Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Building Blocks of DNA Confirmed In Meteorites

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the we-are-all-made-of-stars dept.

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."

14 of 145 comments (clear)

  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?

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

      Those are the kind best though materials of.

  2. 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 sunderland56 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    2. 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)

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

      Remnants of Alderaan?

      --
      No sig today...
    4. 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!
    5. 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).

    6. 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
    7. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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."
  5. we are stardust, we are golden by FudRucker · · Score: 2

    we are billion year old carbon...

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  6. 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