DailyDirt: Looking For Life In All The Wrong Places?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The chemistry of what we consider biology may be common throughout the universe, but that doesn't necessarily mean that life is also abundant on other worlds. Chemists have tried to re-create the conditions that might have resulted in current biochemistry, but zapping inanimate precursor chemicals hasn't (yet?) generated any kind of life (that wasn't based on an existing, known lifeform -- ie. Venter kinda cheated). Here are some astrochemists looking for clues that might help us understand the origins of life. If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 13th, 2013 @ 5:07pm

    Missed a link!

    http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/765/2/111/

    The hypothesis of an exogenous origin and delivery of biologically important molecules to early Earth presents an alternative route to their terrestrial in situ formation. Dipeptides like Gly-Gly detected in the Murchison meteorite are considered as key molecules in prebiotic chemistry because biofunctional dipeptides present the vital link in the evolutionary transition from prebiotic amino acids to early proteins.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 13th, 2013 @ 7:01pm

    Not going to happen

    Since we were created and not evolved they can shock all the primordial ooze they want and they will never create life.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    JustSomeGuy, Mar 14th, 2013 @ 12:04am

    Wow, just wow!

    Some bods managed to pick out two molecules at a distance of some 400 light years. They must have REALLY good eyesight.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2013 @ 6:03am

    "that doesn't necessarily mean that life is also abundant on other worlds"

    Of course not.

    "but zapping inanimate precursor chemicals hasn't (yet?) generated any kind of life (that wasn't based on an existing, known lifeform"

    So what's the point here? ... Surely it is not implied this is proof of life not existing elsewhere, because that would be silly.

    As most people realize, it is difficult to prove a negative. Makes one wonder why it is such a popular pass time.

    It is highly unlikely that life does not exist elsewhere. It is interesting that many start with the premise that it does not rather than it does. I suppose it is due to them thinking they are special.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    samuel-12, Mar 14th, 2013 @ 12:59pm

    synthia

    Venter didn't cheat. He didn't even created Synthia.

    This Synthetic bacteria was developped by the DOD at fort Detrick back in 2002. It was discovered May 17 2002.

    the bacteria was ready for depolyment by 2003. They tested it and knew when to realease it!

    The BP oil spill disaster was no accident! Both BP and Craig venter Are scapegoat for what is about to hit us!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This