The conditions on the ancient Earth were not favorable for organic synthesis "at home". During the formation of the Earth, it was subjected to "heavy bombardments" from space by meteorites and comets that brought with them many organic compounds and even water
Scientists have provided further confirmation of the hypothesis that important components of the ancient genetic material, found in meteorite fragments, are of extraterrestrial origin. The findings confirm that some of the raw materials necessary to create the first DNA and RNA molecules may have come from the stars.
What is the origin of life? Where did we come from and how? According to the current theory of the origin of life, the first cells were first formed on Earth more than 3.5 billion years ago from various organic compounds. Those primitive cells contained, among other things, genetic information in the form of DNA and RNA molecules. But the creation of nucleotides - the building blocks of DNA - is not a trivial matter either. And so it turns out that we have to ask another question: How were the first nucleotides actually created?
The common knowledge today among many scientists is that organic compounds reached the earth in large part on meteorites and comets. These organic compounds include the fatty acids that make up the cell membrane, the amino acids that make up proteins and the nucleotides that are the building blocks of DNA.
The most important proof of this statement is the Murchison meteorite, parts of which fell in 1969 in the area of the Murchison village in Australia. Amino acids and a whole series of other organic substances were discovered in the meteorite, but to this day there is a fear that the meteorite was contaminated during its stay on Earth and therefore the data obtained from it is questionable.
In these days, a study by scientists from the United States and Europe was published, in which solid evidence was received that the origin of the organic molecules discovered in the meteorite is extraterrestrial. Among the substances tested are the molecules uracil and xanthine, from which the nucleotides that make up DNA and RNA are formed.
Dr. Iris Frey, a lecturer at the Technion on the philosophy and history of biology, and especially on the issue of the origin of life, explains to the scientist website that, "There are two relatively stable forms of the carbon atom: C13 and C12. C13 has an extra neutron and is therefore heavier. Living things that absorb carbon from the environment for their metabolism, absorb light molecules more easily than heavy ones. Therefore, if you analyze organic carbon of animal origin, you get a relatively larger amount of C12 than C13, compared to inorganic carbon from a nearby source."
The researchers tested the ratio of C12 to C13 in the molecules in the meteor and showed that the ratio is completely different from that found in uracil and xanthine from earthly sources. At the same time, the researchers analyzed soil samples near the meteorite and found that it was indeed contaminated with organic materials of earthly origin. The conclusion, in their opinion, is that at least some of the molecules in the meteorite are of extraterrestrial origin, and this is the reason for the different ratio of the carbons. Their claim, of course, is not that the origin of these molecules is found in living beings from space, but rather that they were created by chemical processes that occurred within the meteorite itself, during its long flight in space.
The results of the article constitute further reinforcement for the theory of the 'import' of organic materials from space, according to which the conditions on the ancient Earth were not favorable for organic synthesis "at home". During the formation of the Earth, it was subjected to "heavy bombardments" from space by meteorites and comets that brought with them many organic compounds and even water. Astronomers have discovered in the last decades that in the clouds of gas and dust in space from which solar systems are formed, there is an intensive creation of organic compounds. This is a real "cosmic organic laboratory". Against the "import thesis" a group of researchers claims that in certain sites on earth, for example on the bottom of the ocean, favorable conditions prevailed for the creation of local organic matter.
"In the laboratory, we do simulation experiments of all kinds of reactions that can occur on dust particles in space, under freezing conditions and with UV radiation that serves as an energy source. It turns out that complicated organic molecules could have formed on top of such dust particles." Doctor Frey explains and expands that, "such dust particles, which carry organic compounds, still reach the earth today."
The lead author of the study is Zeta Martins from the Leiden Institute of Chemistry in the Netherlands and Imperial College London. Oliver Botha from NASA, Marilyn L. Vogel of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, Mark Sefton, Daniel P. Galbin, Jonathan S. Watson from the Space and Planetary Science Research Institute in England, Jason P. Dworkin, Alan W. Schwartz from Redbaud University in the Netherlands and Pascal Harranfreund.
27 תגובות
Samuel:
You probably have no idea what science is.
Science is all theories - otherwise there is no point in it.
The fact that Newton discovered is a fact. The law of attraction he deduced from this is not a fact but a theory. All that is useful to us in Newton's work is this theory because otherwise - what would we do with the fact that once, in Newton's time, an apple fell near him?
You don't understand how dealing with the issue benefits our lives, but it's easy to see that it's just a private case of your misunderstanding. We have already seen that you do not understand what science is. Later you make it clear to us that you do not understand that the very existence of the Creator is a theory for which you have no confirmation and that all the findings point against its correctness. In addition, you come at the scientists with claims that they are formulating testable theories about the origin of life (claiming that it is not helpful) while you allow yourself to adopt and propose a substitute that has nothing to do with reality.
By the way - regarding the benefit - the research in the field of evolution gave birth to the genetics that gave birth to many drugs and methods of treating birth defects. This is in contrast to the approach that invented the Creator and contributed nothing.
Shmuel,
Every link between one fact and another requires the formation of a theory. Gravity is also a theory, in practice, and it is strictly scientific.
Beyond that, understanding our disability in researching a certain scientific field has never been an achievement. In ancient times, many claimed that we would never understand how diseases arise from the will of God - but when we came to that understanding it became clear that these are all bacteria that can be eliminated. A similar understanding occurred in all fields of science. The understanding of Newtonian mechanics meant that we do not need God to regulate the movement of the planets, for example .
I imagine that even when Newton understood how the planets move there were people who shouted at him that it was irrelevant to anything... and today we use information in all areas of life and physics, and even reach the same stars thanks to him.
And by the way, understanding the origin of life is very important in achieving a deeper understanding of evolution, of metabolism and of creating new life of our own (as is already starting to happen, and see articles in science).
Good Day,
Roy.
Theories are not science but only faith
Scientists are supposed to deal with facts and not with theories that have no experimental scientific basis!!!
All the stories and theories about the formation of life are actually figments of their imagination
of those dealing with the question. What's more, that I understand in what way the preoccupation with the question of how contributes to our lives...
Life is an existing fact. Investigating and understanding it is more relevant. We will never know how the Creator created our world so complex and precise.
The understanding of our limitations is the highest achievement a person can reach!
Shmuel Sebag:
Let me inform you that theory at all cannot disprove anything.
Only an experiment can disprove a theory.
I didn't bother to try to understand what the theories you claim contradict each other because as mentioned there is no such thing.
It may be that you are talking about theories that contradict each other, but I suggest that you specify exactly what you mean because, for example, it is clear that the disputants who argued here expressed opinions that contradict each other - otherwise they would not have argued - so it is difficult to understand what you mean.
Where did the above organic compounds come from and how were they created???
Anna, explain to me... science is about facts, isn't it???
It is a collection of theories, one of which disproves the previous one.
The answer to the question of how life was created, a picture in each and every one of us.
Scientists who deal with the question of how life was created, are actually dealing with a real bizboom!!!
Proof that Cthulhu was here before.
I think this is just the beginning. It is equally important to determine how primitive life began on Earth - that is, viruses and bacteria. Were these also seeded from space in the form of brought spores, or did these creatures originate on Earth.
As with any topic in biology, there are several options, the truth is finally somewhere in the middle. A little of this and a little of that. In this case too, life may have started on Earth, but the initial molecules came from space.
Hanan Sabat
http://WWW.EURA.ORG.IL
Retards!!!
They have invested so much money in it, when looking at any high school you will find many proofs (and some even have matriculation) that life originates in outer space!!!
I repeat my words from the fourth comment in this discussion.
The title is ambiguous, as is customary in press titles, but its interpretation according to the meaning obtained from reading the content remains true even if the content is not true.
What does the title mean overall (according to this interpretation)?
It does not say that life originated in space. It only says that the materials of which life is composed were created, to one degree or another, in space.
The scientists gave the confirmation for this a long time ago.
Interesting and very correct review. There is indeed no certainty that those building blocks from space are the ones that were used to build the first life. At the same time, according to the few proofs we have at the moment and considering the number of meteorites and celestial bodies that landed on Earth throughout the years of his life, it is reasonable to assume that at least some of the organic molecules from space were assembled into life on Earth.
Was life created exclusively from these molecules, or were similar molecules created on Earth itself? This is already a much more difficult question.
Undoubtedly, this is a significant, important and interesting study, but the title "now the scientists confirm - the origin of life from space" is exaggerated.
I recommend reading this review regarding the journalistic exaggeration in the reporting of the above study:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/06/14/are-we-aliens/
{mild cough}
Ami, Roy, Nimrod, Afri and what's new:
Full article on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_mars
Scientists claim that creating an atmosphere for Mars is possible - although the duration will be over 100 years
Tired of this Mars already. I migrate to Mercury, there is a narrow strip along the circumference of the planet where the temperatures are reasonable.
Ami,
I can't provide you with exact figures, but I've already talked to a friend about this possibility. According to what he claimed in my ears, calculations had already been made on the subject which showed that this could not be done because the atmospheric pressure of Mars could not hold the molecules that would be released on the surface of the planet.
Anyway, I suggest we wait and see what Phoenix has to tell us before we make plans for the microbes on Mars.
Ami Bachar,
You forgot that the atmospheric pressure on Mars is 0.01 that of Earth
In this state there is no water on the surface of Mars only ice or very little water vapor
Average temperature 63C –
and in addition strong ultraviolet radiation (there is no ozone in the atmosphere of Mars)
Therefore there is no possibility of reviving the planet Mars.
What about this discovery: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHU8G6icwsY
9:21 minute of Robert Ballard? I saw an episode in National Geographic on the topic of ocean exploration and there a scientist claimed that maybe the origin of life that Robert discovered is the origin of life. And more than that there is a statement of his that he says that life is much more original than we thought so it could be that after all a lot is possible. So in short, my question is, does this really rule out the possibilities of creating life on Earth (well, I agree that maybe some water that came from space was needed for this creation) I simply do not believe the generalization stated in the article that the origin of life is from space.
A nice direction in research, today when it is really not possible to know how the first life was created, there are many scientists who claim that it is impossible that these organisms survived the journey on the comets and other celestial bodies, but certainly a nice progress.
To Ami Bachar, "The most important proof of this statement is the Murchison meteorite, parts of which fell in 1969 in the area of the Murchison village in Australia. "
The test was not performed on remains from billions of years ago.
In connection with the finding that strengthens the theory of the origin of life from space. I hope that this is not just throwing the problem somewhere else, and that there is a real reason to believe that meteorites have much better conditions for the formation of organic substances than in the Earth's atmosphere.
In connection with changing the composition of the air on Mars so that it contains 20 percent oxygen. If we manage to create such a vehicle and manage to live in it, it means that we will have to get used to living with a feeling of suffocation. It is known that it is the brain that creates the feeling of suffocation according to the amount of carbon dioxide in the blood. And it will be because the terrestrial air only has about a percentage of carbon dioxide and the air you planned on Mars will be 79% carbon dioxide.
to my people
We need to change the composition of the air there to the air just like it is here on Earth, because we have no idea what the consequences could be of simply having a lot of oxygen..
Hope you understand
I have a reflection that I would like to share and would love to receive comments on it:
Life on Mars, as it is today, will not be easy or simple for human settlement. There is no oxygen and there are quite a few other problems due to the difference between our planets.
What do the members think about the idea of seeding oxygen-producing bacteria from an earthly source on Mars? In practice it shouldn't be complicated. Take some soil samples or even some genetically modified bacteria to create increased oxygen and sow in the soil and in the red water sources. Since there are no predators for these bacteria (suppose there are no predators, we do not know this completely yet) the exponential growth in the area, which is practically unlimited in the first years, can begin to produce oxygen in large quantities.
Of course, if there is an existing living environment there, then the idea is bad because it completely destroys a unique, strange and interesting ecosystem that probably has no equal on Earth, and its destruction would be a scientific disaster - after all, Mars is accessible, unlike its counterparts in the universe that are a little too far away from us.
Suppose we prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no life on Mars. Is it then possible/proper/moral/logical to sow life on this planet?
Greetings friends,
Ami Bachar
Come on, Betar, come on
I would like to remind everyone that we have always known that all the matter on Earth came from space.
Therefore, the question is only how much he did to direct the creation of life on this heavenly body and how much he did on other heavenly bodies.
It's interesting, of course, but on a philosophical level it doesn't change anything
Nice boost!
Nice to see this progress.
The option of life from space is being strengthened. This is far from being unequivocal or certain proof and certainly not "confirmation" of anything. I suppose, personally, that it is certainly possible that the first life developed here as a result of the seeding of matter from outer space, but it is also quite possible that all this life was lost when the world formed a few hundred thousand years later and then there could be a re-creation of life.
The problem is that the only measurement we can make is the measurement now. It can be assumed that if it is within a certain layer and from such a source or with such a method then there is apparently a measurement of something 3.5 billion years old. Hmmm… maybe. And maybe not. The option, in any case, makes sense.
I would say beyond a reasonable doubt