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."
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.)
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.
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.
"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.
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.
"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
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
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.
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.
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
It's a disguised alien spacecraft.
"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?
Never read Slashdot until you're fully awake.
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
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.
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
Or heat, or sunlight, or good ol' chemistry. Really, there's plenty of sources of energy to power this.
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
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.
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.
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...
... 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.
this picture provides a very good idea of the total volume of water on earth.
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)-
But ... there' only one ocean.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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.
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?
*laugh* Followed by a loud thud.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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.
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!
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.
The asteroid is the seed, we are the crop.
The harvesters are coming.
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.
"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
Would you be referring to the Pathfinder discoveries hinted at in "Space Cadet?"
Or was this in "Strange in a Strange Land?"
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.
It's asteroids all the way down, silly.
That's ridiculous! There had to have been a first asteroid... and his name was Joe.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
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
My first asteroid was named "Bob". You speak heresy and I shall now make righteous war upon you, unbeliever.
You're misinformed. Bob was just an ordinary asteroid. Here's a picture as proof:
O
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
What, no planet that exploded? this is /.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
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.
yeah, it's a shitty subject really