Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Asteroids May Have Brought Sugar to Earth 65

Posted by timothy from the sugar-smacks dept.
CBNobi writes: "An article over at space.com reports of sugar-like substances contained in meteorite found on earth. This discovery may support the theory that life on earth was seeded from outer space."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Asteroids May Have Brought Sugar to Earth More

Asteroids May Have Brought Sugar to Earth

Comments Filter:
  • That would make a great commercial for Dunkin Doughnuts ... MMMMmmmmm fluffy little doughnuts ....
  • thank you, space, for the wonder that is rock candy. pure of sugar, pure of flavor, and only found in major theme parks.
  • So that means that life started from a crumb of sugar the fell from the cookie of the Gods. At last, a true SPOG!

  • um (Score:2, Funny)

    by nadie ( 536363 )
    >"This discovery may support the theory that
    >life on earth was seeded from outer space."

    Now all you need is a theory on where life in outer space was seeded from?

    • >The new study found a variety of polyols in two meteorites, both thought to have originated in the main asteroid belt between
      >Mars and Jupiter.

      I recall some theory about the origins of the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter saying that it might have been a planet once upon a time, and then got destroyed for whatever reason...

      ...time for sci-fi theories galore...

      this lends support to the Great Experiment Theory. Some higher being is experiementing with us...the previous experiment (planet betwen mars and jupiter) got too nosy for its own good so they had to destroy it, sort of like how penicillin is used to control bacteria reproduction. However, rather than start the whole thing over from scratch again, They just arranged for the essential elements of life to be transferred from the old experiment to the new one...Earth.

      i think there was a sci-fi short story about this in a mag i read years ago...

  • There seems to be a step missing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pubudu ( 67714 ) on Thursday December 20, 2001 @02:03AM (#2730788)
    I don't understand how the presence of sugars in asteroids suggests that meteors planted sugars on Earth. If sugars can be created through inorganic processes, where's the argument that such processes were not responsible for the sugars on Earth? If they cannot be so created, then sugars are not the seeds required for life, and so there is no reason to suspect that life was seeded by meteors. I don't find the discussion at the end of the article particularly helpful in this regard.
    • sarcasm
      Seems logical to me! Everybody knows that if you throw sugar on the ground, you'll grow sugar cane.
      /sarcasm
    • You're right. The basic molecules of life (including sugars) could have been created on earth. The problem is that we are currently unable to explain the process of how that would happen.

      It's then logical to think that maybe, we can't explain it because it didn't happen and instead these molecules came from space. Explaining how they are created in space is also a very important question in order to confirm this "extraterrestrial" origin of the components of life. But this process seems to exist since we find, for example, sugars in meteors

      There's a lot of open questions remaining, and a lot of fascinating subjects to research.
      • Hey, I like this idea! If we can't explain it we'll just move it elsewhere, then we don't have to explain it for now. So if my checking account comes up empty, aliens must have taken the money.

        To believe this, you still have to come up with an answer to where did it come from originally. I believe that it is much easier to believe in God than to believe that all this stuff just happened to occur in the right order.

        Also, since this "sugar-like substance" was found on "meteorites that are chips off old asteroid that fell to Earth", are we sure that the "sugar-like substance" didn't get on them here on earth?

        Why is it so much easier to believe this than to believe Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."? Is it impossible to believe that truth as we know it just simply started one day, because an omnipotent being declared it should begin?

        • To believe this, you still have to come up with an answer to where did it come from originally. I believe that it is much easier to believe in God...

          In which case, you still have to come up with an answer to where did god(ess)(es/s) come from originally?

          Invoking a creator deity has no explanatory power.


        • We know that polyols are present in the M and M meteorites, that they (by definition) came from space and we know that these sugars form an integral part of life as we know it. Is it so seemingly illogical to you to hypothesize that, since we cannot discern how these sugars came to be present here,they might have originated elsewhere? Your post is an a-typical appeal to ignorance coupled with a mis-application of Occam's razor(Do not multiply entities unnecesarily,or *newer application* the simplest answer is most often true.) Your argument seems to be,"Theory X is too complex for me to understand, and it is so easy to say 'God did it!Read Genesis.' that it MUST be the correct answer."
          The fallacy in this is that your deity concept is far more complex than even the most complicated of theories. Where did this God come from?What is this God's nature? etc. etc. Theories can be tested,and are based on objectively verifiable evidence.Religion is not. It is based solely on the subjective testimonies of religious persons. If said testimonies were accepted as the be-all end-all of explanations, we would be in a sorry state indeed, and not sitting in front of out computers in our air-conditioned homes.If we simply threw up our hands and said,'God did it.I think I'll give up my job in astrophysics and go have a lie down.' then there would be a great deal we would have never learned.
          Additionally,I would like to say that the assertions that theists make about what/when/where and why their respective deities did or did not do something is akin to blasphemy. I would think that an omniscient omnipowerful deity that was capable of concealing every shred of evidence of its very existance from the curious and driven minds of mankind collectively might be just a tad insulted when a mere human made claims of knowing anything it did.Just a thought.
          • I agree that God is complex. Why would an omnipotent being like God, who knows all, want to create man, a being that would cause him so much trouble? How could he have possibly sent his only son to earth to live as one of us and to be ridiculed and killed in such a cruel way? That is just a part of the complexity of God.

            What you are saying is exactly what I said about people that "can't believe in God". It seems to me that you are saying, "If I can't get it into simple terms that can be described in an earthly manner and I can duplicate, then it can't possibly be true". You seem to be stuck on "Where did God come from?" and I say that he didn't come from anywhere because he always was. God is a spirit according to John 4:24
            God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
            If you say that theories can be tested, how do you test that this "sugar-like substance" is where life came from? I have yet to see people just suddenly appear in this world, I haven't seen anything just suddenly appear in this world. I disagree with you on the sorry state part also. I am a computer programmer, and my family has participated in the space program in various ways for 3 generation (engineering, programming, model making, research, etc.). We in no way see that it conflicts with our religious beliefs. God saw fit to give me the understanding to program computers and I use that ability. If you decide not to use your abilities in "astrophysics and go have a lie down", remember 2 Thessalonians 3:10
            For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
            If you read every one of my posts concerning God, you will find that I back them up with scriptures. The Bible is the inspired word of God, written by men to whom God gave directions. It is recorded for our learning and training. God wants us to know of him, and he doesn't hide anything from us.

            Now I would like to answer your question they might have originated elsewhere? with another question. Is it impossible that they came from God? Maybe he has given you a clue that you are too blind to see. Just a thought.
            • To be clear,it is not my assertion that there is no supreme being responsible for the creation of life. It is, however, my assertion that attacking science because one's religious texts seem to contradict any given theory is counter-productive. To cease looking for the how's and what's and simply be content with the answers given us in the Bible, or the Bhagavad Gita, Qu'ran or any other such religious writings does not encourage the growth of the human sphere of knowledge. I have no issues with anyone's religious beliefs, but I DO take issue with those who would constrain learning and growth because it does not jive with those beliefs. If anyone wishes to attack a hypothesis or theory, then do so,but do so by pointing out flaws in said theory/hypothesis, and supporting your arguments with facts,not by simply invoking the name of your deity and then dismissing the theory/hypothesis as apocryphal and therefore unworthy of any further pursuit.
              It irks me that every time people learn something new about the nature of the universe, the beginnings of life, or the history of the Earth, someone has to say something like,"That's stupid. The answers are all in *insert name of holy book here*" This is a non-argument.
              In answer to the question of whether or not it is impossible that life was created by God: nothing is impossible though it may be highly unlikely. In the case of God,I do not dismiss the possibility of one, because I can no more prove that such a being does not exist than anyone can prove that one does.
              *sigh* I can't believe I chased a red herring this far.....
        • To believe this, you still have to come up with an answer to where did it come from originally. I believe that it is much easier to believe in God than to believe that all this stuff just happened to occur in the right order.

          I'd like to retract the confusion of my original post in order to answer this one. I reread the space.com article, and there do seem to be reasons that it would be easier for such molecules to have formed in space than on Earth. It seems that the primordial formation of our solar system would have been favorable to their production (in some discernable amount), and as all--or at least most--of the stuff in the solar system came from this primordial mixing of gases, it would be reasonable that some simple sugars would be found in asteroids. (Of course, such processes could also be the source of these sugars on Earth, it having formed from the same stuff; asteroid impact would still not be needed for seeding life.)

          This is easier to believe than the first chapter of Genesis because it is the product of our own reasoning. God may have created the heavens and the earth, but the jump from belief to knowledge requires that we know how He did so. The Bible does not tell us the processes that took place ("And there was light" isn't very helpful in this regard); it at most gives us the first cause and result ("And God said ..." and the above quote).

          Moreover, since God does not speak in the Bible of simple sugars, other planets or asteroids, or penguins, we must, if we are to remain believers, admit that God did not give us every detail. (Do we really need to know about polyhydroxylated compounds in order to be led to belief?) We should not, then, assume that the discovery of every detail that is not mentioned in the Bible is an attempt to contradict the Bible, and thus need not assert the Bilical account as an alternative.

          Of course, the order of creation is open to dispute, if God meant that early account to be a scientific explanation of our origins.

          • I see no confusion between your two posts. I agree that the Bible doesn't give all the steps, but we at some point must accept "And God said...". In Genesis 11:1-9, we read a story of people who wanted to build a tower to heaven. God came and confused their language and scattered them abroad. God gave them the ability to build, but they misused that ability. We can't confuse the knowledge, with a need to know. Knowledge and faith are not mutually exclusive, but knowledge is not required for faith.

            I do not believe that God gave us every detail. I also do not believe that I must be able to duplicate everything to be able to believe it. I can't see electrons flowing through my cable modem, but I believe that all of these postings came from people located somewhere in the world. I can't see any of you and might never see you, but I believe that you exist. I have never seen England, but I believe that it exists. I don't know the exact steps that God used to create the world, but I do know that according to Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. That tells me that everything was here by his plan and it was his breath that gave me life. That breath can't be explained in human terms any better than that, and therefore even if we learn everything else we can't duplicate the creation of life. Therefore we can never determine if our knowledge is accurate, because we can't duplicate the experiment.

            My contention is that our time would be better spent investigating things that we can duplicate and use, rather than investigating things that can't possibly be duplicated. Space exploration and investigation of our own planet are important as God has made us the custodians of the universe. How can we protect our world or the universe if we don't understand them?

            • I see no confusion between your two posts. I agree that the Bible doesn't give all the steps, but we at some point must accept "And God said...". In Genesis 11:1-9, we read a story of people who wanted to build a tower to heaven. God came and confused their language and scattered them abroad. God gave them the ability to build, but they misused that ability. We can't confuse the knowledge, with a need to know. Knowledge and faith are not mutually exclusive, but knowledge is not required for faith.

              The confusion mentioned in my first post was why we should think that sugars were created in space, requiring an extraterrestrial seed for their presence on Earth. I stepped back from that confusion in my second post, admitting that it may be more likely that they were created in space than on Earth after it had formed/been formed.

              Moreover, I must disagree that knowledge is not at all required for faith. Cf. Deut. 4:6, "...for it is your wisdom and your discernment...", discernment being the closest thing to reason, in our usage, in Hebrew (Binah). See also Prov. 2:1-5, 7:4, 9:6, and 9:10 (the word may be translated understanding).

              It does not appear, then, that God struck Babylon for its pursuit of scientific knowledge; God did not steal the secret of architecture from them (unless this is one of those omitted details--why would He omit such an important detail?). Their reasons were not a pursuit of knowledge, but to make a name for themselves (Gen. 11:4). (Incidently, when God ensures that they will not "understand the language of his neighbor" (Gen. 11:7), the word is literally listen, not understand or discern, as above.)

              And at the very least, even scriptural literalism requires that one know the scriptures and their pedigree. And how could we know the miracles described therein to be miracles without a knowledge of the Nature from which they deviate?

              • OK, I understand what you meant by confusion now. I must also say that I didn't write exactly what I meant when I stated that knowledge wasn't necessary for faith. You are correct that knowledge of the scriptures is necessary. In an earlier post I quoted 2 Timothy 2:15 "Study to show thou self approved ...". Obviously this will lead to knowledge because of the rest of that verse "... a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

                I will agree that God most likely did not take away the architectural ability of the people of Babel, but he made it impossible for them to work together to reach their goal. They wanted to reach unto heaven. My feeling is that the people of Babel were more interested in materialism and the worship of man than in the worship of God. This was the ultimate cause of their confusion and distribution.

                To move this into todays world, if the product of science is knowledge, then let's get the knowledge correct. We must be able to reproduce the things that we discover and they must be consistant before we declare them as a truth. Often times in the scientific world things are declared to be true before they have been fully tested. For example in times of old it was believed that the world was flat and that you could fall off the edge of the world. This was thought by many to be a truth for centuries, but it wasn't fully tested. The same goes for powered flight by man, space travel, etc. These truths are often changed as new knowledge is discovered.

                While this article doesn't declare a truth, it contributes to the materialism and worship of mankind. I am only saying that we should be careful how we apply knowledge. Just because these "sugar-like substances" came from space and are similar to sugars required for life as we know it, doesn't mean that life came from space. It could be a parallel occurence. It could be that this is a clue that God wants us to investigate, or it could be that this is our tower of babel, something to confuse us in scientific pursuit.

                • For example in times of old it was believed that the world was flat and that you could fall off the edge of the world. This was thought by many to be a truth for centuries, but it wasn't fully tested.

                  It's odd that you should choose this example, as it was based on authority rather than reason. In cases were men applied their reason to the matter, unfettered and unguided by authority, they have concluded that the Earth was round (look at the shadow it casts on the moon).

                  If God were so intent that we not explore science for its own sake but only for those things that are useful or readily apparent, wouldn't He have told us as much in a commandment or two, rather than in an easily interpretable story? Instead, he says, My son, eat thou honey, because it is good; And the honeycomb, which is sweet to thy taste: So shall the knowledge of wisdom be unto thy soul: When thou hast found it, then there shall be a reward, And thy expectation shall not be cut off. (Prov. 24:13-14). (knowledge is actually in the imperative, know that wisdom is such to your soul.) Which would suggest the pursuit of science for its own sake. And if science is commanded, how can He not also command whatever missteps are necessary for the advancement of science?

        • Sure, it's easy to believe Genesis 1:1. Similarly, it's easy to believe that all existence is an illusion (Buddhist), that all existence is part of a chain of never-ending self-destorying-and-recreating universes (Hindu), that we're all a simulation running in a computer somewhere and that our belief in free will is a computer-induced delusion, or any of a dozen other theories.

          But none of those theories are relevant to the question of the origin of life. Even if God or whatever specifically decreed each step on the transformation of inert matter into human beings, the scientific study of what happened at each stage is still relevant -- at the very least, as a method of studying the way in which God's mind works.

    • If a certain set of sugars and amino acids are found in space and delivered to our planet in its primordial state, then this implies that other planets capable of reaching the primordial state couls also have the same origin. This boosts the odds on SETI and would tie Earth-bound life closer to any other that could be found. (Apart from the force that is.)
  • ...sweet!
  • Could it be that somewhere, far, far away they're actually sugarcoating the asteroids as they send them to us? <grin>
  • obligatory Simpson's quote: "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power. Then you get the women..."



    Do these sugars only come in small quantities in space rocks, or might there be veins of sugar running through them? Could we create space probes that power themselves by feeding off this sugar? if you licked one of those space rocks, would it taste sweet?

  • It's not that kind of sugar - not what you put in your coffee to make it sweet! I believe they are talking about four different sugars that make up DNA and RNA. These four sugars are called nucleotide bases and have the names adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine. So, not quite as fun as rock candy. :)
    • It's not that kind of sugar - not what you put in your coffee to make it sweet! I believe they are talking about four different sugars that make up DNA and RNA. These four sugars are called nucleotide bases and have the names adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine. So, not quite as fun as rock candy. :)

      Um, those are nucleic acids. They're definitely not sugars. All sugars (yes, ALL sugars) have the formula n(CH20). That means the composition is always an integer multiple of one carbon atom, two hydrogen atoms, and one oxygen atom. That's actually the definition of sugar (well, carbohydrate, anyway).

      All of the nucleic acids include amino groups, NH2. That makes this easy, since sugars NEVER include nitrogen. The only sugars involved in nucleotide bases are ribose and deoxyribose, both of which are five-carbon-atom sugars matching the formula above.

      I couldn't get to the article. I'm going to guess, however, that it was referencing simple carbohydrates, one- or two-carbon sugars.

  • ...on Mars [floridatoday.com]. Silicon is an important ingredient in the manufacturing of computers [washington.edu] and according to some experts it is possible to construct artificial life [alife.org] using computers. The inescapable conclusion is that this is evidence that life once inhabited the Martian [nasa.gov] surface.
  • Girls are made of sugar and spice and everything nice!

  • Nature (Score:2, Informative)

    by Schwamm ( 513960 )
    There are also a couple of articles over at Nature.

    Meteoritics: Life's sweet beginnings? [nature.com]

    and

    Carbonaceous meteorites as a source of sugar-related organic compounds for the early Earth [nature.com]
  • ...aaaaa-steroids.
  • I won't care about what they find in a meteor until they can prove that that is where the Egyptians actually came from. Until then, though, I'm much more interested in actual space missions. Those Ancient Egyptians... oh man.

  • One Question (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Simply because we know these processes can occur in space, does that mean that they necessarily did not occur on Earth independently?

    It seems the "life on Earth was seeded from space" is possible, but is meaningless speculation at this point since life on Earth could just as easily have originated here independently. What's intriguing about this is not that Earth needed Asteroids for life, but that bodies other than Earth are turning out to have more and more of the prerequisite ingredients.
  • Were the asteroids pink and did they have "Sweet'n'Low" written on the side?
  • Although Sir Fred Hoyle proposed *complete* organisms might have developed in space, this is a partial vindication of his ideas.
    He was sometimes ridiculed for some of his wilder ideas, which caused his more resonable ideas to be ignored; It is a pity he did not live a few additional months, to read this news.
  • Pardon me, can we borrow a cup . . .

    -

Slashdot Top Deals

I THINK THEY SHOULD CONTINUE the policy of not giving a Nobel Prize for paneling. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.

Close