Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Hydrocarbons found on Saturn moon


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1    Owlscrying

Owlscrying

  • Member
  • 13,909 posts
  • Joined:15 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Not Selected

  •    

Posted 09 July 2007 - 09:30 PM

July 9
Washington - The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has discovered evidence of hydrocarbons on Saturn's moon Hyperion.

NASA said the Cassini spacecraft revealed, for the first time, surface details of Saturn's moon Hyperion that include cup-like craters filled with hydrocarbons. That discovery suggests a more widespread presence in our solar system of basic chemicals necessary for life..

Cassini also identified water and carbon dioxide ices on the moon, as well as dark material that fits the spectral profile of hydrocarbons.

Of special interest is the presence on Hyperion of hydrocarbons -- combinations of carbon and hydrogen atoms that are found in comets, meteorites, and the dust in our galaxy," said a planetary scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center.

"These molecules, when embedded in ice and exposed to ultraviolet light, form new molecules of biological significance," he said. "This doesn't mean that we have found life, but it is a further indication that the basic chemistry needed for life is widespread in the universe."
go

           

#2    Bear's Quest

Bear's Quest

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,770 posts
  • Joined:04 Jul 2007
  • Location:So. Calif.

Posted 09 July 2007 - 09:37 PM

Maybe one the day the formula will be just right for life. A little bit of sun, a dash of comet, a sprig of hydrocarbons...
and Bam! Life


#3    Legatus Legionis

Legatus Legionis

    Bellcross

  • Member
  • 3,177 posts
  • Joined:24 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet Oros

  • Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of deeply felt needs and the assuagement of pain

Posted 15 July 2007 - 01:31 PM

Quote

Maybe one the day the formula will be just right for life. A little bit of sun, a dash of comet, a sprig of hydrocarbons...
and Bam! Life

haha. good one! hmm reminds me of a cartoon. anyway. pretty good article here owlscry

* edited for some typo's *

Edited by LiGhTyAgAmi, 15 July 2007 - 01:31 PM.


#4    Enigma wrapped in a puzzle

Enigma wrapped in a puzzle

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 709 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Everywhere and nowhere

Posted 16 July 2007 - 05:06 PM

Quote

Maybe one the day the formula will be just right for life. A little bit of sun, a dash of comet, a sprig of hydrocarbons...
and Bam! Life



Thats a good assumption, but life is already out there.  Its statistically impossible for us to be the only life in the universe.   Only the bible thumpers or the scared will tell you other wise.

Formerly known as Damon2000

#5    Rocket88

Rocket88

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 856 posts
  • Joined:13 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England

  • be bad enough to be interesting, be good enough to stay out of jail

Posted 16 July 2007 - 07:29 PM

Do ya think theyre drip-feeding info to the public, getting us ready for the BIG ONE ? ohmy.gif


#6    Fearisgood

Fearisgood

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 123 posts
  • Joined:02 Feb 2007

Posted 16 July 2007 - 07:48 PM

Quote

Thats a good assumption, but life is already out there.  Its statistically impossible for us to be the only life in the universe.

Assumptions... pff. Actually, statistics and probabilities don't really favour that assumption. You can have 10^5000 (how many do you think there are, an estimate) planets, even habitable ones, your still going to have to explain how complex polymers are going to form consecutively on a single planet. How out of the 10^5000 only 1 or 2 won the "life lottery" 1000 times in a row (You need more than 1 complex polymer/DNA/protein to form at the same time). How did proteins and DNA form simultaneously, because ultimately thats what you need, or you are going to have to demonstrate that less complex molecules are capable of what DNA and proteins can do, prebionts etc. You wont have enough planets to account for that probability, and you're going to have to explain chemical reactions that actually favour macromolecular polymer formation capable of self-replication.

Quote

Only the bible thumpers or the scared will tell you other wise.
Nah its only the dogmatic naturalists/atheists that will tell you it's statistically impossible for us to be the only life in the universe. It's actually statistically very possible we are the only ones. Depends on what you believe.


#7    Enigma wrapped in a puzzle

Enigma wrapped in a puzzle

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 709 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Everywhere and nowhere

Posted 16 July 2007 - 08:42 PM

Quote

Assumptions... pff. Actually, statistics and probabilities don't really favour that assumption. You can have 10^5000 (how many do you think there are, an estimate) planets, even habitable ones, your still going to have to explain how complex polymers are going to form consecutively on a single planet. How out of the 10^5000 only 1 or 2 won the "life lottery" 1000 times in a row (You need more than 1 complex polymer/DNA/protein to form at the same time). How did proteins and DNA form simultaneously, because ultimately thats what you need, or you are going to have to demonstrate that less complex molecules are capable of what DNA and proteins can do, prebionts etc. You wont have enough planets to account for that probability, and you're going to have to explain chemical reactions that actually favour macromolecular polymer formation capable of self-replication.

Nah its only the dogmatic naturalists/atheists that will tell you it's statistically impossible for us to be the only life in the universe. It's actually statistically very possible we are the only ones. Depends on what you believe.


So 300,000,000 possible planets and or moons is not enough for you to think life is out there?  Well Well aren't we the lucky ones 1 in 300,000,000 now thats a great lottery statistic.  Just because you paid attention in your science class about basic life formation and make up does not mean its so very very hard for it to come together.   I wish I knew who this quote was from but I will say it any way "life finds a way".

Are you baptist, morman, or what?



Formerly known as Damon2000

#8    Fearisgood

Fearisgood

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 123 posts
  • Joined:02 Feb 2007

Posted 17 July 2007 - 01:17 PM

Quote

So 300,000,000 possible planets and or moons is not enough for you to think life is out there?
Is that all? I think it must be more.

Quote

Well Well aren't we the lucky ones 1 in 300,000,000 now thats a great lottery statistic.
Are we the "lucky" ones or the engineered ones? Maybe luck and chance has nothing to do with origins. If it did, one would think that winning the lottery a 1000 times in a row is not impossible...

Quote

Just because you paid attention in your science class about basic life formation and make up does not mean its so very very hard for it to come together.
Did you pay attention in your science class? Actually the more we find the more we go "it must have been very very very hard for this to come together through pure chance".

Quote

I wish I knew who this quote was from but I will say it any way "life finds a way".
Off course, once you have life, it will find its way, i just don't think simple organisms will find their way to become nuclear physicists over eons of time. What n nice fairytale though.

Quote

Are you baptist, morman, or what?

Is this relevant?

Edited by Fearisgood, 17 July 2007 - 01:19 PM.


#9    Enigma wrapped in a puzzle

Enigma wrapped in a puzzle

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 709 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Everywhere and nowhere

Posted 17 July 2007 - 02:58 PM

Quote

Is that all? I think it must be more.

Are we the "lucky" ones or the engineered ones? Maybe luck and chance has nothing to do with origins. If it did, one would think that winning the lottery a 1000 times in a row is not impossible...

Did you pay attention in your science class? Actually the more we find the more we go "it must have been very very very hard for this to come together through pure chance".

Off course, once you have life, it will find its way, i just don't think simple organisms will find their way to become nuclear physicists over eons of time. What n nice fairytale though.
Is this relevant?



So is the fairy tale called the bible, that I am sure you are basing all your info on.   I know even you cannot think that if there is a GOD that he just created earth and then all these millions of other planets for no reason.  Space and the universe have a reason and it not a religious one....

Formerly known as Damon2000

#10    keithisco

keithisco

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,454 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southampton, Blighty!

Posted 17 July 2007 - 03:53 PM

Quote

Is that all? I think it must be more.

Are we the "lucky" ones or the engineered ones? Maybe luck and chance has nothing to do with origins. If it did, one would think that winning the lottery a 1000 times in a row is not impossible...

Did you pay attention in your science class? Actually the more we find the more we go "it must have been very very very hard for this to come together through pure chance".

Off course, once you have life, it will find its way, i just don't think simple organisms will find their way to become nuclear physicists over eons of time. What n nice fairytale though.
Is this relevant?

So you dont believe in evolution either?
Almost certainly life on Earth through recombination of differing molecular structures, ocurred thousands, if not millions of times when the earth was young. Most would have died off in the hostile environment that was our planet. Life probably arose countless times only to be extinguished. But... chemical reaction, And bonding nuclear pairs cannot stop "bonding". Simple chemistry. Hydrocarbons are a very good example of how early life could develop, and hydrocarbons are everywhere in this universe, just needs the right Petri dish and life will always emerge.

Your Math is totally skewed and totally pointless. Your attempt an creating an analogy with winning the lottery 1000 times in a row is also completely inane. tongue.gif

Edited by keithisco, 17 July 2007 - 03:53 PM.


#11    Fearisgood

Fearisgood

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 123 posts
  • Joined:02 Feb 2007

Posted 17 July 2007 - 05:08 PM

Quote

So is the fairy tale called the bible, that I am sure you are basing all your info on.

Where did i mention the Bible? Where did i bring in religion? Maybe its a good thing that you compare religious creation and religious naturalism.

Quote

I know even you cannot think that if there is a GOD that he just created earth and then all these millions of other planets for no reason.  Space and the universe have a reason and it not a religious one....
Philosophying is pointless to me, however feel free to join a non-biased philosophy class to see how these things are being discussed. Of course you are going to give me your philosophical reasons for the universe now...?

Quote

So you dont believe in evolution either?
"Molecules-to-horse"... bah no, what a nice fairytale.

Quote

Almost certainly life on Earth through recombination of differing molecular structures, ocurred thousands, if not millions of times when the earth was young.
Almost certainly? No science there, just faith and hope. You should start a religion. Differing molecular structures? Recombination? Instead of being vague, describe the possible reactions, the conditions under which it could happen, then show an experiment or a simulation that actually favours the formation of complex replicating polymers under natural conditions. The only thing that you are saying is that some"vague molecular miracle" must have given rise to life with nothing more than belief and faith, nothing concrete.

Quote

Most would have died off in the hostile environment that was our planet.
"Died off"? "hostile environment? Do molecules die off, or just form other reactions? What was the environment like? At least show reactions to favour this story.

QUOTE
Life probably arose countless times only to be extinguished.
Probably, maybe or maybe not. Unscientific unfalsifiable statement. Just pure speculation, faith and hope.

QUOTE
But... chemical reaction, And bonding nuclear pairs cannot stop "bonding". Simple chemistry.
Bonding and "simple chemistry happens all the time yes. Which observation makes you think simple chemistry and "bonding" favours the formation of complex polymers capable of replication without inference. DNA, RNA and proteins break down outside a cell. The "metabolome first" theory is enjoying the most interest at the moment only because the "protein world" and "RNA world" hypotheses are not conceptually feasible.

QUOTE
Hydrocarbons are a very good example of how early life could develop, and hydrocarbons are everywhere in this universe, just needs the right Petri dish and life will always emerge.
Hydrocarbons are everywhere yes. The type of hydrocarbons are more important than the volume. Any type of hydrocarbons that suits chemistry to form life? We cant even form life in a petri dish that simulate abbiotic conditions, and yet you believe life will emerge. Faith and hope is all you have. All you need is some naturalistic religion and you have a movement.

QUOTE
Your Math is totally skewed and totally pointless.
Read and tell me why it is pointless and skewed:
Remember naturally occurring self-replicating proteins just don't happen because.
1) Polymerization canīt be done in the presence of water.
2) Aminoacids canīt be built in the presence of oxygen.
3) Aminoacids canīt be built in the presence of an uncontrolled source of energy" because lightning, heat or UV destroys aminoacids faster than they are built.
4) No natural means for the formation of Cysteine

QUOTE
Cytochrome c consists of a sequence of about 110
amino acids and cytochrome c from over 100 organisms have been sequenced . Thus for
this protein we can have a fairly sophisticated estimate of exactly what would be needed
to make a functional molecule. At each of the 110 amino acid sites we can determine
what substitutions are allowed across the whole spectrum of sequenced proteins. For
example, at position 93, the amino acid present may be Phe, Met, Ile, or Leu. Each
variety of cytochrome c protein is fully functional, so we can say a functional protein can
result with any of four of the twenty amino acids at position 93. A similar calculation for
each amino acid position can give us a useful minimal probability of obtaining a
cytochrome c from random permutations of amino acids. Careful calculations by Hubert
Yockey (1992) demonstrate that with all amino acids present in equimolar amounts and
no competing molecules besides stereoisomers, a functional cytochrome c molecule
could be obtained in only 2 x 10^75 tries. If one accepts Sagan’s optimistic estimate for the
number of amino acids present in his primeval soup of 10^44 amino acids, and if we could
simultaneously add one new amino acid to each of 10^44 growing chains, once each
second, proceeding only until failure, only 10^23 years would be required to have a 95%
probability of obtaining a functional molecule of cytochrome c in this system. That's ten
trillion times the generally accepted age of the universe. As it turns out cytochrome c is a
very liberal molecule compared to, say, histone H3 protein which is so invariant that only
three of 125 amino acids are different between histone H3 of a pea and that of human. To
make a single correct histone protein in the same system would require nearly 10^60 years
at the 95% confidence level, if only alpha linkages were formed and only l-amino acids
were present and no competing non-proteinous amino acids were present and if we had a
system where such trials could be accomplished. Both of these stories are assuming that
we have such a system, and we have already seen that we have already seen that we do not. In short the synthesis of
protein or nucleic acid with information cannot happen.

Yockey, H. P. (1992). Information theory and molecular biology. Cambridge; New York;
Oakleigh: Cambridge University Press.


Now if not even a simple protein can polymerize, how simple are you willing to classify life?

QUOTE
Your attempt an creating an analogy with winning the lottery 1000 times in a row is also completely inane. tongue.gif


Yes it makes the origin of life look like a 50/50 chance.

Edited by Fearisgood, 17 July 2007 - 05:23 PM.


#12    keithisco

keithisco

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,454 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southampton, Blighty!

Posted 17 July 2007 - 06:44 PM

Quote

"Died off"? "hostile environment? Do molecules die off, or just form other reactions? What was the environment like? At least show reactions to favour this story.

  Bonding and "simple chemistry happens all the time yes. Which observation makes you think simple chemistry and "bonding" favours the formation of complex polymers capable of replication without inference. DNA, RNA and proteins break down outside a cell. The "metabolome first" theory is enjoying the most interest at the moment only because the "protein world" and "RNA world" hypotheses are not conceptually feasible.

Hydrocarbons are everywhere yes. The type of hydrocarbons are more important than the volume. Any type of hydrocarbons that suits chemistry to form life? We cant even form life in a petri dish that simulate abbiotic conditions, and yet you believe life will emerge. Faith and hope is all you have. All you need is some naturalistic religion and you have a movement.

Read and tell me why it is pointless and skewed:

So childish.... your maths is so out there.... you dont even understand statistics! You make up some outlandish figure which you then postulate to equate to human lifespan. So..... ignorant.
Are you seriously asking me what the environment was like 4 billion years ago? Haven't you learned any geology??
I think you are wasting peoples time here... people here tend to have a science background. i suspect you are still in high-school (I'm being generous by the way).
One more thing, life did arise in the petrie dish called Earth:lol:

Edited by keithisco, 17 July 2007 - 06:48 PM.


#13    Fearisgood

Fearisgood

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 123 posts
  • Joined:02 Feb 2007

Posted 17 July 2007 - 07:07 PM

Quote

So childish.... your maths is so out there.... you dont even understand statistics!
Ok if you want to resort to childish ad hominem attacks, instead of pointing out why you think the statistics is wrong, so be it.

Quote

You make up some outlandish figure which you then postulate to equate to human lifespan.So..... ignorant.
Can you point it out?

Quote

Are you seriously asking me what the environment was like 4 billion years ago? Haven't you learned any geology??
Was it a reducing or oxidizing atmosphere? Temperature? Gaseous concentrations? Do you know and have you learned some organic chemistry, biochemistry and geology? Show some of your knowledge then, instead of trying to make a few ad hominem attacks.

Quote

I think you are wasting peoples time here... people here tend to have a science background.
Then show yours, i've heard nothing but speculation, hope and faith. Absolutely no science. All you say is "probably", "would've", "almost certainly" etc with no scientific reasoning or back up. And then you say it [b]is[b] what happened.

Quote

i suspect you are still in high-school (I'm being generous by the way).
Does it matter how old anyone is in a discussion if you cant point out inconsistencies in their reasoning. Instead you focus on demeaning other people. It doesn't work in a discussion.

QUOTE
One more thing, life did arise in the petrie dish called Earth:lol:
If you believe so... so be it. Just dont say you have scientific knowledge to back it up. At least give a peer reviewed published article that points in the affirmative instead of saying "if", "maybe", "could've" etc

Edited by Fearisgood, 17 July 2007 - 07:16 PM.


#14    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 32,626 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 17 July 2007 - 07:16 PM

Firstly, this is getting way off topic. There are plenty of threads on the origin of life and evolution throughout the science and the spirituality forums. This is the Space and Astronomy section could we try and stick to that please.

Secondly this is thread is degenerating into a petty bickering match. I dislike closing threads but as the Rolling Stones said, "You can't always get what you want". So please let's stop the bickering and name calling.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 17 July 2007 - 07:16 PM.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#15    Enigma wrapped in a puzzle

Enigma wrapped in a puzzle

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 709 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Everywhere and nowhere

Posted 18 July 2007 - 10:17 PM

Quote

Ok if you want to resort to childish ad hominem attacks, instead of pointing out why you think the statistics is wrong, so be it.

Can you point it out?

Was it a reducing or oxidizing atmosphere? Temperature? Gaseous concentrations? Do you know and have you learned some organic chemistry, biochemistry and geology? Show some of your knowledge then, instead of trying to make a few ad hominem attacks.

Then show yours, i've heard nothing but speculation, hope and faith. Absolutely no science. All you say is "probably", "would've", "almost certainly" etc with no scientific reasoning or back up. And then you say it [b]is[b] what happened.
Does it matter how old anyone is in a discussion if you cant point out inconsistencies in their reasoning. Instead you focus on demeaning other people. It doesn't work in a discussion.

If you believe so... so be it. Just dont say you have scientific knowledge to back it up. At least give a peer reviewed published article that points in the affirmative instead of saying "if", "maybe", "could've" etc


You keep asking me why I bring up religion and this post again is the reason.  He says life started in a petri dish called earth, you say believe what you want.  Well there are only two ways earth formed and that would be by God or evolution.  You just said you did not believe in evolution, so would you like to quote some scripture for us now?

Formerly known as Damon2000




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users