Comet collisions 'can spawn life'

[Timothy]

BUILDING blocks of life can spring into existence spontaneously when icy comets smash into planets, a study has shown.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/comet-collisions-can-spawn-life/story-e6frfkui-1226720463243#ixzz2f3Q63n9p

This gives a solid boost to the idea that there has to be life out there somewhere! I just hope to have proof of it in my lifetime (of any life - it doesn't have to be intelligent).

[taniwha]

That supports my theory that only life can spawn life.

[Timothy]

That supports my theory that only life can spawn life.

How does it support your theory?

[taniwha]

I think energy is life. Life is energy.

Edited September 16, 2013 by taniwha

[ChrLzs]

Horribly misleading title on that article. Jumping from amino acids to life is a HUGE leap. Amino acids have already been created from experiments here on terra firma, and it should be no surprise that when you smash a comet into a planet, that the same sort of conditions might occur.

My personal wild-a$$ed guess is simply that life is incredibly, almost vanishingly rare. That is backed up by the facts:

- no alien visits to date

- no signs (radio transmissions, probes, distant stellar light shows) of aliens anywhere to date

- no signs of life elsewhere in our solar system to date

- no scientist has managed to create life in a laboratory, despite knowing all the chemicals and most of the conditions that are likely required

Yes, there are billions and billions of stars out there in our local group of galaxies, but what if only one or two of them have any sort of life - how many of those will get intelligent/technological? How many of those will want to explore space? How many will overcome the enormous problems of distance? How many? NONE, so far. But I guess that's only after 13 billion years or so. Maybe tomorrow. I need to be more patient..

[taniwha]

How does it support your theory?

The concept of an Earth Mother being seeded or impregnated by a Sky Father is a traditional one, common amongst many cultures and as old as humanity.

The more the scientists poke the Earth and prod the Sky the more likely they will find that the secret of creation means the universe is spilling over with LIFE.

No stone should be left unturned nor any star overlooked in their Quest for LIFE for in time all will be revealed;

Stones and Stars like us are ALIVE.

[PersonFromPorlock]

Amusingly (if you're not a materialist), a successful, deliberate effort at producing life in the laboratory could only prove intelligent design.

[scowl]

BUILDING blocks of life can spring into existence spontaneously when icy comets smash into planets, a study has shown.

Read more: http://www.news.com....3#ixzz2f3Q63n9p

This gives a solid boost to the idea that there has to be life out there somewhere! I just hope to have proof of it in my lifetime (of any life - it doesn't have to be intelligent).

The "building blocks of life" are nothing more than raw ingredients. That's step one of a very very long list of steps.

Volcanoes can create the building blocks of houses but don't expect to find houses around them.

[Lysippos]

Makes sense.

Could this explain why the universe is filled with RNA?

[Lysippos]

- no scientist has managed to create life in a laboratory, despite knowing all the chemicals and most of the conditions that are likely required

Well that's not internally true.

Life have been created in a lab from a mix of chemicals. Dr Craig Venter created artificially life back in 2010.

[ChrLzs]

Well that's not internally true.

Oh yes it is.

Life have been created in a lab from a mix of chemicals. Dr Craig Venter created artificially life back in 2010.

I see your smiley, but I think it needs to be made clear that Venter's claim is again, a HUGE exaggeration. What he did (if his claims are verified properly and repeatable) is to generate a synthetic genome, which he then introduced to a living cell after it's own genome was removed - it wasn't 'new' life - all of the functional parts of the DNA were either parts or exact copies of actual DNA, glued together using a new technique, it was much more like cloning, if you want an analogy.. Also, the part in bold is important - this technique is awaiting replication - until his work is properly verified, it remains on the fringe.

Let's be clear on this, I don't doubt that life *can* generate spontaneously and maybe one day we will work out how it happened. But Venter's work, while seemingly impressive, is only a tiny part of what is required to create a living cell from scratch.

Just look at our own planet - as far as we can tell, all life here has come from the same original, single source. Given we have undersea volcanic vents, meteorites and comets running into us, etc, all giving lots of opportunities for a new type of life to spring forth... but in all those millenia - just ONE 'outbreak'.

[lost_shaman]

Now we dont dont know what came before the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) chrlz. The simplest forms of life as in self replicating molecules may have arisen multiple times early on even joining together until evolution ends up with something complex like LUCA.

[psyche101]

Now we dont dont know what came before the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) chrlz. The simplest forms of life as in self replicating molecules may have arisen multiple times early on even joining together until evolution ends up with something complex like LUCA.

Gidday Mate (Gidday Chrlz, this involves you too mate)

Just for my own clarification:

Chrlz is saying that it is synthetic life, well not even that, copying organic life with synthetic life (I assume Chrlz?) but what you are speaking of is a concept of proto life isn't it?

You are talking about separate issues aren't you? What the doctor did is not going to happen in nature is it?

[lost_shaman]

Hey psyche,

No chrlzs and others are suggesting life only arose once. My point is that we can only date the origins of life back to the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA). We know LUCA was highly complex, no-one knows what pre-dated LUCA. But it had to be simpler. It could have started many times over in simpler form which ends up leading to LUCA. So to say that life only started once and never again sounds very naive to me.

[psyche101]

Hey psyche,

No chrlzs and others are suggesting life only arose once. My point is that we can only date the origins of life back to the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA). We know LUCA was highly complex, no-one knows what pre-dated LUCA. But it had to be simpler. It could have started many times over in simpler form which ends up leading to LUCA. So to say that life only started once and never again sounds very naive to me.

Only one source of life ever?

Crikey I misread that. Thanks mate.

I have to stick with your train of thought on this one mate. I think elements and processes are common enough across the universe, and it is so vast, that such an ideal of a one time event for life would restrict life horribly, and if that were the case, us being "it" seems quite reasonable, which also seems unlikely. A great many planets all creating fantastic environments for planets of rock and water? I suppose closer exoplanet investigation will clear that up, when we can determine something about atmospheres, but I honestly do feel that is an unlikely option.

[Lysippos]

Oh yes it is.

I see your smiley, but I think it needs to be made clear that Venter's claim is again, a HUGE exaggeration. What he did (if his claims are verified properly and repeatable) is to generate a synthetic genome, which he then introduced to a living cell after it's own genome was removed - it wasn't 'new' life - all of the functional parts of the DNA were either parts or exact copies of actual DNA, glued together using a new technique, it was much more like cloning, if you want an analogy.. Also, the part in bold is important - this technique is awaiting replication - until his work is properly verified, it remains on the fringe.

Let's be clear on this, I don't doubt that life *can* generate spontaneously and maybe one day we will work out how it happened. But Venter's work, while seemingly impressive, is only a tiny part of what is required to create a living cell from scratch.

Just look at our own planet - as far as we can tell, all life here has come from the same original, single source. Given we have undersea volcanic vents, meteorites and comets running into us, etc, all giving lots of opportunities for a new type of life to spring forth... but in all those millenia - just ONE 'outbreak'.

As far as I know or can find, no one has made a rebuttal to Dr Venter's experiment. When you do an experiment and published it, if other people are suspicious or don't believe your findings, they do a rebuttal and try to replicate his experiment. You don't need other people to do your experiment, before its accepted in the scientific community. So far I have not come across of any kind of rebuttal. Please let me know if you know or have found something else.

As far as I gather after reading his study he has made a bacteria from scratch, from a mixture of chemicals. As far as I know bacteria is also considered as a life form. Its correct he then incorporated it into a cell which started to "clone" itself as you mentioned. However this is not what's ground breaking. It was that he made a life form from scratch from a mixture of chemicals.

Until I see some rebuttals, I remain very sceptical of your post/opinion

Edited September 17, 2013 by Scepticus

[Lysippos]

As far as I gather after reading his study he has made a bacteria from scratch, from a mixture of chemicals. As far as I know a bacteria is also considered as a life form. Its correct he then incorporated it into a cell which started to "clone" itself as you mentioned. However this is not what's ground breaking. It was that he made a life form from scratch from a mixture of chemicals.

Sorry Chrizs, I might have been under influence of an "unknown" substance when I read his study.

Please ignore above statement as I now, sober, have read the study and found out you are indeed correct.

[Sundew]

Theories like this are interesting but impossible to prove.

"God does not play dice with the universe" - Albert Einstein, The Born-Einstein Letters 1916-55

[scowl]

Theories like this are interesting but impossible to prove.

Which is good. People can argue about them until the end of time.

[ancient astronaut]

Miniature "big bangs"?

[+DieChecker]

I think this could be another piece to the equation in calulating the odds of life. But whether we'll ever actually find alien life is probably exceedingly small. Even if humans build ships that take thousands of years to travel between the stars and we spread to every star in the Milky way, it is possible we'll never find other intellegent creatures we can communicate with, or even any life out there at all.

[Sweetpumper]

This should be in the science section. I don't think two comets colliding are going to produce a Reptillian or Grey.

[ChrLzs]

Hey psyche,

No chrlzs and others are suggesting life only arose once. My point is that we can only date the origins of life back to the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA). We know LUCA was highly complex, no-one knows what pre-dated LUCA. But it had to be simpler. It could have started many times over in simpler form which ends up leading to LUCA. So to say that life only started once and never again sounds very naive to me.

While I accept the sentiment, and agree it *seems* more unlikely than the alternative of lots of outbreaks, I don't think it is naive at all. And it begs the question - why did it only happen way back then? Why not since or now, or in a lab?

And given that life, by definition, means something that can replicate (and evolve and improve and adapt).. Occam's razor can (and should) be applied - one living cell capable of reproducing could have started it all quite 'easily' (even though its creation was probably the most complex 'coincidence' in the universe's history.

So, until we have some sort of compelling evidence of more than one outbreak - whether that be at different times, different regions, different planet, different galaxy.. - and given that we can't do it a lab (so far) the default position seems to me that life is rare. Unbelievably rare? Yup, why not? Lots of stuff (eg quantum entanglement, relativity, singularities, etc) are unbelievable or seem completely against common sense, but they exist.. Not everything comes back to what 'seems' right. Life as we know it is just one data point - until we have two or more, we can say nothing about how rare or common it is, and when you add the fact that life *spreads*, then it makes the whole question unanswerable.

Which is why we NEED proof of aliens!! - to answer that dam question..

Edited September 17, 2013 by Chrlzs

[Timothy]

This should be in the science section. I don't think two comets colliding are going to produce a Reptillian or Grey.

Thinking about ET life as Reptilians or Greys is your main issue here.

Single-celled organisms count too.

[psyche101]

While I accept the sentiment, and agree it *seems* more unlikely than the alternative of lots of outbreaks, I don't think it is naive at all. And it begs the question - why did it only happen way back then? Why not since or now, or in a lab?

And given that life, by definition, means something that can replicate (and evolve and improve and adapt).. Occam's razor can (and should) be applied - one living cell capable of reproducing could have started it all quite 'easily' (even though its creation was probably the most complex 'coincidence' in the universe's history.

So, until we have some sort of compelling evidence of more than one outbreak - whether that be at different times, different regions, different planet, different galaxy.. - and given that we can't do it a lab (so far) the default position seems to me that life is rare. Unbelievably rare? Yup, why not? Lots of stuff (eg quantum entanglement, relativity, singularities, etc) are unbelievable or seem completely against common sense, but they exist.. Not everything comes back to what 'seems' right. Life as we know it is just one data point - until we have two or more, we can say nothing about how rare or common it is, and when you add the fact that life *spreads*, then it makes the whole question unanswerable.

Which is why we NEED proof of aliens!! - to answer that dam question..

Would that not render places like the entire Sombrero Galaxy as barren though, and surely the other side of the universe?

Historically, we seem to tend to run with a single origin model, such as the rise of man, or Heliocentrism. It always turns out to be wrong, we tend to start with the ideal of a relay, which tends to rationalise as a malay. I really think the standard model of multiple points seems far more likely than a single origin.

Atmospheric evaluations will hopefully help us out there in the "hopefully near" future, as detection of gases in the atmosphere may allow us to realise if life exist on other planets. Be nice if they got something happening with Europa like they keep promising.