A new study at Lawrence Livermore Laboratories in the USA provides support for the 'panspermia' theory
The ancient conditions on Earth were not so pleasant for the development of life on it. In fact, new research suggests that life on Earth came from outside our world.
Scientist Nir Goldman from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the University of Ontario found that glacial comets that crashed into the Earth millions of years ago created the organic compounds that are used as the building blocks of life as we know it today, including the building blocks of proteins and DNA-type nucleic acids. A and RNA.
Comets store within them a variety of simple substances, such as water, ammonia, methanol and carbon dioxide, and their impact on the surface of planets can produce a large supply of energy to initiate chemical reactions. "The amount of organic matter that entered the Earth via comets and asteroids during periods of heavy "bombardment" was close to 10 trillion kilograms per year, a mass of organic matter that is much greater than it was before this era," explains Goldman.
Goldman's previous work relies on computer models, which in the past could simulate impact events lasting only 30-10 picoseconds. However, new simulations, developed with the help of supercomputers located at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, were able to provide more efficient computer models capable of simulating impact events lasting up to hundreds of picoseconds - a time period closer to chemical equilibrium. "As a result of these updated models, we were now able to anticipate a wider range of hydrocarbon chemical products which, as a result of the impact, could create organic matter that eventually evolved into the building blocks of life on Earth," explains Goldman.
Comets range in size from one kilometer to 60 kilometers. The comets that penetrate through the Earth's atmosphere are heated in their outer shell, but remain cold in their core. With the impact on the surface of the planet, a shock wave was created due to the sudden compression. These shock waves may cause sudden and significant changes in pressure and temperature, a result that can affect chemical reactions that occur within the comet itself before it reacts with the external environment on the star and to create thermodynamic conditions suitable for organic synthesis. These processes can contribute to significant concentrations of organic matter transported to the Earth.
The team found that pressures and temperatures resulting from moderate shock waves (360,000 atmospheres and 2500 degrees Celsius) within carbon dioxide-enriched glacial mixtures produced several nitrogen-containing ring compounds, which decompose during their expansion and cooling to form functional aromatic hydrocarbons. The researchers believe that these hydrocarbons could have been the starting materials for the DNA and RNA acids. In contrast, more powerful shock waves (600-480 thousand atmospheres and 3500-4500 degrees Celsius) resulted in the formation of methane and formaldehyde, and also in the formation of carbon molecules with long chains. It is known that these compounds can be used as starting materials to create amino acids and more complex organic compounds. All the simulations of the shock waves under these conditions resulted in the creation of significant amounts of simple and new materials with carbon-nitrogen bonds, which are starting materials for the building blocks of living things.
"Impacts by comets can lead to the synthesis of starting materials that make up living things, and this without the need for additional "special" conditions such as the presence of a catalyst, ultraviolet radiation or other special conditions that existed on the star," claims Goldman. "These data are essential for understanding the role of impact events in the creation of compounds that are building blocks for the creation of life both on the ancient Earth and on other planets, as well as for outlining future experiments in these fields." The research findings will be published in June in the scientific journal Journal of Physical Chemistry A.
The news about the study
62 תגובות
Yosef
Chemistry is not a random process.
my father
exactly!
Computing probability of a future event. The probability of an event that has already happened is 1
The chance of creating an rna molecule is too small to be reasonable during the life of the earth according to a considerable part of the researchers and a probabilistic calculation. The duration of my life here is about 2 billion and the life is less. The duration of the universe, on the other hand, is 13.5 billion. And what's more, its size multiplies the experiments by a factor of ten.
Therefore, it is possible that the first RNA molecules arrived through meteorites
Nati
Descartes' famous theorem led him to a lot of nonsense. We know of people who are not self-aware, and we know of people who are self-aware once in a while. "Self-awareness" does not exist only in humans. Animals are also self-aware. This is not a theory, this is an experimental fact. Beyond that, there seems to be continuity between Balta's level of awareness and Mahatma Gandhi's level of awareness. Therefore, there is no contradiction to evolution here. And by the way, evolution is not considered a theory today....
You write "no level of sophistication given to a computer should lead to self-awareness". According to the science we have - you are talking nonsense. You think a computer will never be self-aware. I think exactly like you - the difference between us and you have no idea why 🙂
I suggest you differentiate between your beliefs and reality. I'm not saying your beliefs are wrong. I'm saying that what we know about reality does not prove what you believe.
And suppose those complex molecules were formed - what would bind them together into amino acids, and what would bind those acids into 'life'?
So there is also a chance that those first bacteria came from outside, and therefore all life in the world.
It's strange that theories are treated as fact while theories change all the time to deal with new "problems". It shows that these theories can also turn out to be wrong and not fact.
One thing has not been explained, even if it is possible for organic life to be created and develop to a level of intelligence, what gives them self-awareness? The only thing that is truly proven is "I think means I exist". No level of sophistication given to a computer should lead to self-awareness. Even if we give it features that simulate self-awareness - and an outside observer will see that the computer has self-awareness - there is no physical reason according to the science we have that a computer would really have self-awareness.
At least I have self-awareness and therefore all the theories that have been accepted by the masses as "scientific facts" are as such theories.
Wild shit
Say, Ma'afan, from which finger do you suck your nonsense?
Delete your comment because your word is worth ass.
"Noooo don't do this to me...
Even as a ghost you have no life…”
Yeah sure.
Everyone sees that you have a life..
I'm not even going to ask my father to delete your comments. You are so pathetic that there is no point in even relating to you anymore.
Naaaa don't do this to me...
Even as a ghost you have no life…
Avi Blizovsky
Looks like this wild shit is out of his lair again, it would be good if you just delete his comment. Thanks.
It seems that my father b. Jupiter..
You are not a passer-by… you are permanently stuck without an invitation….
I understand that creatures like you find refuge and comfort in talkbacks on the internet... just so you know: it's because of people like me who decide to talk to you in a soft and gentle language... God forbid you get hurt...
In the real world, everyone knows very well what jerks like you who have nothing to say except to lash out at others, do. (and this: shut up).
Come on, get out of here, you scoundrel.
It will be a bit difficult for you because such things are against the terms of use of the site. Certainly in everything related to anonymous.
I'll keep going through here until you shut your filthy mouth.
Embryo flourishes
Are you still passing through here?
screwed.
Come on, get out of here, stupid chatterbox.
Poor your parents…
It's funny that you talk about Jure, the people who have to live around you are dangerous.
I drew the right conclusions. And they are:
You're just as fucked up as he is. And there is nothing surprising here. Fuckers like you think the same way..
I was not offended by your words. you can relax
I am not offended by someone whose opinion is not important to me.
I asked my father to delete your comment just because we correspond online. If you opened your jure in the real world (and not in the world where morons like you like to hide) you would be stoned.
In fact, you wouldn't open your mouth at all, because you know you're wrong.
I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only one who thinks you should put a mirror in front of your face, it's a shame you don't draw the right conclusions from it.
Just a moment ago you were very offended by what I wrote and asked my father to delete the message, so why do you allow yourself to speak in this way (and much worse) to other people? Are you the only one who has feelings? Speaking rudely, insulting and hurting other people seems okay to you?
I suggest you re-read your messages and try to think which person they portray.
And why do you keep passing through here?
Isn't it time for you to overlap already?
You're really under pressure, huh?
And what do jerks like you have to do with mirrors? Second time I hear a jerk like you mention a mirror.. Do you like to look at yourself in the mirror a lot that you become obsessed?
In general, you overly screwed up people have a very similar writing style. Even the same spelling mistakes you make.
Looks suspicious.
And in general, regarding the article itself, what do you have to say about the facts I write?
I wonder if your gentle soul has suddenly been hurt? Are you the only one allowed to talk to people like that?
"I personally prefer to be firm in front of jerks like you and put you in your natural and proper place and teach you about it. than chatting with creatures like you on the Internet'
It's interesting that you do think it's worthy of writing, you're the kind of person who sometimes has to put a mirror in front of their face otherwise they don't understand.
Bystander
I thought you were just passing through...
...and don't run to slander your mouth every time I write an objective comment.
(Avi B. If you delete the comment of a passer-by, you are also welcome to delete this comment of mine)
Avi Blizovsky
Would you please delete the last comment of "bystander"?
It's a shame that people like him drag the discussion to places they themselves wouldn't want to be.
This? Are you done showing your nastiness? Now will you finally shut up?
Passerby (are you sure you're not a regular here who litters often?)
Looks like you didn't read the article.
Apart from claiming ad hominem, you have nothing to say? Something about the topic?
So I will treat your words matter-of-factly:
If my speech is too harsh for gentle souls like you. You are welcome not to read them.
I personally prefer to be firm in front of jerks like you and put you in your natural and proper place and teach you about it. than chatting with creatures like you on the internet.
Say ghosts, and you have nothing to do but publicly display your rudeness? You've exhausted yourself, shut up already.
I thought you had more important things to do besides write nonsense….
Come on, get out of here, idiot.
You drive yourself 🙂
Come on, get out of here, stupid chatterbox. 🙂
Well, I don't have the energy anymore, I was just kidding if you didn't understand yet 🙂 But I have other things to do on Shabbat besides chatting with you here.
bye.
Pine
fact that:
They explained to you (respondent "guess") that you are wrong.
and the fact that:
Only morons who think like you disagree with facts.
These are the facts.
And you can continue to close your eyes to these facts if they dazzle your distorted mind.
You can keep convincing yourself of this…. Successfully
(I'm not going to have a 'discussion' with someone like you anymore.)
It's a fact that everyone here understood me, only you didn't.
Casper
Anyone who has read your comments above and entered the link I provided, knows that your last comment is indeed meaningless
ארי
We have already come to know that your comments have no meaning.
Pine
"R.H. Refai.m. You didn't understand me, when I said aliens I meant the first replicating molecules (the origin of life). It is impossible that they developed on Earth because otherwise why are they called "aliens"?"
And how do you expect me to understand that when you talk about replicating molecules you actually mean aliens!?
You are really screwed!
And I really apologize that I have to use that language. But that's the truth. And I never deviate from the truth.
And just to remind you, someone here emphatically wrote, 'Life began on a whim. period' guess who?
Casper
You probably didn't enter the link
R.H. Refai.M You didn't understand me, when I said aliens I meant the first replicating molecules (the origin of life) it is not possible that they developed on earth because otherwise why are they called "aliens"? It follows that even scientists agree on this matter (simple logic).
Pine
As usual you are wrong.
Not everyone is screwed. And I didn't say that everyone is screwed.
Only you and Eric are screwed.
not everyone.
They're nuts, only R.H. Refai.m knows what he's talking about.
And the link you brought only strengthens my words.
ארי
I checked.
I found you screwed up too.
Just like those who do not understand what they are talking about.
For those who call others screwed up, let them check themselves.
This is for Casper
https://www.hayadan.org.il/space-bacteria-210904/
Oren, it seems to me that you simply do not understand what he is saying.
According to the article (whether true or not) it was said that the basic materials fell from a comet (water, ammonia, etc.) but the organic compounds were created on Earth. And whether ready organic compounds landed or not it doesn't matter. There is no way that a living creature of any kind landed ready and then started the long and tedious process of evolution. The foundation stones and organic compounds landed and only then was the first creature on earth born.
Turkish bride
Pine
I'm sorry to inform you, but you: screwed!
I do not explain the existence of aliens. And I didn't try either.
And there is no serious scientist (as you try to present) who claims that "they (aliens) did not evolve on Earth".
So how do you explain the existence of aliens? Even scientists agree that they did not evolve on Earth.
Pine
You don't tell me I live in hell land because you know I'm right. (That's why it's not clear to me why you keep arguing).
Beyond that, no one here (except you) talked about replicating molecules. Neither do the scientists.
Actually,
The scientists say:
"Comets store within them a variety of simple substances, such as water, ammonia, methanol and carbon dioxide,"
Nothing special, of course.
But you can continue on your own. (My advice: you only work on yourself, certainly not on me or on someone who is studying)
R.H. Refai.M, no one talked about complex organisms such as mammals, fish or even small bacteria, obviously these are born only on Earth, no one claimed that a kangaroo evolved on a comet and suddenly fell to Earth.
We are talking about the initial replicating molecules from which life began, crossing the line between chemistry and biology. Unfortunately they no longer exist (just as the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees no longer exists) and therefore their origin is mostly subject to conjecture.
In which I will ask you this, what advantage does your idea have that the initial replicating molecules were created on Earth, over the other idea that they may have been created on a comet and dispersed on Earth?
Give a reasonable explanation, otherwise I can also say that you live in Hella Land.
(but I won't say that because I'm polite)
Can you name someone who wasn't born on Earth?
I'll make it easy for you: not someone - anything at all?
Pine Pine Pine
Maybe you were born on Earth.
But you live in hella land.
Again, how do you state so firmly that they did start on Earth? Either yes or no, you don't have enough data to know for sure, I'm not ruling out any possibility.
Pine
If you were less hasty, you would understand why you are wrong.
Let me pass the question to you: on what authority do you state that life did not begin on earth?
The scientists explained in this article (and I explained to people like you) that life began here. on earth.
So you think not. so you think The scientists who study the subject do not think like you.
Once again: life began on Earth.
How did it happen?
Read the article again (and also the article you brought in the link) and understand before you burst into an open door.
R. H. Refai.m. I did not understand how you state with such determination and with such confidence that life actually began on Earth? Were you there and saw it with your own eyes? Expert scientists who understand a little in the field claim that life (meaning the first replicating cells, or at least their basic elements) may have been created on comets and then dispersed in the Earth's atmosphere, do you think you understand more than that? What evidence is there for your claims?
Here is just one example in this direction:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/asa-researchers-make-first-discovery-of-lifes-building-block-in-comet-2008098
It seems to me that single-celled animals came already prepared to the earth. See the following article (it should be translated):
http://phys.org/news/2013-04-law-life-began-earth.html
"In my opinion, this theory sounds much more logical than a life that began on Earth," - and on which planet were you born?
Life started like that. point. How they started (evolved) on earth is the question of the questions. It is suggested that a comet collided with Kadhaa and the dispersal of its compounds and their combination with the compounds that were on Kadhaa formed a catalyst for chemical processes at the end of which you are writing nonsense here. 🙂 With respect. Please respond gently (:))
I saw a program a few years ago in which the idea of creating life with the help of comets was also raised, only there they talked about the fact that life was created on the comet itself, and then dispersed into the Earth's atmosphere every time it passed within the trail of such a comet, the theory was strengthened when a spacecraft that NASA sent passed through the trail of a comet and collected samples, they were found to contain organic compounds.
In my opinion, this theory sounds much more logical than life that started on Earth, it is likened to trying to create life in one single test tube (Earth) compared to trying to create life in tens of thousands of test tubes at the same time (the number of times the Earth has crossed the tracks of comets, just my wild guess)
ravine
You may not be familiar with the facts of life but you can't date a woman once and expect her to give birth all the time, can you?
And you can't target one woman and expect another to get over it, can you?
1. The effort invested in these ideas are just a waste as long as the chemical and evolutionary process that led to the creation of the first replicators is not known. No one expects RNA to suddenly appear from some collision simulation, because if it was like that then life would have been created more than once.
2. The title is that the source of life is not on Earth and in the article it is described that a collision creates chemical reactions and life actually originated on Earth.
3. It is quite logical to think that chemical reactions on the surface of the Earth that occur continuously over a billion years and under very dynamic conditions may with a high probability produce life more than some collision of some twenty-meter-sized comet lasting twenty-second.
ghosts,
How do you know not in another place too?
Only the number of stars itself leaves no room for doubt that in countless worlds a similar thing happened, and in part the seed succeeded.. and still, the numbers are so huge that the part that succeeded is infinite..
If KDA was no different from the other planets in its "youth", and if comets - the carriers of ice - are common throughout space (and not only in the vicinity of KDA) - why did the impact of a comet on this planet and not, for example, on Mars, create life?
On the other hand, if we liken it to the biological way - it's like 'the sperm that succeeded'. That is, the impact of some comet somewhere created life. This place happens to be here. Of course nothing unique. But here again the question arises: why were they not created elsewhere?