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."

Comments

They're here...

[baffled]

No, apparently we're here.

Our new overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome our new organic material evolved overlords. And by overlords, I mean us.

Organic matter != life...

[msauve]

it's just carbon compounds.

Re:Organic matter != life...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your mom's just carbon compounds.

Re:Organic matter != life...

[Anonymous Coward]

My life sci 101 class teached me

Unlike your Eng 101 class, which clearly did not.

Re:Organic matter != life...

[DrMindWarp]

More correctly, organic molecules are not necessarily 'organic matter'. The report does not say it is 'organic matter' - some idiot in the reporting chain just doesn't know the difference. This is one reason why Slashdot should cite the original article rather than second or third hand rubbish.

Re:Organic matter != life...

[ichigo 2.0]

What does engineering 101 class have to make with this?

Re:Organic matter != life...

[MillionthMonkey]

Apparently, more than half of all known compounds are organic

Practically all compounds are organic. You can connect carbons in an infinite number of ways. There are an infinite number of inorganic molecules too, but it's a much smaller infinity. Large inorganic molecules tend to break apart. Most atoms either want more electrons too much or don't know what to do with the ones they have, and the resulting instabilities build up over distance. You don't see many inorganic polymers- only a few, like polyphosphazenes and asbestos needles. Carbon is good at forming large covalent molecules, and its presence stabilizes large molecules with other elements.

People think organic chemistry is hard because they see all the compounds and freak. In fact organic is actually much easier than inorganic chem. The players are C, H, O, and N, plus phosphate (PO4---) if you're talking biochemistry. Phosphate aside, these are simple, well understood atoms. Being small, they are hard atoms with limited deformation in electrical fields (like from other nearby atoms). They display a small range of behaviors and form covalent bonds in a predictable way. We still sometimes learn new stuff about carbon, for example, like we did with buckyballs and nanotubes. But neither of these involved any fundamental carbon chemistry that we didn't already understand.

Carbon atoms get 4 bonds each, nitrogens 3, oxygens 2, hydrogens 1. You can connect them up in any way that satisfies those bond number requirements. But each bond should have a carbon on one end (preferably both ends) or you get unstable stuff. (Exceptions: N-H, O-H. You can get away with O=N, O-O, N-N, and N=N sometimes, but not too much, or the results are unpleasant.) Each of C, N, and O can form double bonds. Most double bonds are between C and either O or N. Especially in biochem, where carbon-carbon double bonds are not as common. Both C and N can form triple bonds, such as in nitriles (CN) or alkynes like acetylene (HCCH). Triple bonds are even rarer. (If you're bad you can use F, Cl, Br, or I to make CFCs and similar things. Halogens generally follow the same rules as H, except the bonds are more electron-poor than with H, and more stable. CFCs almost never appear in biochemistry.) Phosphate gets 3 bonds, but they can be anionic. When covalent, the bonds are usually with hydroxyls or other phosphates across shared bridge oxygens. In biochem P never appears outside its phosphate. When it does it gets 5 bonds. Many organophosphates used in industry and agriculture incorporate direct C-P bonds. The nerve agent Sarin for example has a P-CH3 bond as well as a P-F bond with fluorine. Phosphate can appear in organic and bioorganic polymers too, like DNA. In general addition of N or especially O to organic molecules makes them electron poor, and addition of H makes them electron rich. From least to most oxidized: C-OH, C=O, COOH. Heavily oxidized molecules tend to break apart.

Being mindful of the above restrictions, you can connect C, H, O, N, phosphate, etc. up like tinkertoys to form almost anything you can think of. Mostly stuff like tar and varnish. And that's basically what you learn in organic chemistry. Then they'll have you spend most of the semester memorizing hundreds of quirky little "recipe" type reactions with various bizarre reagents, so that you can eventually synthesize any organic structure in a lab that you want. Most of these little recipes were figured out in the 19th century.

Inorganic chemistry is less systematic. Consider something like Hg. We find out new stuff about Hg all the time. We don't understand its electronic structure very well. It has lots of excited states available to it, and it displays unexplained absorption lines that appear to be influenced by what's around. Its outer 6s valence electrons fly straight through the nucleus at relativistic speeds, raising their effective mass and shrinking their orbitals below the atom's surface. As a res

Canadians!

[jrwr00]

I knew it! Canadians are from outerspace!

Re:Canadians!

[Superpants]

That is right, now bow before us and pay respects at the church of Tim Hortons. There you can partake in the holy consumption of maple-glazed doughnuts and watch the revered sport of hockey while drinking vast quantities of beer.

Since it is Sunday, a toque is mandatory for all. Those failing to cover ones head with the divine knit-cap will be punished by means of harsh words.
That is all.

Re:Canadians!

[iceborer]

Canadians are from outerspace!

I believe that you mean oater space.

I've seen this before.

[lupine_stalker]

I've seen this movie... the organisms evolve... then get sprayed with napalm while Canada gets a dose of Head and Shoulders... or was it the other way round?

Summary misleading...

[CODiNE]

From the article text :

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.

So from what I read they structures found COULD assist organic life, but are not actual evidence of them.

Re:Summary misleading...

[osu-neko]

So from what I read they structures found COULD assist organic life, but are not actual evidence of them.

That's one point of view.

There's a common myth that evidence speaks for itself. It doesn't. It just sits there on the lab table, incapable of speaking. Evidence also neither supports nor refutes any theory, these also being things evidence is incapable of doing unless the evidence is itself sentient. You're anthropomorphizing the evidence when you claim it supports or refutes a theory.

Now, various interpretations of the evidence can be used by scientists to support or refute theories. Insofar as some scientists interpret this evidence in such a way that it allows them to argue for ET-assisted biogenesis, it is evidence for that. Of course, some scientists will interpret it differently and then it won't be evidence for that.

All this is perfectly fine. Just don't make the mistake the quoted poster made, where you think there's a fact of the matter about whether this actually is or isn't evidence for one theory or another. Science doesn't work that way, that's just perpetuating a myth.

Keep in mind...

[RyanFenton]

Keep in mind that organic does NOT = life, just a precursor to life. Organic molecules/matter are generally just molecules containing carbon and hydrogen making a chainlike skeleton of atoms, with oxygen and/or nitrogen depending on if it is a protein. (Source). This DOES back up the hypothesis that organic molecules can form just as well outside of early earth, as in. It'll be interesting to hear just what the molecules were, but I doubt this will spawn any new theories about the extra-solar genesis of life on earth. It doesn't take special space-dust to provide organic compounds in the early earth - just the atoms from the life cycle of stars spreading heavier elements.

Ryan Fenton

Waaait a second...

[Tibor the Hun]

Does this mean we're all Canadians!!!?

NOOOOOOOO

Re:Waaait a second...

[Snosty]

Nice try, you're not blaming us for George W.

Re:More like "Deception Point" than the X-Files

[freefrag]

Dan (Da Vinci Code) Brown's bad novel "Bad" implies that he has written good novels.

Re:Extra-solar life?

[v1]

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.

how to measure the age

[Meltir]

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 ?

Re:how to measure the age

[Bemopolis]

First, just to whip out my creds I have a doctorate in astronomy, although not in this sub-field...

The typical way to set an age of a very old object is, as you note, by looking at its radioactive decay history. A good chronometer for meteorites is uranium, both U238 and U235. They have different decay rates, so the difference between the starting and ending abundance ratio of the two gives you the age. As you note, the trick is to determine what the starting ratio is; this is largely an educated guess, but presumably the population seen in the meteorite was created in the same supernova explosion, so a little nuclear physics tells you what that should be (Google 'neutron drip line'). A good check on the result is to also look at the isotope ratio of lead: Pb207 is the daughter of U238 decay, and Pb206 the daughter of U235. There are several other useful decays to check (Al26 comes to mind), so while it's admittedly a house of cards (but so is everything in astronomy, really) , it is at least more than one card.

And, not to be critical, but your description of determining the ages of stars is...off. To be fair, it is a difficult method to both explain and perform for individual stars.

Re:Organical matter = lifes

[The name is Dave. Ja]

WRONG:
My life sci 101 class teached me that ...

CORRECT:
My life sci 101 class learned me that ...

Let's get it right, people.

--
Oh Yoshimi, they don't believe me
But you won't let those robots defeat me

Re:Extra-solar life?

[TheZorch]

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.

Re:More like "Deception Point" than the X-Files

[value_added]

He has good novels?

LOL. True story:

Recently, I was trying to chat up a very attractive girl. I mentioned in our harried conversation (she was at work) that I enjoyed reading but hadn't been to the bookstore in ages, blah blah. She told me that she, too, loved to read, and promised to bring in some of her favourites for me. Great, I thought! This could be the start of something interesting.

A few days later I stop in to see her and she smiles and points to a small bag 'o books in the corner. How sweet, right? Well, inside the bag were 4 were Dan Brown novels. Cervantes I wasn't expecting, but Dan Brown? I tried reading one of them (maybe I was wrong about him), but the absence of any writing talent in combination with an absurd plot reminded so much of high school that all I could was groan and put the book back in the bag with the others.

Haven't been back to see her since. It's been a month, but I wonder whether that's not long enough.

Re:Extra-solar life?

[Nf1nk]

Evolving to handle high levels of radiation doesn't seem to be a problem for number of of species of bacteria.
http://www.google.com/search?q=radiation+extremoph ile&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls =org.mozilla:en-US:official

Re:More like "Deception Point" than the X-Files

[Qzukk]

Cervantes I wasn't expecting

Nobody expects the Spanish Author!

Re:More like "Deception Point" than the X-Files

[cyberon22]

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?

Re:More like "Deception Point" than the X-Files

[Redlazer]

You, sir. Are clearly not a virgin.

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)

Re:Organic (MOD PARENT UP)

[XdevXnull]

Mod parent up. Organic != life. They just tend to go together here on Earth.

Re:silly question?

[KillerBob]

Actually, it's not a silly question at all. It's a darned good one. The short answer is that it's a "best guess".

We still don't actually *know* how the solar system formed, and until then, there's no way we can actually definitely say how old the solar system is. What we think is that the system was formed in a nebula as a big cloud of dust that gradually started to clump around a center. As the protostar gathered mass, the cloud started to spin and formed into a disc, called an accretion disc. The theory is that all of the asteroids, planets and comets formed at the same time as the sun. This theory is supported, in that some of our observations have shown accretion discs in nebulae, but we really have no way to actually *prove* that this is how our solar system formed.

The thing is... if that's how our solar system formed, then we're able to measure the age of the solar system by looking at the age of some of the other objects in the solar system. Fact is that most of the objects out in the kuiper belt and oort cloud (think in the 50-100,000 AU radius) are about 4.5-5 billion years old. Given our current model for how the solar system formed, that would mean that the sun is about the same age. There are almost certainly some objects in our solar system that are older than the system itself... either as captured objects from other solar systems (100k AU is halfway to Proxima Centauri), or as objects that were part of the nursery nebula that we formed from.

As to the original article, it's really nothing special at all. "Organic" molecules just mean carbon compounds. The solar system is full of organic molecules. Something like 2/3 of the asteroids in the solar system, especially in the outer solar system, are carbonaceous. Organic != Life. It's cool that we've found a meteorite that's older than the solar system is thought to be, and it's cool that it's carbonaceous... but that's because it's extremely rare that a carbon-based meteorite survives entry into our solar system, and it's also very rare to find a meteorite that's older than the solar system. Finding the two in conjunction is a really cool thing. But it's in now ay proof of extra-terrestrial life.