in the Kuiper Belt group of icy planetary remnants orbiting beyond Neptune. Or they could have been created even farther afield. The globules appear to be similar to the kinds of icy grains found in molecular clouds — the vast, low-density regions where stars collapse and form and new solar systems are born.' The article implies that life could potentially survive in these meteorites and maybe even travel through space — supporting the theory that life may have arrived on earth and evolved from that point on."
it's just carbon compounds.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Earth didnt just appear out of nothingness... it had to get its organic compound from somewhere!
Hence "nothing is created, nothing is lost, all is transformed".
Still, it's pretty cool to have a piece of hard evidence to back up an obvious explanation.
Organic matter has been found in meteorites decades ago.
Life is found most everywhere that it can reach. The only reason we have not found life in space yet is because gravity does a good job of keeping life on the planet and out of space. If there were a place on earth where life could encouter vacuum, it would be a very good bet that life would evolve to cope with it. Trees split water and create sugar using sunlight, animals create water and eat sugar. If you can conceive of a lifeform that can do both of these things, vacuum is a perfectly acceptable environment. In fact there are quite a few "anaerobic" microbes that prefer to not be around oxygen - if they could evolve to handle lower pressures they could make a good candidate for interstellar life travel.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Im actually interested, how do you measure the age of an object so old, when its not from earth ?
I mean the amount of radioactive materials that fall apart a thousand or so years after being 'inserted' into a certain object is valid only if we know the amount on the env surrounding it.
How do we know how old this thing is without actually being sure where it came from ?
Maybe there was less of the izotope in the env. ?
Or maybe there was much, much more of it ?
This is besides the point if the rock actually contains some fossilized life forms, if its a billion years younger or older, then this fact makes a pretty big difference, right ?
I understand that the age of stars can be measured by the spectrum (iirc, as light travels further/longer it leans towards one of the edges).
I also get how we can determine how we check the basic building block of an object a milion light years away by the light spectrum too.
But the age, when we are not really sure of the exact amount of izotopes in the env. ?
Could somebody educate this fool with a friendly wikipedia link ?
"The Da Vinci Code" wasn't bad, I liked it. I just thought that the hype was entirely overblown. It was a good yarn, just not worthy of all the hullabaloo. But, you write a novel about a major religion's central deity, and you're bound to stir up some publicity when people whine. I haven't read the rest of his books, however, and none really compel me to do so.
jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
What kind of "news" story makes such a big deal out of such a fundamentally important claim - "organic matter older than the Sun found in Canadian meteorites", but doesn't say exactly what makes these "globules" qualify as "organic"? The only details about the claimed "organic" matter are that they "resemble minute hollow balls with carbon-rich shells", where "minute" is vaguely implied to be smaller than 10 um^3. (a billionth the volume of a grape).
There's more info detailing that the Yukon is cold and unpopulated than any info about how this carbon is "organic".
In fact, practically all carbon on the Earth is older than the Sun. Carbon is produced in the cores of unusually massive stars, then distributed across the Universe after the star explodes in supernova or similarly huge cataclysm. Just composition of carbon, and the other "organic" elements (nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen) essential to Earth organic chemistry, doesn't make these tiny grains accurately called "organic globules".
Maybe actual science, written by an actual journalist, could report the more important facts behind this sensational headline.
--
make install -not war
There are many examples of life that can survive in the most extreme of places.
Tbere is bacteria that lives quite happily on plutonium fuel rods inside nuclear reactors. The radiation doesn't bother them.
Thnere is bacteria that can synthesis sugars vital for life without photosynthesis from compounds which are lethal to other forms of life. Examples of this have been found at deep sea hot vents. There is even bacteria which lives off methane. Also many different kinds of bacteria and viruses (the lowest known form of life) which can place themselves into a state of suspended animation for thousands and even theoretically millions of year.
Thus, life has many ways to survive in deep space.
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
thezorch@gmail.com
http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
A Canadian meteorite, dating from the formation of the solar system, has been found in Canada. Like many other meteorites, it contains organic matters. The article doesn't state it, but it is probably something akin to amino acids. Apparently, it is the first time this organic matter is found in spherical bubbles, that the original article misleadingly calls "globules". As usual, the article is light on technical details but heavy on wild crazy sensationalist extrapolation. The journalist would like to make believe that cells could have existed on these meteorites but unfortunately has strictly no evidence of this.
"The structures are invisible to the naked eye and resemble minute hollow balls with carbon-rich shells. A chunk of meteorite no larger than a grape could contain a billion of the tiny globules.
Theoretically, their hollow-ball shape could have presented a homey environment of concentrated organic matter where early cellular life could develop.
Such theories boast little evidence but raise many intriguing questions. " (emphasis mine)
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Free books for you? That was really sweet of her.
Perhaps you should have judged her by the act of giving rather than the gift. Rather than being condescending and judgmental (way to make her feel good, champ), you could have scored points and broadened her horizons by thinking about what she gave you and suggesting some other books she might have liked. Sounds like she likes shorter, punchier thrillers.
I'd have given her Gaston Leroux's "Phantom of the Opera", the collected short stories and cartoons of James Thurber, and maybe something short by literary like Ondatjee's "Running in the Family". How on earth can you know she won't like what you like unless you let her read it?
Actually, finding life is very difficult because the necessary conditions for the formation of a single celled organism only exist with very low possibilities.
Keep in mind that we have never manufactured a single living cell with functional DNA in a lab even with conditions entirely under our human control. Pasteur's Law still holds today. If we can't use thousands of years of engineering, including at least 2 decades of advanced bio-medical technology, to manufacture a single funcional cell from non-organic material, do you really expect it to form arbitrarily in space all the time?
We are the product of an extremely unlikely physical/chemical event, and we may very well be alone.
Certainly, organic molecules are required for life as we know it. But there are many other possibilities.
Why do we assume that there is no life in some place we can't explore, like inside the Sun? Certainly there is no life there based on complex carbon molecules. However, what excludes the possibility of life based on such other mechanism?
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
Either that, or you must be new here.
-Red
(And you're totally right, by the way. WHo gives a crap if she has awful taste in books? That would be like turning a girl away casue she doesnt play video games, or worse, likes the PS3)
Guns don't kill people, "with glowing hearts" kills people.
Chemical reactions can occur in places other than Earth.
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
The fact that "some of her favorites" included Dan Brown novels points to an obvious character flaw (well..at LEAST one) and a serious lack of intelligence. He made an accurate judgement call based upon the fact that he had never met someone previously who enjoyed a Dan Brown that didn't occasionally have fits of chest slapping/attempts to bite their own ear. While this may be a stereotype, and you are OBVIOUSLY the self-righteous asshole who says "Stereotypes are bad!! You should judge every person you meet for the person they are INSIDE!!!!!1!", I and 95% of the rest of humanity couldn't give a fuck. Stereotypes exist because they work. For example:
Man sees bear.
Man recognizes that bear could possibly maul and/or kill man.
Man finds ways to avoid or escape an encounter with said bear.
Stereotype is defined as: 4. Sociology. a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group.
Just because 1 in 1000 bears may be cuddly and playful rather than deadly and violent does not make the stereotype incorrect.
Also, by ending things at this point and not "taking a chance" as you would likely put it, he is saving time and possible heartache for her rather than taking advantage of her and presenting himself as a pseudo-cultured, pompous, self-important cock, then using this false image of himself to take advantage of her and use her until he is done with her and kicking her to the curb.
Did I sum up your method of preying on women correctly or did I miss something?
Instead of being a prickface about his comment, you could have decided to take it for face value, in the manner that he intended it...in other words, to be humorous.
Below me.
Wow... how wonderfully pretentious of you.
She like books you don't? Geez, what a dumb bitch!
OK so let me get this straight. You aren't going to give this "very attractive girl" the time of day because she likes Dan Brown novels.... and shes the idiot here.
So did you happen to pick up 'Angels and Demons', brilliant story even if some of his chapters are only 2 pages long. Most of Dan Browns novels that i've read have an underlying love story where the educated hero ends up with the "very attractive girl"...
If you ask me, YOU are the fool in THIS story who is so naive as to turn down the "very attractive girl" because of her taste in writers. How many HAPPILY married men do you know enjoy all the movies he gets dragged along to by his better half?
I think you should get off your high horse, read the books, buy her some flowers and show her a good time, or in the least give her a chance and see if you get along. There are other things to a relationship other than reading books my friend.
I have ridden the mighty moon worm!
[/sarcasm] dumbass. What strikes me even moreso is these various posts involving people jumping to conclusions about strangers they've just met, then placing ridiculous value judgements on them. She likes Harry Potter and that makes her not smart? Are you some authority on literature? I know I'm coming off abrasively but it's not solely directed at you, particularly given the other responses to this part of the thread. Maybe there is something to be said for not being so intellectually snobby, you're (once again not just you, but including you) closing a lot of doors that might have really great things behind them.
Happy goldfish bowl to you.