Slashdot Mirror


Life's Building Blocks Found On Asteroid 24 Themis

Hugh Pickens writes "The LA Times reports that scientists analyzing infrared light reflected by 24 Themis, one of the largest asteroids in the solar system, have discovered evidence of water ice as well as organic compounds — findings that bolster a leading theory for the origins of life on Earth that the essential building blocks of life came from asteroids. 'Up until now there was no sign that asteroids had any abundant organics or ice on them,' says Joshua P. Emery, a planetary astronomer at the University of Tennessee. Typically, ice on the surface of an object such as 24 Themis would quickly vaporize and vanish, says planetary scientist Richard Binzel. 'Seeing freshly exposed ice on the surface, now that's a surprise. It has to be replenished from below, somehow.' The possibility that water could have come from asteroids adds weight to the theory that water and organic molecules may not have originated on Earth because the Earth did not become conducive to water or organic molecules until relatively recently."

135 comments

  1. lots of crashes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how many asteriods must have crashed into the earth to get all the oceans???

    1. Re:lots of crashes by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      A not unreasonable number of comets would be required. The oceans aren't that extensive compared the bulk of the planet, after all. You'd need more asteroids, obviously, since the water content is lower. (But since we're not really sure how much water is in an asteroid, let alone was in them 4 billion years ago, it'd be difficult to come up with even a ballpark figure.)

    2. Re:lots of crashes by silverglade00 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Great, now I'm gonna spend all day doing the dimensional analysis to get from X asteriods of water to Y Libraries of Congress. I'll let someone else dig up the relevant xkcd link.

    3. Re:lots of crashes by toastar · · Score: 1

      A not unreasonable number of comets would be required. The oceans aren't that extensive compared the bulk of the planet, after all. You'd need more asteroids, obviously, since the water content is lower. (But since we're not really sure how much water is in an asteroid, let alone was in them 4 billion years ago, it'd be difficult to come up with even a ballpark figure.)

      Yet if some water was already here then it only takes one comet with organics to get the whole life thing started.

    4. Re:lots of crashes by dotancohen · · Score: 4, Funny

      how many asteriods must have crashed into the earth to get all the oceans???

      Minimum seven, if each one falls into a different ocean.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    5. Re:lots of crashes by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Informative

      "how many asteriods must have crashed into the earth to get all the oceans???"

      Minimum seven, if each one falls into a different ocean.

      But ... there' only one ocean.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:lots of crashes by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      "how many asteriods must have crashed into the earth to get all the oceans???"

      Minimum seven, if each one falls into a different ocean.

      But ... there' only one ocean.

      And I'm willing to bet that one asteroid required made an epic whooshing sound as it plummeted to earth.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    7. Re:lots of crashes by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      And I'm willing to bet that one asteroid required made an epic whooshing sound as it plummeted to earth.

      *laugh* Followed by a loud thud.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    8. Re:lots of crashes by Protoslo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Or (even accepting arbitrary human classifications), only one: it fell in the Panthalassa.


      I'm not a panspermian, but consider what will happen if humanity is currently the only intelligent life in this galaxy or even small area of the galaxy. In a thousand years (if the computers don't exterminate the meatbags and/or have an interest in planets), most planets (in this area) will have received (organic) life from outer space. Personally, I have no desire to colonize other (uninhabited) planets, and would be perfectly happy just to live in solar space (around our sun or another, if it were possible), but I think it will be unlikely that all of humanity will agree with me on that. Even if they agree, they'll at least take a look, and it is notoriously difficult to eradicate bacterial (or archaean) spores in sterilization procedures (our hypothetical non-organic successors may have an easier time, though)...

      Consider what would happen if someone seeds moderately Earthlike planets with primitive Earth lifeforms and then leaves it to mature for a billion years. The intelligent life that might evolve could turn into a bunch of unimaginative panspermians, or it could figure out how life could have arisen on its own planets (and did...probably...on Earth).

      The TFS implication that (many) people are excited about this from a panspermia perspective is misleading. The thrust of TFA #1 is that it is more difficult for organic compounds to form on an asteroid. The thrust of TFA #2 is that scientists apparently wonder how the Earth came to be covered with water after a catastrophic collision formed the Moon and the surface was superheated. Apparently the water on this asteroid is more similar (in deuterium concentration? TFA is horribly misleading and vague) to the oceans than the water generally found in comets.

      I leave you with Christian Science Monitor "science" reporting (not that it's worse than CNN, NYT, PhysOrg, etc.).

      But the forms of hydrogen in water molecules bound in asteroids are a closer match to those found in seawater than are those found in water comets carry.

    9. Re:lots of crashes by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "I'm not a panspermian,"

      Don't spout nonsense. It's about what the data shows,it's not a religion.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:lots of crashes by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      Theoretically, the building blocks of life came from asteroids. What I want to know is where did the asteroids come from.

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    11. Re:lots of crashes by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      It's asteroids all the way down, silly.

    12. Re:lots of crashes by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      That's ridiculous! There had to have been a first asteroid... and his name was Joe.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    13. Re:lots of crashes by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      No, you wouldn't hear the thud, just the whooshing sound as it flew over your head.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    14. Re:lots of crashes by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      My first asteroid was named "Bob". You speak heresy and I shall now make righteous war upon you, unbeliever.

    15. Re:lots of crashes by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      You're misinformed. Bob was just an ordinary asteroid. Here's a picture as proof:

      O

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    16. Re:lots of crashes by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      What, no planet that exploded? this is /.

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    17. Re:lots of crashes by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      No, you wouldn't hear the thud, just the whooshing sound as it flew over your head.

      Again ... with the whooshing sound.

      I believe the GGP was accusing me of being obtuse. The thud was counter-humor. :-P

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  2. Building blocks ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's funny, they sound like life was just as a LEGO game, you have the "building blocks" and you put them together in a simple way and ta-da !! There's life.

    1. Re:Building blocks ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just need a bazillion of those building blocks, clashing and mangling together over a bazillion of years.
      So yes, it's basically Lego played by infinite monkeys.

    2. Re:Building blocks ? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to add some electricity, and a little radiation. I don't think you'll build much of anything without them.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    3. Re:Building blocks ? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Or heat, or sunlight, or good ol' chemistry. Really, there's plenty of sources of energy to power this.

    4. Re:Building blocks ? by Golddess · · Score: 1

      I thought that's what the infinite monkeys represented?

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
  3. Little green toilet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    My theory: some little green men got caught short and had to take a dump.

    1. Re:Little green toilet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the size of the Earth, you don't think it was one very very large green man?

    2. Re:Little green toilet by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Another alternative (as anyone passingly familiar with Heinlein would know): The water and organic material is left over from the civilizations on the 5th planet that the Martians sent away because it was bad.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  4. A Few Skeptical Points by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If their argument is that early Earth wasn't conducive to water, it's not clear how bringing in organics and water would help. If you bring in organics to a hot planet, they'll break apart just as surely as if they had formed there, after all.

    It's never been clear to me why this mechanism is any better than just forming the danged organics on Earth surface. The Urey-Miller experiments demonstrated nicely that you can form organics under a wide range of conditions. (Which ones correspond to early Earth is an outstanding question, but it doesn't appear to much matter, oddly.)

    Come to all that, we don't know that these asteroids (assuming they are asteroids and not dead comets, which it kind of sounds like they may be...) had much in the way of organics 4 billion years ago or if the organics formed due to reactions since then.

    Basically, I'm uncomfortable with how excited people seem to get about the idea that this might have delivered the "building blocks of life" to Earth. Possible, sure, but it's far from a strong case.

    1. Re:A Few Skeptical Points by Loomismeister · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually it's almost inevitable that organic compounds made it to earth via asteroids at some point. Organic compounds are really common on other planets and moons even in our solar system.

      Whether or not the asteroids started the evolution of life on earth is hard to tell, but does it really matter? This is just one more way to explain why earth billions of years of ago sparked life.

      Their theory is plausible at the least.

    2. Re:A Few Skeptical Points by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Whether or not the asteroids started the evolution of life on earth is hard to tell, but does it really matter?

      First of all, "evolution" isn't the issue here, it's biogenesis. Different concepts and it's important to keep them straight. (If only to keep the Creationists from confusing the two more than they already do.)

      Second, yes, it matters. If the argument is, "Hey, meteorites have delivered organics, but Earth already had plenty," fine, but
      a) That's not what people, especially researchers, keep saying.
      b) No one cares if there's no connection to the terrestrial biogenesis. (OK, not no one. It's an interesting datum, but it lacks the cache to get published in the popular press.)

    3. Re:A Few Skeptical Points by Em+Emalb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The thing I don't get is how "finding signs of water" and the "basic building blocks of life" on asteroids/other planetary elements is such a huge deal. Logic indicates with hundreds of billions of planets in the universe that water or other "basic building blocks of life" would be present on at least some other elements in the universe.

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    4. Re:A Few Skeptical Points by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's never been clear to me why this mechanism is any better than just forming the danged organics on Earth surface. The Urey-Miller experiments demonstrated nicely that you can form organics under a wide range of conditions.

      Yes, I too wonder why people bother to report discovery of simple carbon compound that we know can be easily synthesized in any soup with the good elements.

      I always thought the panspermia hypothesis supposed that some basic life forms could cross interplanetary (or even interstellar) gaps thanks to asteroids. It doesn't seem to be the most favored hypothesis for the apparition of life on earth but it could lead to interesting things if it was confirmed. However, the Urey-Miller experiment showed us that amino acids are completely uninteresting substances when it comes to test this hypothesis.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    5. Re:A Few Skeptical Points by kv9 · · Score: 1

      send Bruce Willis to investigate. or just blow it up.

    6. Re:A Few Skeptical Points by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Insightful

      send Bruce Willis to investigate. or just blow it up.

      Better still, do both.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    7. Re:A Few Skeptical Points by HeckRuler · · Score: 1
      Usually it's called "Abiogenesis", life from non-life. And it would be the start of evolution as parent had said.

      Different concepts and it's important to keep them straight.

      But yes, agreed.

      Now, I'm not a cosmologist or anything, but I think Mr. Scientists isn't mentioning that "earth already had plenty" because the Earth did not become conducive to water or organic molecules until relatively recently.

      And I care about this news because it lends weight to the idea that life can be more abundant in the universe. Which would be awesome. This might be the best news I've heard all week.

    8. Re:A Few Skeptical Points by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      "abiogenesis" means start of life from non-life. I dropped the prefix because I don't care where the life comes from in this case. (If meteorites bring in living organisms which colonize Earth, that's biogenesis for Earth, but not abiotic.)

      Now, I'm not a cosmologist or anything, but I think Mr. Scientists isn't mentioning that "earth already had plenty" because the Earth did not become conducive to water or organic molecules until relatively recently.

      And that's what I'm taking issue with. If the planet couldn't support water and organics, it couldn't support water and organics. Space-organics are just as fragile to heat as terrestrial-made versions.

      Also, "relatively recently" is pretty lame in this case. The first 10% of Earth's history was inhospitable for life. We know it quickly recovered because there's evidence for life going back between 3.8 and 4 billion years.

    9. Re:A Few Skeptical Points by HeckRuler · · Score: 0

      Yep, we've got a live one here people. Please see the fundie alert up above.
      (seriously, where do you people come from? What's your background? How were you raised? and why the hell are you here spewing your bullshit?)

    10. Re:A Few Skeptical Points by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Well I don't think that anyone is calling these compounds alive. (Except that crazy fucker calling them dinosaur bones). They just have carbon in them. So if this stuff fell to earth and life sprouted from it, it'd still be considered abiogenesis. And if life originated elsewhere and then came to earth, those lifeforms had to start somewhere so abiogenesis is still involved.

      As for the other points, yeah, ok.

    11. Re:A Few Skeptical Points by rcamans · · Score: 1

      Where did the asteroids get their organics? Are they saying that they formed on the asteroids? Then how would that stuff ride the asteroid to earth? Doesn't the whole asteroid burn up on reentry? Or if it doesn't, doesn't the impact sterilize the impact site? Leaving an insignificant amount of organic chemicals to supposedly cause life?
      These so-called scientists are going way out on a limb. Someone explain to them Occam's Razor.

      --
      wake up and hold your nose
    12. Re:A Few Skeptical Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you feel entitled to decide for all what is bs?

    13. Re:A Few Skeptical Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Science and reason demonstrated that Cthulhu (In his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming) created life. That makes us Cthulhu's...garden? Oh sweet zombie Jesus we're fucked.

    14. Re:A Few Skeptical Points by geekoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Space-organics are just as fragile to heat as terrestrial-made versions."

      that's actually unknown. They could be more adaptable to space, but the properties for that environment where no longer required after being on earth. So they weren't need to evolve.

      I don't care where it started, but if w did get her vie space seeds, then not only does it increase the likelihood of life elsewhere.

      If ti turns out the the properties of space organics is as fragile as you speculated, that means other life out there may be similar to here on earth.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    15. Re:A Few Skeptical Points by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      Logic indicates with hundreds of billions of planets in the universe that water or other "basic building blocks of life" would be present on at least some other elements in the universe.

      Logic also indicates that a heavier object would fall faster than a lighter one. Except, of course, that both your claim and my counter-example are based on a series of presumptions for which there is not appropriate evidence. Empirical science requires a balance of evidence/data and logic, and, in the end, evidence trumps logic (hence - the falsification of theories).

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    16. Re:A Few Skeptical Points by Bob-taro · · Score: 1

      Please see the fundie alert up above. (seriously, where do you people come from? What's your background? How were you raised? and why the hell are you here spewing your bullshit?)

      I would assume AC was going for "funny". Of course, anything's possible.

      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
    17. Re:A Few Skeptical Points by Urkki · · Score: 1

      Second, yes, it matters. If the argument is, "Hey, meteorites have delivered organics, but Earth already had plenty," fine, but
      a) That's not what people, especially researchers, keep saying.
      b) No one cares if there's no connection to the terrestrial biogenesis. (OK, not no one. It's an interesting datum, but it lacks the cache to get published in the popular press.)

      The interesting/important bit is, could all the necessary step, all the necessary chemical reactions, have happened on pre-biotic Earth fast enough or at all. Different phases needed in the development of self-replicating organic systems (ie. "life") require different environment (chemicals present, pH, temperature, radiation, all that...).

      I'd say it's more than likely that some essential molecules formed in space and then landed on Earth, because there were no suitable environment on Earth for them to form (in sufficient quantities).

      On the other hand, life developing completely on/in an asteroid or comet sounds unlikely for the same reason: environment might not varied enough for all the necessary chemical steps to take place.

    18. Re:A Few Skeptical Points by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      I'm a human and can reason?
      But I'm really not making decisions for all. I'm merely making decisions for myself and informing the masses of said decisions. Most of them will recognize the bullshit for themselves.

    19. Re:A Few Skeptical Points by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      In this case, yes, no one is calling them "alive". But the panspermia hypothesis does speculate that live could be delivered here, so I didn't want to rule that option out is all. :-)

    20. Re:A Few Skeptical Points by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      No, I'm pretty sure he's real. The funny ones don't usually try to defend themselves and the trolls are usually a lot more arrogant. I gave him the benefit of doubt until that. There's really no excuse.

    21. Re:A Few Skeptical Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right. And 2+2 is 5, and don't you dare feeling entitled to decide for all that it's bullshit.

    22. Re:A Few Skeptical Points by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Organics can be delivered to Earth on meteorites. The interiors don't get hot. ALH84001 seems to show exactly this. (You can debate the possibility of contamination from the Antarctic, but it's not overwhelmingly obvious that that's what happened.) The question is less, "Can we get organics?" and more, "Can we get the majority of the early organics that way?"

    23. Re:A Few Skeptical Points by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      No, it's known that they're just as fragile. Making a molecule in space yields the same physical chemistry as making it on Earth. The dissociation energy is the same (unless you're arguing isotopic fractionation, which shouldn't change things much either way).

    24. Re:A Few Skeptical Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He feels this way as he fancies himself an informed scientist, grounded in fact, but forever to be questioned by the ignorant conservative.

      You feel the way you do as you fancy yourself an unwaivering conservative, grounded in faith, but forever to be rediculed by the faithless scientist.

      You two play nice, now.

    25. Re:A Few Skeptical Points by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Also, "relatively recently" is pretty lame in this case. The first 10% of Earth's history was inhospitable for life. We know it quickly recovered because there's evidence for life going back between 3.8 and 4 billion years.

      Actually, we have good reason to believe that the Earth's surface has been not-incompatible with life for 4.2 or possibly even 4.3 billion years ; that's around 95% of it's history so far. Or from the other end of the telescope (stopwatch), it halves the amount of time between the formation of the Earth (however you define that) and life being possible.
      Evidence : zircons grains from IIRC both Jack Hills in Australia and the Acasta in Canada both have been seen with cores that have fractionation of oxygen isotopes which is consistent with the oxygen having repeatedly passed through a cycle of evaporation and condensation. Which means, liquid water at Earth's surface. Which means that by 4.25 Ga ago (give or take) at least some of the planet was tepid enough to have a hydrological cycle. Which puts it in the realm of interest for abiogenesis research.
      I've got the papers somewhere, but I've not got time to dig the links out at the moment. But it's hardly obscure research.

      (Because of the questions thrown at Schopf's putative 3.5 Ga fossils, it doesn't actually make much change to the evidence about how long it took life to develop ; the next-oldest and more widely-accepted fossils are 200 to 300 Ma younger than Schopf's claim, so the duration between "life becomes possible" and "we have evidence of life" remains about the same duration.)
      I'm making the common assumption that life developed on Earth in liquid-water solution ; it is a very common assumption, and since liquid water is a necessary (if not sufficient) condition for activity of all known life forms, not an unreasonable one. But people studying this topic must remember that it is an assumption.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    26. Re:A Few Skeptical Points by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      I was actually thinking of the oxygen ratios in the Greenland rocks, which go back 3.8-4 bya, but I was aware of the Australian zircons as well. I hadn't heard/didn't recall them showing the fractionation beyond 4 bya, though. I find it difficult to imagine Earth being very conducive to life before this with the Late Heavy Bombardment ending around this time.

    27. Re:A Few Skeptical Points by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      There was a paper on this a few months ago. (Again, I'm typing on my lap at an awkward angle, so I'll make this short) Gist of the work is that once significant water was around (brought in by the LHB??), then the deeper parts of the ocean would be significantly buffered from the scalding pummelling that the surface was getting. With major impacts coming on only every few thousands of years ... something that could survive hot water in the deepest parts of the oceans would have a reasonable chance of surviving. Which is a moderate description of some of the extremophile Archaea.
      There are weird things about the distribution of biochemical habits in the groups around the "root" of the "tree of life", and one not-outright-implausible solution could be to have truncated the root, killing off all the descendants of LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor), except those that lived in deep ocean hydrothermal systems, or even underground.

      Interesting, but hardly conclusive.
      Going to have to go - busy few days ahead.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    28. Re:A Few Skeptical Points by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Even before you got the last bit, I was thinking, "That would explain why the tree of life is rooted in the thermophiles." Nice. :-)

  5. Just Asteroids...eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This also adds clout to the starwars deathstar theory. (There IS one.)

  6. Re:Easy explanation by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

    yeah, a jar of 'organic compounds' will be a real draw at a museum.

    --
    I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
  7. panspermia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

  8. Not testable by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Informative

    "findings that bolster a leading theory for the origins of life on Earth that the essential building blocks of life came from asteroids."

    No it doesn't, that "leading theory"(*) is untestable and completely ignores contra evidence. Hydrogen, Oxygen and Carbon are respectively the 1st, 3rd and 4th most abundant elements in the universe. Hydrogen and oxygen combust to create water. Modern day volcanos spew all three elements out in large quantities, mainly as water vapour and carbon based molecules. If a rock 100 odd km across has organics and water what in the world make anyone think that a rock over 6000 km in diameter formed from the same primordial material would have have none?

    While it's certainly very likely that some water and organics arived via asteroids, frankly the ridiculous improbability that ALL of it arrived via asteroids is too fucking stupid for words. Such psuedo-scientific claptrap only detracts from what is an otherwise fascinating discovery.

    (*) = Here is what a real leading theory for abiogenisis looks like; "no ridiculous improbability, no supernatural forces, no lightning striking a puddle, just chemistry", and with a great soundtrack to boot!

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:Not testable by danbert8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I was confused by this article for a similar reason. Isn't the earth just a big ol' ball of rock formed by the collisions of a bunch of asteroids that were orbiting in a cloud while the sun was forming? No shit the stuff on earth came from asteroids, the earth was FORMED by asteroids. One way or another, everything on earth has extraterrestrial origins because it had to come from somewhere, and the earth hasn't always existed.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    2. Re:Not testable by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Very impressive video and I tend to agree: It seems probable to me that the basic life-giving elements could have been delivered via abiogenisis AND space, since it's all basically made up of the same stuff. Just like the early organisms being bounced around in the oceans and picking up new parts, why couldn't the universe be considered just one huge ocean where all the rocks (whether planets or asteroids) have the same parts and the big ones borrow from the small ones?

      Very cool

      --
      Loading...
    3. Re:Not testable by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "...the earth was FORMED by asteroids. One way or another, everything on earth has extraterrestrial origins..."

      Exactly, and the more we look the more we are finding that water and simple organics are ubiquitous components of the universe.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    4. Re:Not testable by Zumbs · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Whenever I hear the theory that the building blocks of life came from asteroids, I can't help being reminded of another "popular" theory: That the pyramids were built by aliens, and not by the Egyptians (or, possibly, their slaves). I'll check out the video when I get the time.

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    5. Re:Not testable by TapeCutter · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Just like the early organisms being bounced around in the oceans and picking up new parts, why couldn't the universe be considered just one huge ocean where all the rocks (whether planets or asteroids) have the same parts and the big ones borrow from the small ones?"

      This is an example of why I've persisted with slashdot for a decade. That's a very interesting analogy!

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    6. Re:Not testable by psnyder · · Score: 1

      Interesting to think that with the information on that video, there is an extremely good chance of life on Saturn's Enceladus, at least in the form of these simple vesicles. Enceladus has the water, carbon, nitrogen, and heat that is all that's needed to make these vesicles form spontaneously.

      Whether they have evolved into anything more complex depends on the stability under the ice (do these vesicles continuously get eradicated or have they been given time to "compete" with one another).

    7. Re:Not testable by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Yes, we have only just begun to explore our solar system. Personally my favorite target for complex multi-cellular life is the sub-surface oceans of Europa but there is certainly no shortage of interesting targets for simple single celled life forms in our solar system and Enceladus is high on that list as are the seasonal methane plumes of Mars.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    8. Re:Not testable by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      (*) = Here is what a real leading theory for abiogenisis looks like; "no ridiculous improbability, no supernatural forces, no lightning striking a puddle, just chemistry", and with a great soundtrack to boot!

      Pantera (with a lot of help from Sabbath) did one two:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gym2UXYRz98

      (note that this damned Pulse Audio is broken and I can't listen to it!)

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    9. Re:Not testable by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Isn't the earth just a big ol' ball of rock formed by the collisions of a bunch of asteroids that were orbiting in a cloud while the sun was forming?

      That and the collapse of the Sun's accretion disk under self-gravity, yes.

    10. Re:Not testable by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      TY for the video link - nothing really new to me, but it was interesting to see it put together in one place.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    11. Re:Not testable by geekoid · · Score: 1

      " that "leading theory"(*) is untestable"

      Only do to engineering reason. One can easily design a test to try and falsify the theory. Implementation is difficult at this time.

      "contra evidence"
      that is nonsense. It's observable data. One that happens to lead to a different theory. More data will refine, change, or remove they theory.

      " over 6000 km in diameter formed from the same primordial material would have have none? "
      no one. Why do you think they are?

      "no ridiculous improbability"
      no more probably then panspermia.

      You know, they BOTH could very well be true. IT's highly unlikely that bodies containing these compound didn't strike the earth, a lot. Especially during the early stage of our solar system.

      We do know shit from space hit's the earth. We do know shit from space can contain the building blocks for life. We know shit from spave has water.

      Based on that, it's pretty bad science to force a false dichotomy.
      Lets get more data.

      BTW, that video in NO WAY disputes panspermia

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:Not testable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you compare the isotopic relations of the water coming from the volcanos and the water in the oceans? They don't match, you know ...

    13. Re:Not testable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modern day volcanos spew all three elements out in large quantities, mainly as water vapour and carbon based molecules.

      Indeed they do. But that's modern day volcanoes, spewing out old seabottom material that subducted under the continental plates. (And since the mid-oceanic ridge volcanoes are, well, in the middle of the ocean, it's difficult to sort out what they're spewing directly vs what's getting mixed in from the surrounding ocean.)

      The moon-forming impact would have liberated a lot of proto-Earth's original volatiles -- which is why the Moon is so deficient in H, C and N. (Since oxygen can form highly refractory compounds with silicon and metals, it's less likely to be lost, just bound up in rock.) The hypothesis is that these were then replaced by cometary impacts during the Late Heavy. (Which would also hit the Moon, but the Moon's gravity isn't enough to hang on to the volatiles.)

      Point being that what modern volcanoes are doing is rather irrelevant.

    14. Re:Not testable by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "that is nonsense. It's observable data. One that happens to lead to a different theory. More data will refine, change, or remove they theory."

      I think your definition of the term "contra evidence" does not align with the accepted one, contra eveidence is evidence used to falsify the theory in question. The facts that I mentioned falsify the theory that ALL water and organics arrived by asteroid.

      "You know, they BOTH could very well be true."

      Yes, this was my point, they both ARE true. There is no dispute that organics and water can and does arrive from space and are still doing so, but (as in TFA) many Panspermia theorists claim that it ALL arrived from space after the Earth had formed and that is clearly nonesense.

      "BTW, that video in NO WAY disputes panspermia"

      Neither I nor the video claimed that, but note that Panspermia does not claim to explain the origin of life, it claims to explain the origin of Earth's water and organic chemicals. If you want to claim that life itself arrived on Earth from space then the theory your looking for is exobiogenisis (which still does not explain how life originated elsewhere).

      Please re-read my post a little more carefully. Unless of course it's your hobby to contradict people just for the sake of it.~

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    15. Re:Not testable by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Thanks, that's a great piece of philosophical art.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    16. Re:Not testable by arisvega · · Score: 1

      If a rock 100 odd km across has organics and water what in the world make anyone think that a rock over 6000 km in diameter formed from the same primordial material would have have none?

      because the primordial material that they formed from is not necessarily homogenized; as an example, objects that form beyond the 'snowline' (sufficiently away from the stars/protostars radiation for water to be solid) will contain more so-called volatiles.

      And there is more; gravitational instabilities cause planetary migration, which in turn may cause further gravitational instabilities, resulting into collisions that re-distribute material (and planets) and may very well hurl towards the 'inner' solar system a massive number of previously behind-the-snowline formed objects (thus possibly rich in volatiles) causing a 'catastrophic event'-- in this solar system's case, this is nicknamed the 'Late Heavy Bombardment', a situation currently undergoing research to figure out whether it is something common to be expected in planetary-forming regions-- a 'stage', if you will (and, in a case of a system that now escapes my memory, thought to have been captured on a telescope).

      On the LHB itsself, what ballistics confirm (with some tolerance on constraints) is that such an event possibly occured; futhermore, most of the water would stay on an Earth-sized planet, but not on a Mars-sized one

      I am not sure what 'leading theory' you are refering to, but there is a belief (almost verifiable by simulations) that initial stratification of the volatiles in the proto-planetary-or-whatever disk is the reason that the inner planets are rocky and the outer ones are not. As far as I know, the theory for planetary formation is far from complete, as there are many parameters interplaying, and some still untackled issues (to the best of my knowledge, there as of yet no computer simulation that "manages" to form km-sized particles from mm-sized particles).

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    17. Re:Not testable by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      I figured with a Pink Floyd sig you'd appreciate that. The rest of the album is very heavy and hard to get into, but after a listen or two it's great.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  9. A Few More Skeptical Points by eldavojohn · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I am not an astronomer but there also seems to be a lot of improbable things in this story. Obviously it's odd to find ice and organics on an asteroid but not impossible. But it's the first asteroid (24 Themis) these two teams have independently looked at. It's evenly distributed on the surface as well which is also odd. And it has to be replenished from within -- which I think challenges a lot of assumptions about asteroids -- otherwise this water would have baked away a long time ago. These last two might be related in that the asteroid has a water table with seepage from the inside out that -- due to a lack of strong gravity or possibly the Yarkovsky effect -- is distributed fairly evenly.

    I'm glad that two teams independently verified it but I'm a little concerned that there may be a flaw in the methodology of the reflection of the light. I'm sure they've accounted for everything but I'm just concerned because the only logical explanation is either our fundamental understandings of asteroids is largely incomplete (the first one they picked was laden with organic molecules where normally there are but a few traces) or the methodology of determining their composition falls prey to some unforeseen phenomenon/distortion in this case.

    I'm sure I'm not the only one excited to see what the Japanese bring back from the Itokawa Asteroid.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:A Few More Skeptical Points by mrsquid0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The water on the surface of 24 Themis does not have to come from within the asteroid, it can be created through surface chemistry between the solar wind and the surface of the asteroid. The process is similar what has been proposed to explain some of the water layer found on the surface of the Moon. In essence, the water on the asteroid is being continually created. Water that is lost is replaced through chemical reactions over time.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    2. Re:A Few More Skeptical Points by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how the Yarkovsky effect, which alters orbits, would redistribute water.

      As for spectroscopy, it's a fairly well-established and reliable method. Probably more than half of astronomy relies on it, in fact. So I'm willing to trust them when they say there are organics up there.

    3. Re:A Few More Skeptical Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure how the Yarkovsky effect, which alters orbits, would redistribute water.

      Look up the second-order variation of the Yarkovsky effect that increases spin. That increase in spin may act as a force on distributing the water seepage.

    4. Re:A Few More Skeptical Points by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      I'm familiar with the YORP effect. Unless the asteroid were spinning very quickly, it's still not clear how this helps or why it's relevant. If anything, it would push the water towards the spin equator.

    5. Re:A Few More Skeptical Points by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I'm glad that two teams independently verified it but I'm a little concerned that there may be a flaw in the methodology of the reflection of the light. I'm sure they've accounted for everything but I'm just concerned because the only logical explanation is either our fundamental understandings of asteroids is largely incomplete (the first one they picked was laden with organic molecules where normally there are but a few traces) or the methodology of determining their composition falls prey to some unforeseen phenomenon/distortion in this case."

      Yes but note that they didn't pick this asteroid at random, they picked it because it was the brightest one known and thus easier to perform the spectral analysis. Ice is highly reflective and probably explains the unusual brightness, it doesn't automatically imply that all asteroids have a similar makeup.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  10. Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and I, for one, welcome our organic asteroidion ice-wielding overlords.

  11. not leading, wacky! by metageek · · Score: 2, Informative

    "findings that bolster a leading theory for the origins of life on Earth that the essential building blocks of life came from asteroids"

    bullshit, this is not a leading theory, rather calling it a "wacky theory" could be a better description...

    --
    metageek
    1. Re:not leading, wacky! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      it's not wacky at all. It's perfectly valid based o the data we have collected.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  12. Free propellant! by justthisdude · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Life, Shmife! We are not focusing on the most important aspect of this report. The key is that there is sizable amounts water available in (relatively) nearby orbits outside of any significant gravity well. If the water can be used to refuel ships on their way to outer orbits, this could be incredibly useful for deep space exploration. I would personally prefer to see a space station on 24 Themis than on the moon, and it is less work to get there. Ok, more time but less work.

    --
    "I love his boyish charm, but I hate his childishness" - Leela
    1. Re:Free propellant! by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Life, Shmife! We are not focusing on the most important aspect of this report. The key is that there is sizable amounts water available in (relatively) nearby orbits outside of any significant gravity well.

      You really don't consider the Sun to have a significant gravity well?

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    2. Re:Free propellant! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      really, the probability of life going up in the universe isn't the big story? seriously?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Free propellant! by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Asteroids, smashteroids! The most important aspect of your post is the revelation that water can be easily used as fuel. Forget asteroids, let's convert some of these useless oceans here to power my car and house.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:Free propellant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's useful to continue moving in a solar orbit because there are numerous interesting bodies that are *also* in solar orbit. Leaving solar orbit for deep space is something that's currently a lot less interesting--none of the probes we've done that with did that as their primary mission. Planetary science was goal 1.

    5. Re:Free propellant! by AkiraRoberts · · Score: 1

      Asteroids, smashteroids! The most important aspect of your post is the revelation that water can be easily used as fuel. Forget asteroids, let's convert some of these useless oceans here to power my car and house.

      Duh. Steam powered rocket.

      --
      words, words, words, lemur, words, words words
    6. Re:Free propellant! by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Great now all we need is energy to heat it and then we can have energy!

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  13. Organic Life Abundant? by SplicerNYC · · Score: 1

    It would be interesting if life in the Universe was similar enough because planets that bear life are "seeded" in such a way. Frightening, too. That means it's possible that humans might be susceptible to microbes found on other planets.

    1. Re:Organic Life Abundant? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Don't fear things you don't know about, it's a hard way to go through life. That goes double for things that exist only in theory.

    2. Re:Organic Life Abundant? by Valdrax · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It would be interesting if life in the Universe was similar enough because planets that bear life are "seeded" in such a way. Frightening, too. That means it's possible that humans might be susceptible to microbes found on other planets.

      That statement belies an amazing ignorance about how tightly adapted diseases are to their hosts. You do realize that we're immune to all but the tiny fraction of microbes on Earth which are adapted to live in the ecosystem that is our bodies, right? Why would random space microbes be capable of surviving inside of us?

      We can't even get most of the same diseases dogs get, much less germs that survive on frozen, irradiated asteroids.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    3. Re:Organic Life Abundant? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      We can't even get most of the same diseases dogs get, much less germs that survive on frozen, irradiated asteroids.

      Yeah, most. Just keep that in mind when you're on Arcturus. Lots of people have learned a painful lesson from telling themselves there's no way Space Clap is compatible with human hosts.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  14. God? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So they found God riding an asteroid? Neato!

  15. So where then... by Linker3000 · · Score: 1

    So where then did these Asteroids get the water and organic compounds? Is there a universal pick-up point or 'building blocks for life' fly-thru in a far distant corner of somewhere?

    --
    AT&ROFLMAO
    1. Re:So where then... by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      The non-crazy part of panspermia theory that makes it semi-attractive to some folks is that the available area for the formation of these building blocks within the solar system is much greater than on just the surface of the Earth. (Consider the asteroid belt, various trojan asteroids, the Kuiper belt, comets, and the theorized Oort cloud.)

      The crazy part is the notion that this means the probability of forming off planet is inherently greater and that many of these building blocks would be more likely to survive reentry than to form on the surface. Some even think we should go so far as to consider sources outside our solar system that could overcome the huge improbability of sending material that bridges the distance with the sheer number of other stars.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    2. Re:So where then... by PPH · · Score: 1

      The water and organic compounds are all that remain of the planet and advanced civilization that existed on the planet in that orbital position before Marvin the Martian blew it up with an Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator. It was blocking his view of Jupiter.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  16. That's no asteroid by jlebrech · · Score: 1

    It's a disguised alien spacecraft.

    1. Re:That's no asteroid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not disguised - that's just how they make 'em.

    2. Re:That's no asteroid by Combatso · · Score: 0

      only way to be sure is to link our macbooks to it

  17. WTF are you smoking? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    "perfect form"?
    "dinosaur bones"?
    WTF are you smoking? Are you some sort of deep insertion wedge-pushing creationist spinning a distorted view of this or are you just ignorant of what "organic compounds" include?

    1. Re:WTF are you smoking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excuse me? By building blocks of life I assume they mean dinosaur bones, which were the building blocks of dinosaurs, which we all evolved from. I think finding dinosaur bones on an asteroid is pretty incredible.

    2. Re:WTF are you smoking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why was HeckRuler so rude? Ignore the trolls. Apparently, they are still processing the images (lots of decompression over large expanses of space) but from what I read in another article, there is one image that actually shows the femur of a raptor or other large bipedal sticking straight up as if it was frozen just like that. Incredible find!

    3. Re:WTF are you smoking? by HeckRuler · · Score: 0, Redundant
      Well sure, it's flamebait, but it's funny flame. Come on guys:

      By building blocks of life I assume they mean dinosaur bones, which were the building blocks of dinosaurs, which we all evolved from.

      Really? REALLY? There is no god-damned reason anyone should have this thought pass through their head. This has GOT to be some creationist pusher working on the noise to signal ratio.

      I'm sorry, but I thought calling out some bullshit of this magnitude required more then the usual [citiation needed], and I went with some flair.

    4. Re:WTF are you smoking? by mschuyler · · Score: 1

      Fer Christ's sake, it's a JOKE! It's a fucking JOKE! Get over yourself!

      --
      How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
  18. Re:I don't believe in God but I do believe in alie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    makes perfect sense.

    You're trolling, but what you obviously don't understand is that it does make sense.

    Humans exist. Therefore the possibility of life being created is > 0. Considering the size of the universe, there are aliens, regardless of how close to 0 that probability actually is.

    Not that this has anything at all to do with the topic at hand.

  19. Found on what? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

    Life's Building Blocks Found On Asteroid 24 Tennis

    Never read Slashdot until you're fully awake.

    1. Re:Found on what? by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      I also read that wrong:

      Life's Building Blocks Found On Asteroid 24 Times

      I opened TFA just to figure out what was wrong with the first 23.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  20. Earth was temporarily hot due to a giant impact by mrwiggly · · Score: 2, Informative

    The theory goes that a mars sized planetoid, named Theia, had formed at earths L4 or L5 Lagrangian points. As it's mass grew due to impacts, it was no longer stable at that point, and slammed into earth. The resulting debris cloud came together to form the moon.

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis

    1. Re:Earth was temporarily hot due to a giant impact by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Yes, thank you. I'm aware of that, but I'm not sure why you mention it. It's not a question I was asking in the first place and it's not really the reason Earth was inhospitable for water and organics. (Also, I'm fairly skeptical of the Lagrange point model. I have never seen any reason that you'd need it to form there or that it would even be likely to do so. It strikes me as a horrible place to form a second planet.)

      Earth was inhospitable for a variety of reasons, including the frequent bombardment of comets and asteroids. (The Moon-forming impact was just one of many that would have repeatedly sterilized the Earth in the first half billion years or so.) Couple that with the accretionary heat that Earth had to radiate off for quite a while, and this place wasn't pleasant.

  21. A point well missed by OshMan · · Score: 1

    Whether this "implies" that the building blocks of life were delivered via this method is a secondary hypothesis. I feel that a more important implication is that these "building blocks" can develop in a particularly harsh, non-earth environment. This gives more credence to the notion that life could have arisen on the primordial earth as postulated by science. And it gives credence to the notion that life may well have arisen elsewhere in the universe.

  22. Maybe it's not an asteroid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... but the remnants of a planet which once teemed with many different lifeforms, just like ours...

    1. Re:Maybe it's not an asteroid. by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      ... but the remnants of a planet which once teemed with many different lifeforms, just like ours...

      ...and then formed our moon:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  23. Maybe someone else 'terraformed' the earth by mdda · · Score: 1

    Of course, in that case, it's not so much terraforming as 'somewhereelse-forming'.

    And they'll be along soon to clear off the rodents from the planet they prepared earlier...

  24. Here's a nice picture by mangu · · Score: 2, Informative

    this picture provides a very good idea of the total volume of water on earth.

    1. Re:Here's a nice picture by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I really liked your images showing the volumes of water and air.
      I just thought I'd contribute free AOL disks, spam, politics, and the average person's grasp of logic science and reality.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  25. Hypothesis, not theory. by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

    It's not a theory. It's a hypothesis. IIRC, a theory is osmething that has already been tested, correct? Hypotheses haven't. Obviously, this hypothesis has not been tested much, or "woohoo, we found it on an asteroid!!" wouldn't be news, it'd be old news ... something that had already been done.

    I really don't think that a "hey, I think they came from asteroids" idea becomes a theory before you actually prove that the stuff even exists ON an asteroid?

  26. Just where did they think water came from ? by Latinhypercube · · Score: 0

    Just where did they think water came from ? Obviously is came from the solar system just like everything else of the Earth.

  27. Alien Life on Themis? by S77IM · · Score: 1

    Let's send captain Cirocco Jones and the crew of the DSV Ringmaster to check it out!

    --
    Student: Is it true that the foundation of the universe is paradox?
    Master: Well, yes and no.
  28. Tongue by Alexvthooft · · Score: 1

    I shouldn't have put my tongue to the ice last time I was there. I must have left some of it behind

    --
    Be yourself and aim high!
  29. God didn't create life until relatively recently by Christmas · · Score: 0

    "the Earth did not become conducive to water or organic molecules until relatively recently."

    That's b/c God didn't *put* life on Earth until recently.

    --
    Carrie -The Christmas Angel
  30. Re:I don't believe in God but I do believe in alie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bloody hell, who brought AVet from christianforums over to slashdot!?
    I'll not have his innane creationist bullshit in my geekery!

  31. it won't take much longer by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

    The asteroid is the seed, we are the crop.

    The harvesters are coming.

  32. There's water on the Sun, why not on a hot Earth? by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

    I suppose the theory is that once it boils, it's gone, but that's terribly naive. Once it boils, it's in the atmosphere, where it will happily stay until the planet cools enough for it to condense.

    Why are we looking for reasons why abundant elements form common molecules? We don't need water FROM anywhere. Everything needed (hydrogen, oxygen) would have been part of the dust and gas cloud that condensed to form the earth.

  33. Pathfinder Discoveries by geek2k5 · · Score: 1

    Would you be referring to the Pathfinder discoveries hinted at in "Space Cadet?"

    Or was this in "Strange in a Strange Land?"

  34. Is Methane Organic? by aqk · · Score: 0

    I have some here.

    This appears to be an internal problem. It's deadly, but shall be resolved silently at the dinner table, as usual.

  35. Crazy talk... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...it all happened six thousand years ago in the garden ;)

  36. Re:Easy explanation by apostrophesemicolon · · Score: 1

    yeah, it's a shitty subject really