Slashdot Mirror


Building Blocks of DNA Confirmed In Meteorites

MistrX writes "Researchers announced that the components of DNA have now been confirmed to exist in extraterrestrial meteorites. A different team of scientists also discovered a number of molecules linked with a vital ancient biological process, adding weight to the idea that the earliest forms of life on Earth may have been made up in part from materials delivered to Earth from space. Past research had revealed a range of building blocks of life in meteorites, such as the amino acids that make up proteins. Space rocks just like these may have been a vital source of the organic compounds that gave rise to life on Earth."

145 comments

  1. What a painful summary to read by martas · · Score: 2

    "made up in part from materials delivered to Earth the planet by from space". Seriously?

    1. Re:What a painful summary to read by vgbndkng · · Score: 2, Funny

      Those are the kind best though materials of.

    2. Re:What a painful summary to read by JBMcB · · Score: 1, Funny

      I know, the author wrote of is understand to hard the submission to me.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    3. Re:What a painful summary to read by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      "made up in part from materials delivered to Earth the planet by from space". Seriously?

      Without those specific instructions the meteorite may have delivered the materials to 'Earth the constellation' or 'Earth the nebula' or even 'Earth the meteorite' and it would never have done it's job. BTW, it's a good thing "from space" was on the whitelist.

    4. Re:What a painful summary to read by Joce640k · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Didn't all the atoms on Earth come by from space...?

      --
      No sig today...
    5. Re:What a painful summary to read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Watch out for that meteorite! WHOOOOSH!

    6. Re:What a painful summary to read by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 0

      Those are the kind best though materials of.

      I try to suppress my grammar-Nazism but wtf type of sentence is that?

      The sentence read in Yoda's voice and come to you it will.

    7. Re:What a painful summary to read by LordLimecat · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Some of the article sentences are as bad.

      The analytical techniques probed the mass and other features of the molecules to identify the presence of extraterrestrial nucleobases and see that they apparently did not come from the surrounding area.

      Im not sure quite whats wrong with the middle of that sentence, but it seems wrong-- shouldnt it be "and saw"?

    8. Re:What a painful summary to read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bit clunky, but not outright ungrammatical: to distributes over both identify and see.

    9. Re:What a painful summary to read by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      Of course the building blocks of life are in space. They are on earth.

    10. Re:What a painful summary to read by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 1

      made up in part from materials delivered to Earth the planet by from space

      - Posted via UDP

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
    11. Re:What a painful summary to read by siride · · Score: 1

      I think it is ungrammatical. "To see" is a separate result clause, whereas "to identify" is a clause that completes the verb "probed" (as part of a purpose construct). I'm not even sure that "to identify" and "to see" even have the same subject. They obviously shouldn't be governed by the same "to".

    12. Re:What a painful summary to read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're still *IN* space, so the distinction is moot.

    13. Re:What a painful summary to read by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Yes, but most of them didn't come to earth, they are what formed the earth initially out of the dust cloud that birthed our solar system.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    14. Re:What a painful summary to read by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      He's paraphrasing Carl Sagan, who famously said, "We are products of is the stars that are in of the sky."

    15. Re:What a painful summary to read by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      "To see that they apparently did not come from the surrounding area".
      vs
      "And saw that they apparently did not come from the surrounding area."

      Looks like author couldnt make up his mind whether he wanted present or past tense, and ended up with an awkward sentence.

    16. Re:What a painful summary to read by MistrX · · Score: 1

      Note to self: Less copy/pasting of articles. :D

    17. Re:What a painful summary to read by martas · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps just a quick read afterwards... :]

    18. Re:What a painful summary to read by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      In space = not on Earth. Space is what is outside of Earth and it's atmosphere. Otherwise space (as in, in space) is a meaningless term, there would be no in or out of it. We have a word for stuff that covers both 'in space' and on/in Earth: Universe. The Earth is in the universe/solar system/galaxy, but it is not "in space".

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    19. Re:What a painful summary to read by Yamioni · · Score: 1

      The author should have just split the sentence.

      'The analytical techniques probed the mass and other features of the molecules to identify the presence of extraterrestrial nucleobases. What they found was that they apparently did not come from the surrounding area.'

      I'm not super at English and that took me all of three seconds to figure out. Lazy author is Lazy perhaps?

      --
      Cool post bro, highfive \o
    20. Re:What a painful summary to read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, in fact most of them were created in the reaction inside a sun. Earth is in part made from the remains of previous solar systems. And lots of iron -

  2. delivered to Earth the planet by from space by Serif · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Syntax error on line 2 - processing aborted

    1. Re:delivered to Earth the planet by from space by Yamioni · · Score: 1

      Poor parent got modded offtopic for making an obtuse joke about the poor grammar and typos in the second sentence of the summary. Bad mod! :-(

      --
      Cool post bro, highfive \o
  3. Maybe the aliens.. by thej1nx · · Score: 1

    Maybe the aliens somewhere, were playing spore? :p

    1. Re:Maybe the aliens.. by Stuarticus · · Score: 1
      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
  4. Significance by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Can someone please explain the significance of this finding? I'm reading into a log of big assumptions here. So I have a few basic questions.

    A.) Does that mean that life here on Earth most likely have been boot-strapped from meteorites?
    B.) Such compounds are so common in the universe that finding them floating in space is trivial? Thus leading to the idea of life being more common than we think.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Significance by equex · · Score: 1

      You are correct in both instances, Sherlock.

      --
      Can I light a sig ?
    2. Re:Significance by sunderland56 · · Score: 5, Funny

      C) God created Man by throwing rocks at the Earth.

    3. Re:Significance by fredrated · · Score: 1

      "Such compounds are so common in the universe that finding them floating in space is trivial?"
      Correct. My theory is that this is the debris of countless space wars that have occured throughout the galaxy.

    4. Re:Significance by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      C) God created Man by throwing rocks at the Earth.

      Is there a 'glass houses' joke in there somewhere?

    5. Re:Significance by rbrausse · · Score: 1

      C) God created Man by throwing rocks at the Earth.

      hmm, so the objective of throwing stones in Populous was not based on the scientific facts?

    6. Re:Significance by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Informative

      A.) Does that mean that life here on Earth most likely have been boot-strapped from meteorites?

      It could mean that life doesn't just magically sprout up on a planet just because it meets a few criteria about atmosphere, gravity, etc.

      B.) Such compounds are so common in the universe that finding them floating in space is trivial? Thus leading to the idea of life being more common than we think.

      Uh, no, there's nothing that says it's common. (That could come later, though.) From what we know, or actually from what we DON'T know, it's possible that these meteorites are incredibly rare and that we have the most unique planet in the universe.

      We really need to actually find a lifeform somewhere else .

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    7. Re:Significance by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      Remnants of Alderaan?

      --
      No sig today...
    8. Re:Significance by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Nope, the remnants of the first "Earth" (what a dumb name).

      Now, get back to computing the answer!

    9. Re:Significance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is well summarized in Oolon Colluphid's 'That About Wraps it Up for God'

    10. Re:Significance by Terrasque · · Score: 1

      C) God created Man by throwing rocks at the Earth.

      Correction:
      C) God created Man by having Happy Fun Time with an asteroid.

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
    11. Re:Significance by ledow · · Score: 1

      Life *may* have been bootstrapped from a meteorite directly. We've always said it's possible. This is not "proof" either way, it just adds data (to both sides).

      Such compounds aren't necessarily common in the universe. Parts of those compounds are nothing more than a handful of molecules that likes to stick to other types in certain combinations. All those molecules/atoms are (as far as we can guess) present in just about any place you can study in that kind of detail. It's the "diamonds are a type of carbon" kind of thing. Any idiot can find carbon, but you don't get a diamond in every handful. Except we don't actually know how much "carbon" (atoms) in the universe are naturally occurring as "diamonds" (these compounds).

      Life isn't any more or less common than we believed before this "discovery". It's just confirmation that one of the avenues we posited is *possible*.

    12. Re:Significance by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      I could be wrong here, but I believe it's actually generally suspected at this point that the chemical basis for life is rather common outside of our planet and outside of our solar system. This brings to mind certain ideas about the nature of our universe which are kind of interesting, if a little ambitious.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    13. Re:Significance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A part of me wonders if there was some alien race that, instead of spreading themselves throughout space which would have been very difficult (think of humanity trying to do the same thing), they just shot out a bunch of dna into the universe so that it would grab hold elsewhere.

      Granted most scientists seem to think that life is fairly common anyway so occam's razor definitely applies but you never know :).

    14. Re:Significance by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Correction:
      C) Meteorites are what happens at the end of God having Happy Fun Time.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    15. Re:Significance by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      If you read the article, and remember that meteorites are bits of rock that have fallen to earth, this is by no means conclusive-- the most accurate description appears to be the Slashdot Headline ("Building-Blocks-of-DNA-Confirmed-In-Meteorites"). They did test the surrounding area for similar molecules and did not find any, but the article does not state whether such material is found anywhere on earth, or how old the meteorites were, or where they were found.

      So Im not clear on how the possibility that it is simply contamination is being ruled out, simply because they "checked against the surrounding area" (which again raises questions-- how big an area, how did they check, etc).

    16. Re:Significance by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Ok, Benji....

      --
      No sig today...
    17. Re:Significance by Anon-Admin · · Score: 1

      We really need to actually find a lifeform somewhere else .

      So we can kill it and dissect it!

      And people wonder why aliens have not landed and introduced themselves. ;)

    18. Re:Significance by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Everything I learned about creating worlds and being God I learned from Populous, Black and White, and Spore.

      Nothing screams God like picking up a flaming pieces of poop and hurling them at a village that does not worship me.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    19. Re:Significance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A.) Does that mean that life here on Earth most likely have been boot-strapped from meteorites?"

      Possibly, there's no reason to think not, obviously meteorites carry things and the earth has been hit by probably over a billion throughout it's lifetime.

      "B.) Such compounds are so common in the universe that finding them floating in space is trivial? Thus leading to the idea of life being more common than we think."

      Compounds are not life. Finding them in space is certainly trivial, whether they have the chance to make a difference is not. To think naturally occurring elements and compounds using abundant elements are "uncommon" in the interstellar medium or all across the universe is bafflingly idiotic

    20. Re:Significance by vlm · · Score: 2

      A.) Does that mean that life here on Earth most likely have been boot-strapped from meteorites?
      B.) Such compounds are so common in the universe that finding them floating in space is trivial? Thus leading to the idea of life being more common than we think.

      A is probably wrong.

      Talk to a biologist about the quality level of 100K-year and older DNA. The reason you can't clone ancient DNA from dinos, maybe even mammoths, is it decays too much from radiation/age/whatever in just a few zillion years, even in ideal conditions. In space the radiation and temp swings will be worse, and it'll have to travel even longer.

      B is probably correct. However, I think there are probably a lot more worlds where the alpha predator is a microscopic virus or maybe protozoa at most, than worlds where the alpha predator is a smartphone using bipedal mammal. Worlds with lichens are probably much more common than worlds with giant ants.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    21. Re:Significance by elrous0 · · Score: 2

      It means that certain organic chemicals are probably common in the universe. Depending on your desire to believe, that could mean that life is common "out there" or it could mean fuck all. Take your pick.

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

      Yes, God is a badass motherfucker with balls of steel. Everytime he has a Happy Fun Time, astroids go flying at the end.

    23. Re:Significance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      alpha predator is a smartphone using bipedal mammal.

      Cute. ^_^

    24. Re:Significance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there is still HUGE difference between DNA and amino-acids. It's like comparing Greek Parthenon and lots of small marble pieces. While DNA itself may not survive 100k+ years, amino-acids sure as hell can. So it is not as improbable as it seems.

    25. Re:Significance by tom17 · · Score: 1

      You mean the question.

    26. Re:Significance by tom17 · · Score: 1

      I preferred some of his earlier works. I especially liked "Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes". A very good read indeed.

    27. Re:Significance by siride · · Score: 1

      Maybe they would want to kill and dissect us?

    28. Re:Significance by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      C) God created Man by throwing rocks at the Earth.

      Well, we do call them "the Heavens". What if He did?

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    29. Re:Significance by PineHall · · Score: 1

      Good questions! It seems to me that the ideas of exogenesis and panspermia which have been discounted (in my reading) may be more of a possibility with the new evidence than previously thought. The standard theories of the origin of life may need some revision. I can understand why scientists want to keep all of the theory on earth as opposed to pushing it off earth. It is easier find evidence and prevents concept of the something unknown happened out there. But right now there is a whole lot of unknowns and it may not be a tractable problem in the scientific framework.

    30. Re:Significance by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      C) God created Man by throwing rocks at the Earth.

      Boys are Stupid, Throw Rocks at Them

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    31. Re:Significance by Uhhhh+oh+ya! · · Score: 1

      For one I still have to throw some doubt here because I dont remember us landing on any meteorites lately to be making this claim as intently as the poorly written article does. Still what significance if any does this have? As others have stated, we have shown that the building blocks of life exist all throughout the universe but actual life itself still evades us. It would seem that before we trouble ourselves with the question of where the building blocks came from we should figure out how they got put together. I believe I learned fairly early on in school that working backwards through a problem was one of the easier ways of figuring it out.

    32. Re:Significance by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      It means that certain organic chemicals are probably common in the universe. Depending on your desire to believe, that could mean that life is common "out there" or it could mean fuck all. Take your pick.

      I prefer the middle ground, and take it to mean "fuck all life out there".

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    33. Re:Significance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Based on the age of the Earth, and the time that the first life appears in the fossil record, we have been unable to explain how life arose so QUICKLY....given the estimated speed of biological evolution. Panspermia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia) is a theory attempting to explain how the building blocks for life are distributed around the universe, allowing life to evolve from these building blocks to organized cells in a billion years or so.

    34. Re:Significance by instagib · · Score: 1

      God and the Devil, billions of years ago, the Universe is devoid of life. Says God: "Devil, you ugly sonofabitch, I'll show you the beauty of creation, learn something different than destroying!", and with that creates Man on Earth. 6000 years and several wars and genocides later says the Devil: "God, I wouldn't throw rocks while living in a glass house!" [Admits God: "Well yeah, it was of the wrong size anyway."] (Last part specially for parent. ;-)

    35. Re:Significance by jdgeorge · · Score: 1

      But wait, I saw a headline that says: NASA: DNA Found on Meteorites Indicates Life Originated in Space

      So, by carefully eliminating some words, you can create a completely false, but much more intriguing page-hit-generator.

      Well played, International Business Times, well played.

    36. Re:Significance by Chriscypher · · Score: 1

      No one is talking about *finding* DNA in meteorites, just amino acids and other chemical precursors (which are *used in* DNA).

      --
      "You have liberated me from thought."
    37. Re:Significance by jc42 · · Score: 1

      I can understand why scientists want to keep all of the theory on earth as opposed to pushing it off earth. It is easier find evidence ...

      Oh, I dunno; it may turn out a lot easier to find evidence about the origins of life "out there" than here on our home planet. The problem here is that nearly anywhere it lands, a speck of amino acid or other organic compounds will find itself in an environment teeming with lots of tiny, one-celled critters that consider such compounds food. Life may have landed here in a bit of rock 4 billion years ago, but today it wouldn't stand a chance; it'd be gobbled up before it had a chance to find food and reproduce.

      OTOH, in interstellar space, life (and food) is spread out rather thinly, and we know that simple organics (up to amino acids) are there in quantity, if not density. It'd probably be good for some of those rocks' contents if they could land on a young planet with lots of simple organics but no organized cellular life yet. But on a world like ours, they'd simply be incorporated into a nearby cell in a very short time.

      So if you want to find lots of evidence for the precursors of life, you're probably a lot more likely to find them out in the interstellar dust clouds than anywhere here on Earth.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    38. Re:Significance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a good theory, but I'm pretty sure it went more like this.

    39. Re:Significance by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Kirk is the only, huh? :)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    40. Re:Significance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes! because the answer we know. It is 42.

    41. Re:Significance by tom17 · · Score: 1

      I like it when people state the obvious.

      Yes yes, I really do.

  5. SELL !! SELL !! PATCH !! FEAR !! FEAT !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Beware the smeeeeelly feet for it heralds the end !!

  6. Building blocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're missing the point here. Apparently, living things are made up of some sort of LEGO bricks! Who cares whether they can come from space or not, this should make bioengineering a lot easier.

  7. Planets by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

    Considering that all planets are composed of material that was once floating about in space, this is kind of obvious. It's just a matter of when it arrived. Being part of a meteor sounds cool and all, but it's not like in the movies where there's a magic meteor that can give super powers (which seems to be the summary's interpretation). It just means this specific matter arrived on earth after the planet was already pretty well formed.

    --
    "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    1. Re:Planets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that all planets are composed of material that was once floating about in space, this is kind of obvious. It's just a matter of when it arrived. Being part of a meteor sounds cool and all, but it's not like in the movies where there's a magic meteor that can give super powers (which seems to be the summary's interpretation). It just means this specific matter arrived on earth after the planet was already pretty well formed.

      Sp you're saying you don't have super powers?!

      Poor bastard.

      I for one am invisible as long as no one looks at me.

    2. Re:Planets by Froeschle · · Score: 1

      "It just means this specific matter arrived on earth after the planet was already pretty well formed."

      The material from which the earth formed likely contained such material as well . It didn't necessarily have to rain from the sky. Some of that material may have originated on what are now non-existent, i.e. destroyed, planets. All the metals on the earth are a result of previous generations of stars, so why couldn't at least some of this type of material not have been included in the "mix" as well? Bacteria have been found deep inside rocks on earth so why should something similar not have been in the rocks and planetesimals from which the earth formed?

  8. A hurr hurr hurr derp by scubamage · · Score: 0

    But the Bible didn't say nothin' bout no metorites!

    1. Re:A hurr hurr hurr derp by Holammer · · Score: 1

      But the Bible didn't say nothin' bout no metorites!

      There are plenty of descriptions of meteorite type objects in the bible. From Genesis to Book of Revelation. Sure, they're described and fire and brimstone or stars falling from the sky. But it's the best a bunch of stupid goat herders could come up with.

    2. Re:A hurr hurr hurr derp by ShavedOrangutan · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised. 62 comments and you're the first angry atheist trying to troll this into a religion flame war.

      Oh, and I read the story first on Fox News. Yeah, those bible thumping tea baggers published it before Slashdot!

      --
      Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
    3. Re:A hurr hurr hurr derp by scubamage · · Score: 1

      Angry atheist? Not at all. More like malevolent agnostic who finds cafeteria Christians to be hilarious joke fodder.

  9. Extremely Cool by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

    We already know that our atoms come from supernovae. Carbon, Oxygen and other atoms are formed in stars and scattered around the Universe via supernovae. Every atom in your body was once in the fiery furnace of a star just before it exploded. Now we know that, later on, the precursors to the DNA that makes us who we are were floating around in meteors in space. They crashed to Earth where, over time, it developed into DNA, cells, and life.

    Scientific explanations don't make things boring, they make them incredibly cool!

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    1. Re:Extremely Cool by zoom-ping · · Score: 1

      IIRC supernovas are capable of producing heavier atoms (>= iron). A regular dying star can fuse atoms into carbon and oxygen just fine, so not all the atoms in our bodies were forged in supernovas. Still awesome tho.

    2. Re:Extremely Cool by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Supernovas are the things the fling the atoms through space though...

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:Extremely Cool by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Supernovae aren't the only things though.. our sun will not go supernova, but it will still expand into a red giant at the end of it's life, engulfing most or all of the inner rocky planets, and then finally eject most of it's remaining elements (envelope) into surrounding space, turning into a little white dwarf, and leaving behind a planetary nebula.. those elements just won't go quite as far out in space as fast as a supernova would've ejected them, but eventually they'll make their way around out there. Depending on where the star system was, it could possibly mingle with other local gas "clouds" if present (mostly hydrogen), (re)coalescence, and the whole process repeat, forming a new star and system- but there wouldn't be any heavier elements such as iron or heavier unless they existed prior- for that, you do need a supernova.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    4. Re:Extremely Cool by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

      In current scientific models our atoms come from supernovae. According to current scientific models, Carbon, Oxygen and other atoms are formed in stars and scattered around the Universe via supernovae. Every atom in your body was once in the fiery furnace of a star just before it exploded, if our current scientific models are correct. Now we know that, later on, the precursors to the DNA that makes us who we are were floating around in meteors in space. They crashed to Earth where, over time, it is possible that it could have developed into DNA, cells, and life.

      Scientific explanations are just models that fit the available data, and therefore can't make things boring or, make them incredibly cool because the are just models that will be abandoned if further observations invalidate them.

      FTFY

  10. Where did the meteor get them? by Baloroth · · Score: 1

    How, exactly, does this help answer the question of where life came from (possibly)? Is it easier/ more likely for these compounds to form on meteors than simply to originate on Earth? Or does this merely shove the question back to "well, it didn't come from Earth, so it came from a meteor!" "How did it get on the meteor?" "...I don't know, aliens maybe?" I really don't understand why they hypothesized that meteors brought the compounds here. Is it really just that we have no idea how they can form on Earth by themselves?

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    1. Re:Where did the meteor get them? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Both mechanisms are possible. This is just more evidence.

      We've made organic compounds from primordial soup + lightning, now we've also proved they're drifting through space (it was just a hypothesis before this).

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Where did the meteor get them? by whiteboy86 · · Score: 1

      That material along with the carbon molecules got spread when the previous star generations exploded via novae. That means the DNA traces and higher molecule junk came from the previous generation of starts that preceded the solar system.

    3. Re:Where did the meteor get them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did the meteor get them?

      God's greasy palm.

    4. Re:Where did the meteor get them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How did it get on the meteor?"
       
        Perhaps it was inside the meteor (rock) before it was blasted from the surface of its parent body by another meteor?

  11. Intriguing similarity by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    Sperm-esque shaped meteor + egg-esque shaped planet = life

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    1. Re:Intriguing similarity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you, 'tarded?

  12. Possible, but... by Kupfernigk · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The anthropomorphic fallacy (we overestimate the probability of life-related thing because we are living and we are there to see it) has a counter-argument which runs "We live on a planet which originally had no life, and we are here. Life must arise spontaneously because the initial conditions of the universe did not admit of any life, and there is at least some (us). If it has arisen at least once (regardless of how it got here) and survived despite all the cosmic and other accidents to the Earth, whether it's asteroid collisions or becoming a snowball, life is fairly tough. Therefore, based on present knowledge, and our understanding of how big the Universe is, life is most likely fairly common".

    People who argue that we are unique in a very large universe are in essence taking a position which at base is religious, not scientific. Science assumes that once we observe a phenomenon, if we reproduce the initial conditions it will recur. This has worked extremely well up till now, whereas the successive religious claims of uniqueness, beginning with the Earth at the centre of the universe, have all been exploded.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Possible, but... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Therefore, based on present knowledge, and our understanding of how big the Universe is, life is most likely fairly common

      What that statement is really saying is: "Because we don't really know any better, it could be common." We're still at that "we don't know" phase.

      People who argue that we are unique in a very large universe are in essence taking a position which at base is religious, not scientific.

      Since I said nothing about religion the only real reason to bring it up is to attempt to discredit me by claiming I believe in creatures I've never seen before. Though funny in this context, it serves no purpose here. Science allows people to attack problems from different perspectives, correct?

      I didn't argue that we are unique. What I am talking about is critical thinking. What does a discovery actually mean? Well, let's ask a few questions:

      A meteorite loaded with bits of DNA has been discovered. Where did it come from?

      Where was it going?

      How many are there?

      What does it take for it to actually turn into life? Does it have to strike a planet under certain conditions? Does it have to be struck by lightning? Etc.

      How many planets did it seed?

      Where in the galaxy are these meteorites formed?

      For every one of these questions we don't have an answer yet. That'll come when we leave the solar system. In the mean time, we have to leave it blank. We end up chalking it up to a statistic.

      Before long we end up saying "well the conditions have to be random enough and the universe is big enough that the odds are really really good!" Which is fine for the purposes of driving the desire to explore, but really it's a measurement of what we don't know.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    2. Re:Possible, but... by gewalker · · Score: 1

      Position #1 -- God fearing Bible thumper. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates life is present or absent elsewhere in God's creation. The Genesis account explains the origin of life on this planet. Existence of life elsewhere is therefore inconclusive, more data is needed.

      Note: some GFBT's argue that life elsewhere cannot exist, but they either do not know their Bible or mis-use the revealed word of God.

      Position #2 -- God denying atheist cosmologist. The Drake equation gives the expected number of planets containing life. However, the values of the constants are largely conjecture and subjective bias of the person estimating the like values of the constants varies widely leading to valid outcomes to ranging from abundant life to earth being unique. Existence of life elsewhere is therefore inconclusive, more data is needed.

      Note: some GDAT's insist that life elsewhere must exist, but they either do not understand the Drake equation or mis-use the relevant data or lack thereof.

      It appears weak or strong anthropic reasoning applies in either case. Without more data, this is in reality a question of philosophy -- origin of life cannot be adequate explained scientifically, and the common religious explanation (though adequate from a religious perspective) is a priori unscientific.

      Sorry but finding some amino acids acids in a rock from space adds nothing new to origin of life science unless it contributes something otherwise difficult to explain e.g., a solution to the chirality selection problem (which has been suggested before). Finding a space rock with a strong selection bias to either left or right handed organics -- now that would be very interesting.

      News yes, interesting yes, -- but significant evidence relevant to the origin of life question? Not really.

    3. Re:Possible, but... by Empiric · · Score: 1

      This has worked extremely well up till now, whereas the successive religious claims of uniqueness, beginning with the Earth at the centre of the universe, have all been exploded.

      How so? In order for this to be the case, it would seem there would be two conditions, applying to any premise, for the "successive" claims (of which you have provided two highly-dubious "examples")...

      1. Such a claim was unequivocally made

      2. It has been demonstrated false

      I understand there have been historical interpretation of the Earth as the center of the universe, but this was not universally held even within Catholicism even at the time of Galileo--Copernican heliocentrism was a "minority view". And as far as the original sources go, we have such notations as the Earth "hanging on nothing" (re: Job 26:7) which is a notably-accurate description rather arguing against the notion of the Earth being specified as fixed. "An" interpretation does not equate to "the" interpretation for the purposes of demonstrating an overall view has been refuted.

      As it stands, it seems this is the sum total of the "successive religious claims" you have "exploded"...

      A. Uniqueness of life existing only on Earth

      1. Not claimed by religion

      2. Life elsewhere not demonstrated (certainly not sentient life)

      Required for your position: Both shown true. Actuality: Neither shown true.

      B. Earth as center of universe

      1. Not definitively claimed by religion

      2. There is, in fact, no "center" and reference frames are arbitrary

      Required for your position: Both shown true. Actuality: Neither shown true.

      Can you clarify?

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    4. Re:Possible, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The anthropomorphic fallacy (we overestimate the probability of life-related thing because we are living and we are there to see it)

      You mean the anthropic principle, not anthropomorphic fallacy.

    5. Re:Possible, but... by ZaphDingbat · · Score: 1

      I understand there have been historical interpretation of the Earth as the center of the universe, but this was not universally held even within Catholicism even at the time of Galileo--Copernican heliocentrism was a "minority view". And as far as the original sources go, we have such notations as the Earth "hanging on nothing" (re: Job 26:7) which is a notably-accurate description rather arguing against the notion of the Earth being specified as fixed. "An" interpretation does not equate to "the" interpretation for the purposes of demonstrating an overall view has been refuted.

      The view of the original authors, who should be able to lay claim to special revelation, was that the Earth was fixed with a dome over it: http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Seely-Firmament-WTJ.pdf

      That Catholics in later centuries, with the advantage of being informed by science, didn't believe this is uninteresting. It is interesting that their view does not match the views of those who supposedly had direct access to the source.

      I'm not at all surprised that you are unaware of and hostile to these religious claims you claim were not made. The truth, even if you don't like it, is that they are still being made. Or do you think that a religious idea has to be universal before it can be considered stupid?

    6. Re:Possible, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The anthropic principle you mean to say.

    7. Re:Possible, but... by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Obviously, I was not unaware of the contrary model, as I directly stated it in my post, something generally considered difficult to do when unaware of what one is typing.

      I understand you have a PDF citing an academic position.

      Quoting that, as a characterizing example:

      "Accordingly, it seems most probable that so far as the physical nature of the sky is concerned, the Hebrews, as a typical scientifically naive people, believed the raqia was solid."

      You may also wish to check the paper's concluding paragraph.

      "Most probable" does not lead to a -necessitated- interpretation, and a -necessitated- interpretation would be necessary for refutation by a counterexample.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    8. Re:Possible, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calling ideas you disagree with "religious, not scientific" is tantamount to political leaders calling dissenters "unpatriotic". You really think it's intelligent to discharge an opponent by nothing more than associating them words of negative connnotation? Where, in that tactic, is the supreme "rationality" and "logic" that is supposedly science's claim to fame?

      As I see it, here's the way science applies to speculation about life elsewhere in the universe: Form a hypothesis. Test it. Can't do it? STFU. You can speculate all you like about life on other planets, but unless you can test that theory and prove it, it is just as unscientific and religious to believe in that as it is to believe God exists.

    9. Re:Possible, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think the anthropic principle (which you seem to discount) implies that life is unique in this universe, you are confused. It is a statement on the observed properties of the universe (universes without life cannot be observed), not a statement on the properties on life.

      There is nothing intrinsically religious about arguments that we are unique in the universe. Your argument seems to boil down to: "The universe is *so* big, the odds against life occurring in it must be significantly smaller." This is more of a religious argument since it relies on numbers for which you make no attempt to quantify. As if the reader is supposed to be awed by the size of the universe and accept your conclusion based on that.

  13. Read the Book of Daniel by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1

    The guy was either out on magic mushrooms, or trying to describe a flying saucer. Or both...though, seriously, given that I have actual evidence for magic mushrooms, and I have no belief in Biblical inerrancy, I'll take the psilocybin explanation.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  14. we are stardust, we are golden by FudRucker · · Score: 2

    we are billion year old carbon...

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:we are stardust, we are golden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude. Even George Bush and Bin Laden are stardust.

    2. Re:we are stardust, we are golden by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      And we've got to get ourselves back to the garden.

      These whippersnappers with their Firework and Love Game...

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  15. Carbon & Hydrogen atoms and water molecules? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me guess, they found some Carbon and Hydrogen atoms and some water molecules?
    It surprises me that they failed to consider the meteorite being alive! Clearly, this is proof!

  16. Building blocks of DNA... by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

    Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen and Oxygen. Surprise!

    1. Re:Building blocks of DNA... by jfengel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Those would be "building blocks of any organic molecule". These are adenine and guanine, molecules of a dozen or so atoms, as well as some other molecules related to them though not found in DNA.

      Actual press release with more science than TFA:

      http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna-meteorites.html

  17. Thats nice by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

    Now that the god argument has been settled, can we focus on unimportant science like colonizing Mars for the betterment of man kind?

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  18. Understatement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello? Earth is made up ENTIRELY from materials delivered to Earth from space.

  19. Everybody Knows GOD made the heavens and earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
    Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
    Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
    Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
    Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
    Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
    Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
    Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
    Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
    Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
    Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
    Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
    Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
    Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
    Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
    Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
    Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
    Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
    Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
    Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
    Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
    Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
    Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
    Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
    Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
    Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
    Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
    Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree

    1. Re:Everybody Knows GOD made the heavens and earth by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Thanks for posting that. I'd nearly run out of shit paper.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  20. Experiment? by DemonGenius · · Score: 1

    It would be interesting if all life on this planet was nothing more than an elaborate experiment designed by some ancient race who hurled a bunch of their DNA to some random part of space. We may someday (in the distant future) have to resort to the same so that we could (very, very indirectly) travel through intergalactic space, possibly to survive (via proxy) some sort of (self-inflicted?) calamity on Earth.

  21. But did the meteorite come from Earth? by Marrow · · Score: 1

    We have had any number of events which could hurl material from Earth well past escape velocity and into space. Is this material coming back after one of those events? I skimmed the article, but did not see where they eliminated Earth as the source of the material.

  22. Scientific induction by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    First, I didn't refer to you. I wrote "People who argue that we are unique...", which you did not do. You adopted a sceptical position which runs counter to the positions which are usually reached by considering what is known so far about biology, planet formation and the like, but you did not argue that we are unique. I noticed that.

    I am, however permitted (as, among other things, a one time student of the history of science and religion) to note that arguments to uniqueness normally have a religious foundation, because there is no evidence whatsoever that they are correct whereas there is evidence that life exists in the Universe and that the rocks floating around the bits of the universe which interact with us are similar to our rocks.

    Interestingly, it only really seems to be since the rise of American fundamentalism that anyone with a Western university education has seriously questioned that life exists elsewhere in the Universe. Pope in one of his poems treats it as an obvious given. Catholic theologians have debated (including at Vat II) how salvation would work for people from other planets, and C S Lewis, an Anglican scholar and novelist, actually proposed a theodicy in three novels which was intended to provide a mechanism. Whole genres - science fiction and fantasy - treat it as a given. It seems to be a part of the American retreat from science.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Scientific induction by davide+marney · · Score: 1

      arguments to uniqueness normally have a religious foundation, because there is no evidence whatsoever that they are correct

      What? This is exactly backwards. There is NO evidence yet that life exists outside of Earth. Paradoxically, however, we /believe/ that life must exist elsewhere because here we are. This is such a common paradox, it even has a name, the Fermi Paradox.

      --
      "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
  23. The ENTIRE PLANET by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    is made up from materials 'from space'. Stupid article

    --
    Good-bye
  24. Disagree... by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    Given that we do not know why there is an excess of matter over antimatter in the observed universe, your argument would lead us to believe that there isn't a universe.

    In fact this result is evidence that supports a wider scope for life. It shows that rocks can act as a shield for relatively fragile molecules which are components of larger organic molecules. This is a key argument; for life to be abundant, if the necessary molecules start to appear from natural causes in the early planet they must last long enough for further synthesis to occur. This research shows that this is possible for larger molecules than hitherto known.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Disagree... by gewalker · · Score: 1

      Disagree if you lifke, but if you actually consider the mechanics of abiogenesis, the ET organic fragments do not really affect the science -- it is an issue of "too little to make a difference" -- there really is not a good abiogenesis orgin of life scientific theory. This discovery does not alter the gulf between some random amino acids and life. We have no trouble with explaining some amino acids availability. The problem is that they are reactive molecules that degrade in utility more often than not without life to concentrate, protect and organize them. Organizing them in a functioning set of proteins, lipids, etc. is the real problem. This is a sideshow.

      IMO, current abiogenesis theories are about as useful as Aristotelian physics in that they sound reasonable to the non-expert, but upon close examination, there are too many inconsistencies and weaknesses to really pass as decent theories. Fragments from space is just more hand-wavium for the extant theories.

      Unless there is more involved here than just another possible source of organic fragments (i.e., not evidence of panspermia or such like), this can at best be only a very minor supporting role. It contributes nothing significant to the key arguments of current theories.

      Until you do the math for how much organic fragments arrive via incoming rocks (that survive atmospheric entry) vs. how much is generated via natural processes as well as well as the math for the abiogenis origins and you will understand why I say this is not significant, hand-wavium. Unfortunately, I don't have the math for rocks from space vs. local orgins, but I do know the math for abiogenesis is very dogdy for all of the current theories, so much so that I am confident that addiing in ET based fragments make no real difference. If Darwin understood how complex life was, I doubt he would have made his warm little pond conjecture — he was a better scientist than that.

      I am not a practicing scientist in this field, so my opinions are worth nothing (as are yours presumably), but I do understand enough math and statistics to know that the existing theories are deeply flawed. This does not mean by iteself mean abiogenisis cannot happen, it is just we have no current scientifically useful theory that explains how it could happen

      What is really needed (and obviously very difficult to develop) is a much better theory of abiogenesis. This new data is not actually significant otherwise.

  25. Correction: by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    C) God destroyed Man by throwing rocks at the Earth.

    1. Re:Correction: by camperslo · · Score: 1

      It sounds like planting more seeds if we're all really made from cosmic debris.

      Frank isn't around any more. I wonder what Moon Unit would say about all this.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeQ_S8G16Rw

  26. simpler genetic systems before DNA by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Strong evidence for RNA. Suggestions of hybrid poly-aromic hydrocarbon nucleic acid system before that. DNA is the most stable, accurate, and complex of the three. But when it evolved it would overwhelm the competition over millions of years.

  27. And in conclusion... by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

    ...if the best paid pitchers are supposed to be the best pitchers, and if pitching is intelligent design, then we can deduce that CC Sabathia is, in fact, God.

    This makes sense, as we all know Alex Rodriguez is the devil, which confirms all of our suspicions that they're on the same team to begin with.

    --
    I8-D
    1. Re:And in conclusion... by Jpnh · · Score: 1

      I don't know about cc sabathia being god. Brian Wilson looks more the part

    2. Re:And in conclusion... by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      I don't know about cc sabathia being god. Brian Wilson looks more the part

      I don't know man, everything after Pet Sounds was rubbish.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  28. Rocks Hit Earth by Espresso2xshot · · Score: 1

    I've read most of the posts here and did not see anyone posting the possibility that meteor have hit the earth over the years (however many billions of years) which launched some "building blocks" or Amino Acids into space in the form of meteorites etc. . .?
    Could it be possible that some of those rocks God threw at us bounced off and scattered materials across the galaxy and beyond?

    1. Re:Rocks Hit Earth by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      I suspect that you're not looking for a serious answer, but I'll give you one nonetheless.

      The early solar nebula is hypothesised to have had a significant gradient of isotopic compositions in consequence of it's thermal gradients, by the same sort of differential evaporation and acceleration processes that produce temperature-related isotopic gradients in terrestrial rainfall.

      The effects are small, but variations in the isotope chemistry of meteorite material from different sources (Moon, Mars, Vesta) are reasonably well-explained by these effects. So, with a fairly good degree of confidence we (I am a geologist ; I'm using the English "we", not the "royal we") can be sure of the mean distance from the Sun that a particular meteorite was formed at.

      The literature is out there. And in general it is composed of successively better approximations to the truth.
      (The X-files script-writers made it catchier, but probably a bit over-confident.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    2. Re:Rocks Hit Earth by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      significant gradientS of isotopic compositions

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    3. Re:Rocks Hit Earth by Espresso2xshot · · Score: 1

      Well ok, you could have just said no but your complicated answer works as well. (I'm not a moron and I did understand what your were explaining)
      I heard my now "silly" theory from a P.h.D of the religious sort in a lecture one time. I didn't hold much to the theory but from your response I understand why a firm no is a logical conclusion. Thanks for the reply. Your +1 was well deserved, if I could I'd give you a + mod point as well.

      Care to point me to some literature you were referring me to? I love to read over my head, so feel free! (Seriously)

    4. Re:Rocks Hit Earth by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      "No" doesn't earn (or, in a sane universe, deserve) up-moderation.

      I've dealt with many people of "very fixed opinions" over the years, and while there is almost never any use in wasting fingertip skin and electrons answering the questions for them, there is often a useful, from my point of view "desirable" by product of informing and educating the silent audience.

      In this case, it seems there was a genuine question, and my CCD (Creation Cretin Detector) fired off a bit too sensitively. Sorry about that. Happens sometimes.

      So, your PhD(religion) source has had his (or her) credibility seriously dented. I'll count that as a positive result.

      Literature ... Ah, that can definitely wait until after supper ...

      Literature relating to this specific subject.

      Well, as an interested (but light-pollution hampered) amateur astronomer, I've known about the Martian meteorites for longer than I care to remember. Looking at MacKay et al's 1996 "Martian fossils" paper and references therein (McKay, D. et al. 1996. Search for Past Life on Mars: Possible Relic Biogenic Activity in Martian Meteorite AL84001. Science: 273. 924-930.) will give you a paper trail into how the identity of the Martian meteorites was established, and into the transfer mechanisms. (Sorry, but I assume that you've got access to a library. It takes time and costs money, but all study does. A good correspondence university science course will likely include good-value online access to "the literature". There are plenty.) I recall spending significant time working on the early evolution of the solar system by following the paper trail from some recent record-breaking-old CAI (calcium-aluminium inclusions) within chondritic meteorites ... but I don't have the reference to hand. Or do I ? [hooks up pocket reference library ... for the 5th time today ... oh fuck off windows fucking media fucking player I don't want you to search my hard drive! Work's machine ; I can't change some things on it including this heap of shit. [bitch, moan] ... found it : JAN D. KRAMERS 2007, Hierarchical Earth accretion and the Hadean Eon Journal of the Geological Society, London, Vol. 164, pp. 3â"17 Nothing spectacular, but a recent synoptic overview of formation of the Earth with plenty of references into the astronomy/ planetary science of the solar nebula.

      But I've got to get on with paying work now.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  29. Space rocks by bgspence · · Score: 1

    So, by the same logic, if rocks are found in space rocks, then rocks found on earth were created in outer space by meteorites.

  30. Um... so... by HiggsBison · · Score: 1

    It's like comparing Greek Parthenon and lots of small marble pieces.

    Um... so... the Parthenon could have occurred naturally?

    --
    My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
    1. Re:Um... so... by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      It's like comparing Greek Parthenon and lots of small marble pieces.

      Um... so... the Parthenon could have occurred naturally?

      Just like this watch that self assembled itself in my backyard.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  31. Could be a local phenomena ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

    In fact this result is evidence that supports a wider scope for life.

    In the scope of our solar system, we could be observing a local phenomena. I'm not advocating, nor hoping, this is the case - just saying we need more evidence with respect to a universal phenomena.

  32. Anthropic principle and observation by snowwrestler · · Score: 1

    The anthropic principle* basically states that the fact that we can observe the universe necessarily constrains the observations we will see. In other words, if the nuclear strong force was 100x as strong, no life would exist to observe and measure that. It is really focused on the baseline forces and constants that underlie our understanding of physics.

    The anthropic principle focuses solely on actual observed evidence: we can observe that we exist, and we can measure the forces and deduce the constants mathematically.

    It does not necessarily apply to the question of life elsewhere in the universe, though. We can guess that the same physical conditions that allow us to exist, will also allow other, similar life to exist elsewhere in the universe. HOWEVER, we do not have any direct observation of life anywhere other than Earth. To the contrary, we have observed numerous objects within our own system and found no other life whatsoever. In addition we have failed to create "new" life in the laboratory from non-living materials.

    The scientific statement about life is that we don't know how strong the anthropic principle is--how unique we might be within the universe. We don't know whether there is actually IS any other life in the universe, and we certainly don't know how prevalent it might be. That's not a religious statement because it is strictly constrained by observation. The moment we get proof of life elsewhere in the universe, that will change (unlike a religious statement, which would not).

    So while it is true that life must arise spontaneously (since we observe life), there is no proof that it must arise spontaneously more than once. Like you I think it's incredibly improbable that it only arose once in the vast universe. But without observations that support that hypothesis, it is only a guess or personal opinion.

    * Not anthropormorphic fallacy--that is the fallacy of assigning human traits to nonhuman things, like rocks or dogs.

    --
    Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  33. so what; by reasterling · · Score: 1

    Big Deal

    The building blocks of DNA are found all over the earth. Even with perfect laboratory conditions we can not turn them into life.

    Call me when they actually discover something living on some rock in space. Now that would be something.

    --
    "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice" -- God
  34. Don't understand, explain this to me by jweller13 · · Score: 1

    I've never understood this building blocks from meteorites theory. Wouldn't any organic molecules be destroyed by the thousands of degree temperatures from entry through the atmosphere. Also why are building blocks from meteorites even important. Isn't the primordial earth a much less hostile even more fertile environment for the formation of these molecules?

    1. Re:Don't understand, explain this to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The primordial earth was probably no more a hot lump of lava any more than our moon or Ceres is today, and many organic molecules could have been kept semi safe the entire time inside rocks with diameters the size of France.

  35. Proves the opposite by Karljohan · · Score: 1

    It could be used as a proof for intelligent design but it would be false since the "heaven" is still throwing the rocks at Earth. Hmmm... this would mean that God still doesn't think she succeeded to create intelligent life on Earth :-)

  36. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have the "Building Blocks" of the world's most complex and impressive Lego robot ever made. They're in a box in my attic. Wake me up when someone finds a living organism on an asteroid.

  37. Bootstrap theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to the approach taken by most scifi movie writers, the origin of life was: we sent a capsule of microbes back in time, which then evolved into life as we know it. And, of course, the capsule was transported in a Delorean, and driven by an intelligent ape.

    1. Re:Bootstrap theory by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      According to the approach taken by most scifi movie writers

      Most? One, possibly two or three (I don't know how many scriptwriters worked on the "flux capacitor" movie (I'm not even sure if I've ever bothered to watch it through ; any of the 3. Or was it 4?)

      , the origin of life was: we sent a capsule of microbes back in time, which then evolved into life as we know it. And, of course, the capsule was transported in a Delorean, and driven by an intelligent ape.

      Michael J.Fox is intelligent? Evidence, please.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  38. Daddy by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    Daddy? Is that you?

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  39. You can close all churches now. by luk3Z · · Score: 0

    You can close all churches now.

    --
    Recipes for USA bankrupt - http://tinypaste.com/0d66f dd = dollar deluge (printed in the infinity)