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.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “DailyDirt: Looking For Life In All The Wrong Places?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
6 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

“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.

samuel-12 says:

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!

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...