NASA Identifies Carbon-rich Molecules In Meteors As The ‘Origin Of Life’

mercurial

mercurial

MyBB Legend
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
40,900
Reaction score
2,694
Location
/\/¯¯¯¯¯\/\
PAHs are the most common carbon-rich compound in the universe. They are found in everything from distant galaxies to charbroiled hamburgers and engine soot. When they are first formed, or found in space, their structures resemble pieces of chicken wire, fused six-sided rings. However, when found in meteorites, these aromatic rings are carrying extra hydrogen or oxygen.

Scientists at NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. performed laboratory experiments that explain the process by which these meteoritic hydrocarbons attract the extra hydrogen and oxygen. They are very similar to the molecules identified as evidence of alien microbes in an earlier Science paper (McKay et al 1996).

“Our findings are important because it is the first time anybody explained these carbon-rich molecules found in meteorites. They are similar to the molecules that make-up living things,” said Max Bernstein, a space scientist at NASA Ames.

As it happened, their findings were judged significant enough to be award-winning. Published in Science (1999) by Bernstein and fellow NASA Ames scientists Scott Sanford and Louis Allamandola, their paper won the 2008 H. Julian Allen Award at NASA Ames Research Center.

It takes a long time for scientific papers to win awards.

Using infrared spectroscopy, the Ames research team proved that the laboratory-produced hydrocarbons were the same hydrocarbons found in meteorites and observed through telescopes. Scientists observed the chemical reaction in a stainless steel chamber as it was happening. The laboratory sample reflected the same infrared colors as the hydrocarbons seen by astronomers using telescopes. Because the techniques used were the same, the results were directly comparable. “We were seeing the same molecules from telescopes as were reproduced in the laboratory,” said Sandford.

Once the molecular-size laboratory sample was retrieved, it was taken to Richard Zare’s laboratory at Stanford University, where researchers weighed the individual molecules. Findings showed that ices, modified by radiation, created new molecules.

These molecules, called quinones, received considerable attention by the astrobiology community because they are common to all life forms. They are potentially significant for the “origin of life” or the habitability of planets. How does a planet become habitable?

“Molecules from space helped to make the Earth the pleasant place that it is today,” said Allamandola, founder of the Ames Astrochemistry Laboratory.

“Our findings were new because we showed how these molecules formed. It was already known that these molecules were in meteorites and delivered to the planets,” said Bernstein.
Click to expand...

The article itself is quite massive, so I could only quote a very small part of it. You can read the entire article here .
 
I kinda think the panspermia concept has something to it. I wonder if this would support it.
 
Phronesis said:
Ah, panspermia. Thought this article might be interesting :).
Cosmological Evolution: Spatial Relativity and the Speed of Life
Click to expand...

It seems to me that a main claim of that paper is that for various reasons:

1 The rate of change in evolutionary history which, according to "available data", features long periods of modest change spiked by sudden periods of rapid development.
2. The presence and mechanism of horizontal gene transfer..
3. The potential for the introduction of information from outside earth makes Natural selection irrelevant; since it knocks down 'competition or survival of the fittest, the earth as a closed system, and ‘true’ gradual development'.

(Please note, I got the above data elsewhere)

Basically as I understand it.. that paper says Darwins natural selection is a no no, and making babies from space (with design) more likely?

Is this correct?

Taken from the guys own blog:http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2008/08/20/chaos_despaired.thtml

"The bottom line is that there are two and only two ways to view the world: chaotic or coherent. Darwin's theory, like Lucretius before him, and Epicurus before him, and Democritus before him, argues that the world is chaotic. The metaphysics of all these men is greatly inferior to that of Aristotle, or Augustine after him, or Aquinas after him, or Paley after him, because it explains less, and predicts poorly. (After all, how good a prediction can you make if the Universe is essentially chaotic?)"

Personally I think natural selection is most often pretty ordered.

I seriously cant take this author to seriously:

"But as Lucretius so compellingly reminds us, the god of Chaos is a jealous god, he will not permit any other flirtation on purpose. It is possible one might remain a materialist even in the face of such discoveries, to believe in Chaos no matter what the coincidence, but Darwin no longer shoulders his share of the burden, but merrily skips beside our plodding steps of stooped despair, whistling his tuneless hymns."

This is smelling like teleology. Is that you _again_ teo? I love all the really scientific nicknames you register with. Makes you sound all scientific and stuff. Mufassa! *does a shiver*. If its not teo, my apologies :P
 
Last edited:
w1z4rd said:
This is smelling like teleology. Is that you _again_ teo? I love all the really scientific nicknames you register with. Makes you sound all scientific and stuff. Mufassa! *does a shiver*. If its not teo, my apologies :P
Click to expand...

Lol. The guy is so obvious, it's laughable :p
 
Wizard,
Where did you get that the paper say "natural selection is a nono and making babies from space (with design) more likely"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X