backtop


Print 52 comment(s) - last by Myrandex.. on Jun 18 at 3:13 PM


Two dust particles from the Murchison meteorite which fell to Earth in Australia in 1969.  (Source: Argonne National Laboratory, Department of Energy)
New evidence suggests that basic life really may have come from the stars.

It has long been thought that the seeds for life came to a primordial Earth from solar system leftovers crashing into the planet. These meteorites, comets, or other unknowns may have contained vital components with which budding life on Earth either assimilated or used as a catalyst to create itself. Now, in a paper to be published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, European scientists claim they have evidence to prove the theory may be correct.

The group, based at Imperial College London, found some of the base building blocks for life, nucleobases, in dust from the Murchison meteorite which fell to Earth in 1969. Nucleobases, in this case uracil and xanthine, are the components that make up two of the most important parts of any Earth-bound life form, DNA and RNA.

In order to confirm that these molecules weren't from simple contamination, the researchers analyzed the individual atoms of the nucleobases. They found the carbon contained within was a heavier breed that what forms naturally on Earth. The molecules must have come from space.

Professor Mark Sephton, a co-author of the paper states “Because meteorites represent left over materials from the formation of the solar system, the key components for life -- including nucleobases -- could be widespread in the cosmos. As more and more of life’s raw materials are discovered in objects from space, the possibility of life springing forth wherever the right chemistry is present becomes more likely.”

While giving insights on how higher life may have formed on Earth, the finding may also bolster the theory that life may have once existed on a warmer, wetter Mars or a cooler, clearer Venus. NASA hopes to find evidence for such theories by analyzing the ice contained in the soil of the red wasteland that the Mars Phoenix Lander touched down on.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Ehhh
By BruceLeet on 6/16/2008 6:04:38 AM , Rating: 2
Oh hey I thought we already figured out that the ground we walk on isn't the center of the universe?

Isn't it kind of obvious where we're from? I'm not religious and I don't truly believe in any religion, so take that out of my thought process.

Given the age and the size of the universe as we currently understand it, are we the superior beings or the downfall of intelligent life. Some people must think "look at the things we created", but think deeper than that put your religious beliefs aside, are we digging ourselves into a hole without realizing it, will we humanity suffer by an asteroid? climate change? Is there only one Universe?

This kind of stuff makes me think, could be the wake'n'bake but yeah...it made me think




RE: Ehhh
By PlasmaBomb on 6/16/2008 6:23:38 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Isn't it kind of obvious where we're from?


Yes, it is blatantly obvious that in the future we play around with physics a bit too much and it goes horribly wrong, creating a time vortex which sends back some organic matter to the early earth.

This then creates life as we know it and results in the biggest paradox in the universe, and essentially means we are our own "God"...


RE: Ehhh
By Mitch101 on 6/16/2008 10:53:22 AM , Rating: 2
All we are is Dust in the Wind Dude!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EwaFkPMdlY


RE: Ehhh
By deeznuts on 6/16/2008 2:13:48 PM , Rating: 2
whew, I thought you were going to link to Dustin Nguyen!


RE: Ehhh
By GhandiInstinct on 6/16/2008 10:55:18 AM , Rating: 2
The environment on "early earth" could not sustain life as it was too violent and erradic.


RE: Ehhh
By ADDAvenger on 6/16/2008 11:01:37 AM , Rating: 2
Well apparantly not, seeing as we're here and all ;)


RE: Ehhh
By flutedude2005 on 6/16/2008 11:35:12 AM , Rating: 2
YOU'RE too violent and erratic!!!


RE: Ehhh
By overzealot on 6/16/2008 2:12:44 PM , Rating: 2
So's your face!


RE: Ehhh
By eetnoyer on 6/16/2008 6:30:53 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps you should change your name to Jack Handey?


RE: Ehhh
By BruceLeet on 6/16/2008 7:07:01 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps, but I never heard of him. I'll Yahoo him.


RE: Ehhh
By MBlueD on 6/16/2008 7:14:32 AM , Rating: 5
Wow! I thought people who Yahoo went extinct!


RE: Ehhh
By BruceLeet on 6/16/2008 7:15:33 AM , Rating: 2
I use Excite too!

They all link to the same stuff though so I dont know what the big deal is.


RE: Ehhh
By tastyratz on 6/16/2008 8:12:19 AM , Rating: 5
oh boy yahoo them.

Why don't you see if anything comes up on Hotbot or Lycos using your $29.95 Netscape Navigator? On the way check your CompuServe or Mindspring email and post on a 28.8 dial in bbs board with that shiny new external us robotics modem. This is of course all while listening to your Alanis Morriset cassette you found using AOL keywords.


RE: Ehhh
By BruceLeet on 6/16/2008 9:34:40 AM , Rating: 3
So definitive, you speak from experience?


RE: Ehhh
By BruceLeet on 6/16/2008 9:40:24 AM , Rating: 4
How do I findan Alanis Morrisette Cassette on AOL?

Isn't it Ironic, dont you think?


RE: Ehhh
By P4blo on 6/17/2008 9:31:53 AM , Rating: 4
Alanis Mirisette has no idea what the word 'ironic' means.

News flash: Rain on your wedding day, isn't ironic :)


RE: Ehhh
By P4blo on 6/17/2008 9:33:11 AM , Rating: 3
Alanis Morrisette even...


RE: Ehhh
By Sunday Ironfoot on 6/16/2008 8:26:50 AM , Rating: 2
I thought people Wikipedia'd things nowadays.


RE: Ehhh
By sporr on 6/16/2008 8:36:05 AM , Rating: 2
I use Google and Wikipedia, typically.


RE: Ehhh
By paydirt on 6/16/2008 9:58:58 AM , Rating: 2
Zzzzzhhh


RE: Ehhh
By Wolfpup on 6/16/08, Rating: -1
RE: Ehhh
By Sunrise089 on 6/16/2008 11:21:47 AM , Rating: 3
For hard science/technical date I challenge you to find a single important article with factual information that is incorrect and not a result of quickly-corrected vandalism.

For analysis I will look elsewhere, but for strait facts or information Wikipedia couldn't be less "ruined."


RE: Ehhh
By Flunk on 6/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: Ehhh
By Adonlude on 6/16/2008 4:35:41 PM , Rating: 3
Holy crap people, drifting a bit! Asteriods, universe, life on earth, get back in the game here!


RE: Ehhh
By Ringold on 6/16/2008 7:29:53 PM , Rating: 2
Newspapers have managed to be probably every bit as accurate as your typical Wikipedia article, but does anybody doubt that the New York Times is biased? What about the nightly news? CNN? Fox? They all have the ability to report the same 'hard facts' and spin it the way their bias dictates.

I don't have the ability to speak on other subject matter, but I've been annoyed with their economics related entries for years. They used to have more slanted language and representations, but many entries have become less biased. The trade off is that some have been over simplified in the process or made sufficiently vague as to not be very useful.

They also play the same game as the news channels; like presenting a widely accepted mainstream theory, and citing "criticisms" from crackpots.

Wikipedia is useful as a toy, a quick reference only because no other online source is quite so handy or friendly, but beyond that it is and always will be a slave to the aggregate ideologies of those who oversee it.


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

Related Articles
Mars Phoenix Lander Touches Down
May 26, 2008, 12:46 PM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki