Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
NASA Space

Asteroid Pieces Brought to Earth May Offer a Clue to Life's Origin (msn.com) 26

In 2020 a NASA spacecraft visited the asteroid Bennu. In October it returned to earth with a sample. Monday scientists got their first data about it at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union — which is a truly big deal.

"Before Earth had biology, it had chemistry," writes the Washington Post. "How the one followed from the other — how a bunch of boring molecules transformed themselves into this special thing we call life — is arguably the greatest unknown in science." The mission's top scientist, Dante Lauretta... showed slides with a long list of intriguing molecules, including carbon-based organics, in the grains and pebbles retrieved from Bennu. They will shine light on the molecular building blocks of the solar system and "maybe — still early phase — maybe insights into the origin of life." This analysis has only just started. The team has not yet released a formal scientific paper. In his lecture, Lauretta cited one interesting triangular, light-colored stone, which he said contained something he'd never seen before in a meteorite. "It's a head-scratcher right now. What is this material?" he said.

In an interview after the lecture, Lauretta said almost 5 percent of the sample is carbon. "That is a very carbon-rich sample — the richest we have in all our extraterrestrial material. ... We're still unraveling the complex organic chemistry, but it looks promising to really understand: Did these carbon-rich asteroids deliver fundamental molecules that may have gone on to contribute to the origin of life...?"

This space dirt has astrobiological import, though. By looking at prebiotic chemistry on Bennu, scientists will have a better idea what they are looking at if and when they find suspicious molecules elsewhere in the solar system, such as on Mars, Jupiter's moon Europa or Saturn's moon Enceladus. "This is almost the perfect laboratory control from non-biological chemistry," Glavin said. "This better prepares us for our search for life on Mars, or Europa or Enceladus — places that might have had life at one point."

Space.com quotes Lauretta as saying "We definitely have hydrated, organic-rich remnants from the early solar system, which is exactly what we were hoping when we first conceived this mission almost 20 years ago."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Asteroid Pieces Brought to Earth May Offer a Clue to Life's Origin

Comments Filter:
  • by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Saturday December 16, 2023 @02:14PM (#64086071) Homepage Journal

    Going to nip this in the bud right now. The philosophical problem with the hypothesis of Panspermia is that it doesn't where life came from, it just moves the problem some place else. It's fair to wonder if life on Earth came from somewhere else, but then the question of where did life originate becomes untestable and unlikely to be answered.

    Now if there are compounds in asteroids that formed in conditions not available on Earth, and those compounds can be demonstrated as necessary for early life. Then things become very very interesting.

    • by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Saturday December 16, 2023 @03:19PM (#64086179) Homepage Journal

      Going to nip this in the bud right now. The philosophical problem with the hypothesis of Panspermia is that it doesn't where life came from, it just moves the problem some place else. It's fair to wonder if life on Earth came from somewhere else, but then the question of where did life originate becomes untestable and unlikely to be answered.

      Now if there are compounds in asteroids that formed in conditions not available on Earth, and those compounds can be demonstrated as necessary for early life. Then things become very very interesting.

      It increases the information space for the random evolution of life.

      One of the arguments against evolution (shown on a big set of posters by a religious sect at the local fair) tries to judge the likelihood of life originating on Earth over the past 4.5 billion years with a statistical argument. It attempts to measure the variablilty or information content of a cell, and all the variations of single cells in all living organisms, and the known mutation rate over time, and concludes that the chances of life evolving from scratch on Earth are astronomically unlikely.

      The panspermia argument allows life to evolve in other places. An example of this is that Earth frequently gets meteors from Mars (!) (There's a place in Antarctica where the ice fields tend to concentrate meteors in small places, and analyzing those meteors show that a bunch comr from Mars.)

      If simple biological processes can evolve on other planets and travel to Earth, that would allow for a) astronomically more places for life to evolve, and b) about twice as long to evolve.

      And of course, it's a non-falsifiable hypothesis, which is the best kind of hypothesis to use against religious logic. (See: hypothesis of the creator.)

      (I have to say, it seems that the DNA structure with the various RNAs and protein synthesis, the unwrapping of the strands from chromatin for reading, the error detection and correction mechanisms, and the various clockwork mechanism compounds that step over each other while working seems like an awful lot of complexity to have evolved from scratch. Has biology identified a reasonable evolutionary path that would result in DNA?)

    • You were far too optimistic regarding the comment quality when you tried to derail a conversation that would have involved being somewhat on topic and involve discussion of science.

      • Your child-like optimism  in post-mod science is amusing. And derailing scientism is a long  overdue task worth doing.  You should believe Newton not Bohr. Believe Lorentz not Einstein. If you believe anything. 
        • We don't have to "believe" any of those. Einstein's ideas are accepted because they are able to make predictions that are confirmed by observation and experiment.

    • If you insist on an answer then you insist on being wrong. What do you think --- reality is like a BASH-script  that has no choice , but to run ? Std. byteboi error .  Best admit that nothing worthwhile ( Scottsman ) is known and all known things are trivial. What is known isthat life developing on Earth is quite impossible. Follow that fact where-ever it leads.
    • Then things become very very interesting.

      Wake me when they land on Oumuamua #2 and find a glove cuff and a half-melted wrench.

      • Wake me when they land on Oumuamua #2

        By that, do you mean 2I/Borisov ? Sorry, but that "boat" has already sailed.

        Given the increasing sensitivity and cadence of astronomical surveys, and improving processing of point observations into orbits, and the timing of building space missions, the first interception is likely to be with about "20I/someone".

      • Oh, you mean like some kind of star-mangled spanner?

    • Going to nip this in the bud right now.

      Nice try. Unlikely to work, but props for getting the first kick direct to the bollocks of Panspermia.

      it just moves the problem some place else

      Some place else, and some conditions else, compared to the range of plausible conditions on early Earth, where our version of life originated. While we can, reasonably, argue about the likely conditions on Earth around 3800 Myr ago, when life was originating, if we postulate it happening on some other planet somewhere else in th

    • The philosophical problem with the hypothesis of Panspermia is that it doesn't where life came from, it just moves the problem some place else. It's fair to wonder if life on Earth came from somewhere else, but then the question of where did life originate becomes untestable and unlikely to be answered.

      Why is that a problem at all?

      • The argument goes likes this:

        Q: How did life on Earth start?
        A: It came from outer-space.

        Q: Where in space, what kind of environment, what were the initial conditions?
        A: LOL! We don't know, and we can't know!

        So instead of answering a question, the hypothesis jumps to the conclusion that the question isn't valid and that we can't answer anything about it.

        • Q: How did life on Earth start?
          A: It came from outer-space.

          You can answer the how without needing to answer the where. The where may not even be relevant -- this may have happened numerous times, and around the same time period. Basically like the first spoken language (there wasn't really a "first") or the first domesticated canines (again, there wasn't really a "first", and for the same reason.)

          Q: Where in space, what kind of environment, what were the initial conditions?
          A: LOL! We don't know, and we can't know!

          Same thing. You can answer the "what"s without answering the "where"s. There may have even been multiple variations in the conditions necessary in multiple places. We've f

          • No, it doesn't. At all. I'd take some advice from Kuato on this one.

            Great film, thanks for brightening my morning.

            As for your response, it wasn't necessary. I summed up the arguments of Panspemia as best I could in a humorous way. It is not meant to be a serious essay of the subject. A proper attack on the bunk theory would require many dry paragraphs and a lot more of my time and yours to defend. And I think we both have better things to do.

  • y looking at prebiotic chemistry on Bennu,

    They didn't have to travel all that distance to get that stuff....

  • by PPH ( 736903 ) on Saturday December 16, 2023 @03:09PM (#64086159)

    We were wrong. Under a powerful enough microscope, the letters were not ATGC. They are LEGO.

  • Molecules boring or otherwise can neverever transmogrify to ( this thing called ) life. Quite impossible --- Levinthals Paradox makes it clear. But, you do a convincing calculation with P&P& calculator. First do 20^200 = X. Then divide by microwave freq. 10^15. Then divide by # of sec in year. Veryveryveryvery LARGE! The number of years required to assemble a generic protein is many times the age of the universe. No Bosco is that lucky. Not lucky enough to get 20 either; life simpl
    • by gtall ( 79522 )

      Your argument is: see these big numbers I've pulled out of my ass? I cannot believe life started because of them, therefore G-d.

    • Well, at least the claim of "swill" in his (?) user name is reasonably accurate.
    • by Calydor ( 739835 )

      It's both fascinating and a little scary to see mental illness like this.

Experiments must be reproducible; they should all fail in the same way.

Working...