NASA Ames Reproduces the Building Blocks of Life In Laboratory 135
hypnosec writes "Scientists at NASA's Ames Research Center have reproduced non-biologically the three basic components of life found in both DNA and RNA — uracil, cytosine, and thymine. For their experiment scientists deposited an ice sample containing pyrimidine — a ring-shaped molecule made up of carbon and nitrogen — on a cold substrate in a chamber with space-like conditions such as very high vacuum, extremely low temperatures, and irradiated the sample with high-energy ultraviolet photons from a hydrogen lamp. Researchers discovered that such an arrangement produces these essential ingredients of life. "We have demonstrated for the first time that we can make uracil, cytosine, and thymine, all three components of RNA and DNA, non-biologically in a laboratory under conditions found in space," said Michel Nuevo, research scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California. "We are showing that these laboratory processes, which simulate conditions in outer space, can make several fundamental building blocks used by living organisms on Earth."
And still (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Err, its Wuuuush!?!
Liek reellly.... sum peeple ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So, you want them to stop with 1950's research and continue with 1960's research ?
Re: (Score:2)
So the statement, "Maybe an alien civilization is in it's dark ages," would be, "Maybe an alien civilization is in it is dark ages," which is incorrect.
Get it now.
Re: (Score:2)
And I thought this was a geek place .
Re: (Score:2)
Probably many considering that learning English would probably require making contact with Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Two children running into each other in the desert doesn't imply that adults don't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
200 light year radius? In 1815 there were still 59 years to go before the birth of Marconni! Even if the author confused radius with diameter that would be pushing it. I doubt many radio transmissions of the kind being used in 1915 made it into interstellar space.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
SETI found nothing .. Maybe an alien civilization is in it's dark ages .. couple of hundred years away from inventing the radio.
That is a very real possibility. Or maybe the aliens aren't civilized or even intelligent. Or maybe they're in one of the trillions upon trillions of places SETI hasn't had a chance to look yet. Or maybe they're using transmission frequencies SETI isn't checking, or the transmissions have been wave shifted out of SETI's range. Or perhaps SETI just didn't recognize the signals received.
The fact that SETI has found nothing tells us practically nothing about whether there is life out there. God may hav
Re: (Score:3)
Re: And still (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But is not a choice of the choices you were going to decide on, so you still haven't made that decision about which choice to choose.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, you could choose from phantom fears or some celestial voice...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True, we know that there is nowhere in the universe that His noodly appendages doesn't grace.
Re: (Score:1)
True, we know that there is nowhere in the universe that His noodly appendages doesn't grace.
Christianity is crazy sometimes. Jesus obviously turned water into wine, yet we have Southern Baptist churches that will swear on a stack of Bibles that drinking is a sin.
Re: (Score:2)
True, we know that there is nowhere in the universe that His noodly appendages doesn't grace.
And although being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, requires a human to find, judge, and act on his will. Guess noodly appendages can't wreak wrath anymore.
Obligatory (Score:1)
I hope nobody already posted this
http://xkcd.com/638/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If an exact clone of our civilization were in the very closest star system, SETI would not have been able to detect that either. Our radio signals aren't strong enough for us to detect beyond a light year, and are becoming even fainter as we get more efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
Not surprising that SETI found nothing. Typical simple radio/TV/radar signals are too weak and will get drowned out by background noise at distances greater than 1 lightyear. The only way we could detect transmissions from planets further away is when they would send a high powered radio signal directly in our direction. The chance that they would do this at exactly the same time as we were listening in their direction is virtually zero.
Modern modulation techniques make detection of radio transmissions eve
Re: (Score:2)
Well...yes...and also maybe it's so far away that, at the speed of light, its electromagnetic calling card hasn't reached us yet...or isn't strong enough...or we aren't looking at the right spot in the sky...the odds of our detecting a signal are incredibly long.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
FYI. It's = it (i/ha)s.
The spread (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. But isn't panspermia more about extremophiles surviving space rather than just the building blocks of life? Whatever the theory, it makes exploring comets and similar bodies even more interesting. I think this is first interesting space story for some time.
Re: (Score:1)
After hours (Score:1, Funny)
I reproduced the building blocks of life in a laboratory once, it was awesome but kind of messy and awkward afterwards for a while but we got over it and now we are "just friends" I regret nothing. Now is the time to fight for COMMUNISM, the only road to womens liberation.
Space (Score:2)
That is awesome. Scientist were trying to make those chemicals in conditions resembling primordial earth but it actually works in space. But...what how do you get the pyrimidine ? Can you make that in space from other more basic molecules and under what conditions?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Space (Score:4, Informative)
We have already found that Pyrimidine occurs naturally in space:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_meteorite
Re:Space (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think this is at all special. There have been tons of space-matter-abiogenesis experiments that have been done, with similar results. For example, it's been shown that Titan's atmosphere can produce at least 16 amino acids [sciencedirect.com] and all five nucleotide bases [google.is], and we've already detected organic molecules over 10000 daltons [ucl.ac.uk] there.
Nature likes to produce rather complex mixtures of organic chemicals without any help from life, nobody should doubt this any more, there's been way too much evidence that it happens. Nature is more than happy to continously rain down vast amounts of varied, complex organics given the right situation, providing both potential organic catalysts to develop into early life and "food" that they can scavenge. The question that needs to be answered next is, from a random diverse mix of organics, how does a hypercycle get started, wherein some chemicals / mixtures of chemicals / families of chemicals begin to encourage the creation of more chemicals "like" them, increasing the odds that there will be more produced of whatever is needed to keep the cycle going. Once you get to that point, you have the potential for evolution to take hold - first by a simple race to produce the most exact copies of the most efficiently-catalyzing chemicals and the poisoning of competing chemicals, up to the development of membranes to provide defense/hoarde resources/survive adverse situations/etc (the first "ur-cells").
Re: (Score:3)
None of this was common sense. None of this was known. It takes research to understand how this works.
News: Scientists Create Building Blocks of Life In (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, and the LHC is nothing like the conditions immediately after the Big Bang. What's your point?
Re: (Score:2)
And we shouldn't make plans for tomorrow, because how can we even know there will be a tomorrow? After all, today and all days prior are not at all "tomorrow-like".
Re: (Score:1)
If the nature of matter is to distribute itself so perfectly randomly that life can coexist, what better concept of God than a turn of events like that?
Matter distribution is not perfectly random. In fact, it tends to clump together into things we call 'planets' and 'stars' and shit.
Re: (Score:2)
JustHowHePlannedIt(tm)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And with God you mean Ananke, right. I mean... It's pretty clear this one's hers. The entire result conforms to her modus operandi.
This happened thousands of years before the Genesis. You need to read the bible more carefully.
Re: (Score:2)
For instance we look which common properties two species have, and we calculate when the last common ancestor of those species must have lived, and then we go out and check mineral deposits of the approbriate age to look if we find fossils that are close to what we expect as the common ancestor.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll just leave this here: Ring Species [wikipedia.org]
Failed (Score:2)
Change of owners... (Score:2)
Shouldn't it be called the Google Ames Research Center?
Uracil and thymine not found in both DNA and RNA. (Score:3, Insightful)
... the three basic components of life found in both DNA and RNA -- uracil, cytosine, and thymine.
The three components present in both DNA and RNA are cytosine, guanine and adenine. Uracil is only present in RNA, and thymine only in DNA.
Re: (Score:3)
What about guanine and adenine?
"the three basic components of life" is misleading, more like "three of the basic components of life"
The chief component is cytosine... cytosine and guanine. ...Our two chief components are cytosine and guanine...and adenine.... Our three components are cytosine, adenine and cuanine...and thymine.... Our four...no... amongst our components.... amongst our components...are such elements as cytosine, guanine.... I'll come in again.
Critical ingredient (Score:1)
Bonus points if you get the reference.
oops (Score:4, Insightful)
*pop*
there goes another gap...
Re: (Score:2)
then we agree: "God" is completely superfluous to any explanation of any event.
Re: (Score:2)
not at all, Truman's involvement is fact backed up by evidence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com], for example. go on, submit scripture as evidence...
conditions found in space (Score:2)
I find the interesting part is "conditions found in space".
Because then life would likely not have been seeded on a some planet as a rare event. Rather, because the components could be be scattered all over, and life could develop all over the place, some planets may even have been successfully seeded repeatedly.
And there may well be extremophiles on Mars that are completely unrelated to life on Earth, as might well be on/in other planets and moons in our solar system.
Re: (Score:2)
Judging from our sample size of one on what sort of conditions life can thrive in, and a couple datapoints on where it doesn't seem to, I think we haven't the foggiest of clues where we're actually likely to find life. There seems to be this presumption among many that "where we find liquid water we should find life, and where we don't find liquid water we shouldn't". I think that's totally logically indefensible. We have no bloody clue whether water-based life is a common or rare occurrence, nor whether no
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that, when the public hears "alien life", they think of intelligent creatures or, at the very least, something the size of a house cat running around the planet's surface. However, life on other planets could still be bacteria-sized. Even if it wasn't a big life form, finding single celled alien life would be a huge discovery.
Re: (Score:2)
Space "like" conditions BS (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
irradiated with high-energy ultraviolet photons
That's a part of "space-like conditions".
surrounded continuously by doting scientists and elaborate test apparatus
That part is to guarantee success and have a thorough measurement of the process. For the natural process, it is reasonable to assume that it took many hundreds of millions of years before some place (and maybe more than one, over those years) happened to have all those conditions in it at the same time. The point here is that all the things that they've done and all the input materials are the kind that occur naturally. From there it's all statistics.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There in no basis for assuming that these conditions would ever occur. It's not statistics, it's wishful thinking. But thanks for pointing out the reason abiogenesists demand an incalculable (and unreproducible) time span of billions of years for their theories to work.
There is a whole lot better chance that those conditions could occur than any/all of the contradicting creation myths of every religion occurred, and you just so happened to be born into the one that is the real one, rather than all the wrong ones.
Don't you have some school board somewhere to infiltrate and force science students to learn creationism?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's your stance on whether "any/all" of the historical mainline models of physics regarding... anything... happened?
Oh, that's right, that was an irrational word construction that couldn't happen for anything in any topic.
Welcome back from the Iowa Freedom Summit, Mrs. Palin.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't do useful mathematics on abiogenesis unless you have defined a sequence of events.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There in no basis for assuming that these conditions would ever occur.
You mean, except for the fact that we observe each of them occurring separately, and are not aware of any reason why having one occur would exclude the other? From those premises alone it follows that it is a statistic certainty that they will all occur at the same time eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody has observed high-energy ultraviolet photons naturally? Have you ever looked at the sun?
Re: (Score:2)
Where was it discredited? There has been much revision of our knowledge of the early atmosphere, but his principles were sound. If you hate science that trys to find the origin of life, go back to church and pray to your diety of choice to prove otherwise. But pleas quit spewing outright lies. Most likely that is a sin in your belief system anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The experiment was discredited by numerous researchers for (a) being a tautology and (b) excluding data that argued against its conclusions that spontaneous generation of life is indicated.
Ah, the argument from personal incredulity. Okay, here we go. I simply cannot believe you
See how that works?
Re: (Score:2)
claiming that the Empire State Building arose spontaneously from just such dust, complete with working elevators and tenant invoicing.
Ultimately, yes, early building blocks of life led to formation of the Empire State Building. Obviously, many billions of tiny intermediate steps were required. Which one of those tiny steps do you have problems with ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the logically equivalent Urey-Miller apparatus was discredited decades ago, so should this sideshow be.
Part of that was that some important chemicals were not created. The experiments were not the same.
Re: (Score:2)
surrounded continuously by doting scientists and elaborate test apparatus
And if they weren't, you'd be bitching about lack of control, and/or contamination. That's seriously weak, man.
Re: (Score:2)
Life can be defined empirically and that's a good enough of a description. The problem is people debating over what that definition should be. The problem with gravity is not describing it, but figuring out why it exists as it does. They're very different situations.
Most people agree on the basics of life - something that can self replicate and evolve - but it's the details that pose the thorny issues. For example, how particular is it about its environment? Viruses leave most of the work of their reproduct
Re: (Score:2)
Until we can define WHAT (precisely) "life" IS
Impossible. The division between life/lifeless is like the edge of a cloud. The closer you zoom in, the fuzzier it gets.
Re: (Score:2)
Until we can define WHAT (precisely) "life" IS
Impossible. The division between life/lifeless is like the edge of a cloud. The closer you zoom in, the fuzzier it gets.
And how! By the definition of life back when I was in grade school, we've already created life. But as time moved on, we've refined that to the point that I expect we'll never define anything as human created life. Certainly the religious fundamentalists will never accept it.
Re: (Score:2)
By what possible 20th (or 21st) century definition of "life" have we "already created life"?????
We have already made synthetic life, in that we have stitched together DNA and formed it into cells that never existed in nature It of course isn't taking life the whole way back into emergence from mud, but it is indeed something manmade, just not the earliest steps.
http://www.iflscience.com/chem... [iflscience.com] Not self replicating yet, but hard to imagine that isn't coming soon. It's very likely that given the time scales, life probably didn't look much like what we define as life for quite a while.
Genetic manipulations while possibly a wonderful innovation that might lead to better drugs, far fewer medical problems, etc in the future are still just manipulations of life that already exists.
And? That seem
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
3. Filling out
So... Tax forms really are inevitable?
Re: (Score:2)
Your analogy is pure lunacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Electricity is so simple hey? Those electrons what are they? The reason they have all the effects we call electricity is because they have "charge" and that "charge" creates an "electric field." So what exactly is "charge"? What is an "electric field" and how does "charge" create it?
If you want to get mystical about gravity, we really don't know that much about what electricity actually is deep down at the same level either. A bit higher up though, sure. Just like life: we have decent definitions of i
Re: (Score:2)