Genetic Building Blocks Found In Meteorite

FiReaNGeL writes to tell us scientists have confirmed that the components of genetic material could have originated in a place other than Earth. A recently published report explains how uracil and xanthine, two basic biological compounds, were found within a meteorite that landed in Australia. From Imperial College London: "They tested the meteorite material to determine whether the molecules came from the solar system or were a result of contamination when the meteorite landed on Earth. The analysis shows that the nucleobases contain a heavy form of carbon which could only have been formed in space. Materials formed on Earth consist of a lighter variety of carbon."

Re:What does that mean?

[gwythaint]

I think they mean the carbon 13 to carbon 12 ratio is not "earth normal".

Re:Wow.

[Spy der Mann]

IANAB (I am not a biologist), but I think that when scientists talk about "life coming from space" they mean "complex carbon compounds that could, given the circumstances, combine into self-replicating structures that would, some time later, become living organisms". In other words, the secret ingredient needed for life to appear on Earth.

But thinking "ZOMG there were living cells in the meteorite!" is just crossing the line.

Re:What does that mean?

[Blue Shifted]

What are they talking about? Heavy carbon? Is that just a non-technical way of referring to an isotope? No, I didn't RTFA.

i know i sound like a jerk, but what else do you think they would be talking about?

Re:I'm interested in what excuse..

[MichaelSmith]

The X files wasn't a documentary.

Re:What does that mean?

[giorgist]

You don't mean skeptics here. They are the good guys and they should challenge the findings.

You mean fundamentalist nut jobs that ignore evidence and argue out of their nether regions

Re:In regards to your sig...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an American and I'm reasonably-sure that Jesus never existed.

Of course, I'm posting AC because I'm also reasonably-sure I will be modded-down for such belief.

Re:Wow.

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Organic material coming here on comets and meteorites is perfectly plausible. But life coming from outside the solar system seems to be quite unlikely.

There was some paper released last year showing that gene degradation when exposed to cosmic rays happens at an astonishing rate. When compared to how long it would take a piece of rock to travel from even the nearest star, it just looks to be implausible at best. Not only that, it would assume that the life would be able to survive the impact and either be compatible, or adapt from the rock/ice quickly to the earth.

Even if panspermia was a viable idea, it would only say something about where life arose. It doesn't answer the question of how life arose. But if it arose here, then it would be easier to find the how. If life arose elsewhere, then we wouldn't know

They mean psuedo-skeptics

[TapeCutter]

To many people the term 'skeptic' has come to mean someone who disagrees, logic and training don't come into it. However skepticisim is an integral part of science and every scientist worth their salt practices skepticisim on their OWN ideas before using it to attack the ideas of others. The term the GP was looking for is 'psuedo-skeptics', ie: a person who fails to be skeptical of what they themselves 'know' and does not entertain criticisim. The worst kind of 'skeptic' is a denier, ie: someone who is willfully ignorant.

Personally I am skeptical that any individual fits neatly into one category althogh I do agree fundamentalist nut jobs are an 'edge case'.

Carl Sagan's book [wikipedia.org] on the subject is a great read and can speak for itself...

"Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grand children's time ... when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstitions and darkness."

OTOH, a skeptic might argue that Sagan's forboding is, and always has been, the status-quo.

Obsession with outer space

[G3ckoG33k]

I find it really, really disturbing that people labeled "scientist" continue to have a go at the outer space theories. Out of all PhD:s in science I have met and the topic has been brought up I have never met anyone who believed in actual life coming from outer space, or that extraterrestrial material in fact would have been needed on a primordial Earth in order to create life. That a US president was blatantly fooled into promoting that childish Mars rock theory from a decade ago still hurts my mind. Think Occam's Razor. Dig where you stand. Don't overdo it, son.

Re:Wow.

[NMerriam]

In fact, I think it is highly likely that the building blocks formed here in isolation just due to the volume comparison problem.

Yeah, I tend to think that evidence like this of organic compounds in meteorites is looked at more as proof that they are formed (and distributed) routinely throughout the universe, rather than trying to say that this was the mechanism by which they arose on Earth. This has pretty serious implications for things like the Drake Equation, or at least the likelihood of planets with habitable climates having access to the materials necessary for life to come about.

Fermi Paradox

[itsdapead]

Even if panspermia was a viable idea, it would only say something about where life arose. It doesn't answer the question of how life arose.

Well, it would offer a solution to the Fermi Paradox, i.e. if even one civilization set out to colonize the galaxy they could do so in a surprisingly few millions of years - so where are they?

Answer: Aaahh-chooh!!! There's Waldo!

Unless someone finds an end-run around Relativity, interstellar travel is going to be slow, so the main motive behind colonization would be to spread your genome - and if you want self-replicating machines, why re-invent the wheel? (See Titan by Stephen Baxter).

Of course, the converse is that the Fermi Paradox arises from the false assumption that advanced civilizations would behave like "bacteria with spaceships" and "go exponential" (Greg Egan, Diaspora).

PS: its fun and stimulating to speculate about such things provided you don't get them confused with scientific truth. Hence I cite SF novels rather than papers in Nature!

Re:Obsession with outer space

[nfk]

If you dig where you stand, and you don't find anything, you have to dig elsewhere. As Sherlock Holmes said, "whenever all other possibilities have been ruled out, the improbable, however unlikely, must be the truth". I'm not saying this is the case with panspermia, but you have to keep an open mind. I, for one, find it disturbing that people labeled "scientist" do not believe in actual life coming from outer space (as far as I know, spores can whitstand pressures equivalent to meteor hits, and can survive space travel), and discard the possibility of extraterrestrial material being needed for life, without proving it.