It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA Discovers Life's Building Blocks Are Common In Space

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 07:09 PM
link   
NASA - October 11, 2005


www.nasa.gov...

After A team of NASA exobiology researchers revealed today organic chemicals that play a crucial role in the chemistry of life are common in space.

"Our work shows a class of compounds that is critical to biochemistry is prevalent throughout the universe," said Douglas Hudgins, an astronomer at NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. He is principal author of a study detailing the team's findings that appears in the Oct. 10 issue of the Astrophysical Journal.

"NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope has shown complex organic molecules called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are found in every nook and cranny of our galaxy. While this is important to astronomers, it has been of little interest to astrobiologists, scientists who search for life beyond Earth. Normal PAHs aren't really important to biology," Hudgins said. "However, our work shows the lion's share of the PAHs in space also carry nitrogen in their structures. That changes everything."

"Much of the chemistry of life, including DNA, requires organic molecules that contain nitrogen," said team member Louis Allamandola, an astrochemist at Ames. "Chlorophyll, the substance that enables photosynthesis in plants, is a good example of this class of compounds, called polycyclic aromatic nitrogen heterocycles, or PANHs. Ironically, PANHs are formed in abundance around dying stars. So even in death, the seeds of life are sewn," Allamandola said.


This is the type of discovery that is going to change the way we look at our Galaxy , the Universe and its potential to harbor life!


www.astrochem.org...

"Not only are nitrogen containing aromatic hydrocarbons the information carrying molecules in the DNA and RNA that make up all living matter as we know it, they are found in many biologically important species. For example, caffeine and the main ingredient in chocolate are among these kinds of molecule (Figure 2). Seeing their signature across the Universe tells us they are accessible to young, habitable planets just about everywhere."

< snip >

The most common scientific theory for the origin of life on Earth is that somewhere in the vast, but simple, chemical resources available on the early Earth, conditions favored the formation of more complex chemical compounds and chemical processes which eventually led to life. However, this theory was conceived at a time when it was thought space was barren of complex organics because interstellar radiation is too harsh, the distances too great, and violent shocks too frequent to support complex chemistry, let alone survival of large molecules and their transport to planetary surfaces. In sharp contrast to that picture, this new work shows that the early chemical steps believed to be important for the origin of life do not require a previously formed planet to occur. Instead, some of the chemicals are already present throughout space long before planet formation occurs and, if they land in a hospitable environment, can help jump-start the origin of life.




I imagine that this discovery will invigorate SETI , the ExoBiology Fields.

Not to mention that the ETH will get a huge boost in credibility from this discovery also.

[edit on 12-10-2005 by lost_shaman]




posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   
It's glad that they're finally admitting it, but....didn't a lot of people already suspect this?



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   
PAHs have been observed in space for a while, it looks like what they are noting is that they're so darned prevalent. I agree, its pretty nutty, complex carbon molecules will form in space, so you can imagine the kinds of stuff that can form on planets and the types of chemistries that are possible.

The resonance (via the hybridization of the carbon-carbon 'double' bonds) gives them whacky chemistry and reactions, so who knows whats going on out there.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
PAHs have been observed in space for a while, it looks like what they are noting is that they're so darned prevalent. I agree, its pretty nutty, complex carbon molecules will form in space, so you can imagine the kinds of stuff that can form on planets and the types of chemistries that are possible.


I think the discovery centers around PANHs that are key to biology.




While the PAH model appeared to satisfy many observations made through most of the 90's, the higher quality IR spectra that were beamed back to Earth from The Infrared Space Observatory, ISO, posed new challenges. In analyzing these spectra, Belgian astronomer Els Peeters found small but real mismatches with the Ames spectra. "We measured the complete infrared spectra of over 55 different astronomical objects, many which couldn't be detected before. We found that none of the spectra in the Ames database could reproduce the regular changes we saw that occurred between very old interstellar regions and very young astronomical objects known as planetary nebulae," said Peeters. "That difference showed something important was missing in the Ames dataset and that something told us about PAH evolution" explained Peeters.



"This was about the time we realized that chemically, a nitrogen atom could easily replace a carbon in a PAH's hexagonal skeleton" recalled Hudgins, "but we didn't have a clue as to how that might alter the PAH spectrum." This was also the time when experimental physical chemist and Oklahoman Andrew Mattioda joined the group. "Those were exciting days" Mattioda remembered, "the PAH spectra we had were being used as new tools to analyze regions thousands of light years away and, incredibly, new observations were giving us feedback on the structures of these distant molecules and conditions in the astronomical objects themselves. We geared up to measure the spectra of all the nitrogen containing PAHs (PANHs) we could find, but there weren't many and they are much smaller than those we believe are in space. There are probably hundreds of different PANHs in space and we only had six or seven of the smaller ones." Ultimately, Mattioda's experiments showed that the simple PANHs could not resolve the problem Peeters uncovered.



This was when the computational power came to the fore. Bauschlicher determined the spectra of a variety of species involving PAHs to understand the changes Peeters had found. "Because I can compute the spectra of PAHs much larger than anything that has been synthesized and also vary the placement of nitrogen within these large molecules, something impossible for the lab, we can now investigate a very large number of PAH varieties and sizes." Bauschlicher explained. "With this we have shown we can reproduce both the range in spectral shift Els measured and the relative intensities she found by incorporating N deep into the PAH skeleton" he explained further.



This discovery is profound at several levels. "First, this resolves part of a longstanding mystery about the distribution of nitrogen in space, second, PANHs have signatures in the optical and radio wavelengths that can account for unexplained astronomical phenomena and third, these compounds are of biogenic interest" summed Hudgins. "Most people will take notice of their possible role in the origin of life, the point in our history when chemistry became biology, but there are other serious implications as well" he continued.



Scientists have known about the prevalence of PAHs for awhile , but the discovery of the prevalence of PANHs is a huge discovery!

Something that 20 years ago was considered impossible.

PANHs are far more interesting chemically than PAHs , and they are essential in organic chemistry.

Meaning that this discovery will likely force us to view the Universe not as "Dead" and inorganic , but as "Alive" and Organic by nature. At least chemically.

[edit on 12-10-2005 by lost_shaman]



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   
I have a feeling that once we get out there more, we'll find that the universe is literally teeming with life, even in the vacuum of space. Not saying teeming with intelligent life, though that is highly likely, but I have little doubt we'll find organic microbes on most worlds and even plant-like creatures adapted to life in a vacuum. Can you imagine finding a kind of moss growing on an asteroid? I think we'll see it one of these days.

There were once places on Earth we thought could never support life. Deep ocean vents for example...could kill us in seconds, and yet a little crab goes scuttling by.... Life is an amazing entity....



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Not saying teeming with intelligent life, though that is highly likely, but I have little doubt we'll find organic microbes on most worlds and even plant-like creatures adapted to life in a vacuum. Can you imagine finding a kind of moss growing on an asteroid? I think we'll see it one of these days.


That's right Chlorophyll produced by dieing Stars , being spread across the Universe , that is an amazing thing to discover.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Dear Lost -- This is from your quote:


The most common scientific theory for the origin of life on Earth is that somewhere in the vast, but simple, chemical resources available on the early Earth, conditions favored the formation of more complex chemical compounds and chemical processes which eventually led to life .



There's just one problem here. It's been conclusively proved that dead matter does not produce life -- REGARDLESS of any "chemical processes." Life is not a chemical reaction. You do not take dead matter and put it in a test tube and shake it up and produce life. (Remember your earth science lessons in sixth grade about the supersitious and ignorant belief people used to have in so-called "spontaneous generation" or life spontaneously arising from dead matter? Remember the experiment that was done with the dead meat (organic material) and that when meat was placed in a vacuum where the flies could not land and lay their eggs there were no maggots produced.) Remember that?

You can take all the chlorine, chlorophyl or any other kind of chemicals, organic or otherwise, put them into a test tube, shake them up, shock them with electricity, heat them, cool them, whatever you do -- and they will not produce life. The only thing that will produce life is OTHER LIFE. This is a proven scientific fact that never deviates under any circumstances whatever.

The story of Frankenstein is a fairy tale. It is not real. It's just make believe.

Matter plus electricity does not equal life. Life comes from life. And like produces like. It's always this way. It never varies from this principle. Never.

There is only one source of life in this universe and that is God. Without God, we have NOTHING -- i.e. no matter and no life. Atoms are amazing things, very mysterious within themselves, a wonder, an amazing wonder. But they are not self-existant and they are not capable of thinking or planning or designing or inventing or producing life. The atoms themselves are a creation; they are not the Creator.

The life that is in an organism is also an amazing wonder. Once that life is gone, it's gone. This proves that organisms are more than what they appear to be on the surface. There is an
added ingredient
-- life itself. There is a spiritual part of every living thing that once it has left the body it leaves behind is now a shell. Scientists are not able to create a cell, but even if they were able to it would be a dead cell. Once the life has left an organism, that organism no matter how well-made will rot and disintegrate. You can shock it or whatever you want to do, but if the soul has been severed from the organisim it inhabited, the organism is going to turn to ashes and dust.

These are the facts of life, and no amount of self-serving statements by agencies like NASA will ever change those facts. Why would you listen to a bunch of bureacrats sitting at their expensive taxpaid desks, collecting their government checks, trying to find something to do to justify the outrageous amounts of money they are spending?

Quite obviusly this agency does not believe in God or the Bible or they would not be searching for life "out there." These are religious beliefs contrary to Christianity -- the belief in pan spermia propagation of life. Since this is supposed to be a democracy and since the First Amendment forbids state sponsored religion, I don't know why the taxpayers are forced to fund this kind of nonsense.

It just goes to show that our country is on its last legs, has lost whatever sense or direction or morality it ever had and has just gone off into insanity and delusion, practicing pseudo-science or "science so-called" as the Bible says, "professing themselves to be wise they became fools," and their "foolish minds were darkened."

The evidence is all around. Unless our country has a spiritual revival, I think we're about finished. I mean that literally.




[edit on 14-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Brilliant post resistance... I agree with you, BUT just one question...
Does this mean that ALL life forms have "a soul"? Does the most basic forms of life have a soul or some sort of consciousness?
Doesn't NASA's discovery merely mean that there is enough possibility for life to exist, no matter how simple it may be?
Is it so hard to believe that God could or would not give a soul to any other being except for those living on this planet?



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Yes, the evidence for a God creating life, as opposed to life creating itself, are truly overwhelming.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 08:11 AM
link   
You have voted resistance for the Way Above Top Secret award.


Jolly good



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
It's been conclusively proved that dead matter does not produce life -- REGARDLESS of any "chemical processes."

What? No it hasn't. Its been shown that rotting meat doesn't morph into maggots and that rubbish piles don't give rise to mice, but it hasn't been shown that non-living matter can't give rise to life.

Life is not a chemical reaction

Life most definitly is a series of chemical reactions. 'Vitalism' is what I think you might be refering to, and there is no evidence that there's some mystical 'something' that animates otherwise inanimate matter.

with electricity, heat them, cool them, whatever you do -- and they will not produce life.

See, the funny thing is, before the Miller-Urey experiments, people said 'it doesn't matter what you do, you can't get amino acids from non-living chemicals. That was wrong. And before that, people said 'no matter what crazy mix of chemicals and reactions you have, you can't get organic compounds form inorganic chemistry, and that was completely and totally wrong too.

These are the facts of life, and no amount of self-serving statements by agencies like NASA will ever change those facts.

How is nasa's work here self serving? They've found that biological precusers, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, can form in the empty reaches of space itself. You don't need god to have these rings or a designer, they're part of the junk that just naturally forms. You can ignore it if you want, but thats hardly sensible.

BlueEyes
Yes, the evidence for a God creating life, as opposed to life creating itself, are truly overwhelming

Please present a single peice of scientific evidence that supports this.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 08:44 AM
link   
but Nygdan, since its all so simple to you and the rest of "know it all" western scientists, why havent they managed to do it?



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by resistance
It's been conclusively proved that dead matter does not produce life -- REGARDLESS of any "chemical processes."

What? No it hasn't. Its been shown that rotting meat doesn't morph into maggots and that rubbish piles don't give rise to mice, but it hasn't been shown that non-living matter can't give rise to life.

Life is not a chemical reaction

Life most definitly is a series of chemical reactions. 'Vitalism' is what I think you might be refering to, and there is no evidence that there's some mystical 'something' that animates otherwise inanimate matter.

with electricity, heat them, cool them, whatever you do -- and they will not produce life.

See, the funny thing is, before the Miller-Urey experiments, people said 'it doesn't matter what you do, you can't get amino acids from non-living chemicals. That was wrong. And before that, people said 'no matter what crazy mix of chemicals and reactions you have, you can't get organic compounds form inorganic chemistry, and that was completely and totally wrong too.

These are the facts of life, and no amount of self-serving statements by agencies like NASA will ever change those facts.

How is nasa's work here self serving? They've found that biological precusers, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, can form in the empty reaches of space itself. You don't need god to have these rings or a designer, they're part of the junk that just naturally forms. You can ignore it if you want, but thats hardly sensible.

BlueEyes
Yes, the evidence for a God creating life, as opposed to life creating itself, are truly overwhelming

Please present a single peice of scientific evidence that supports this.


Nygdon -- Your "organic compounds" produced in a test tube are another debate entirely. The fact is, you can take all the organic compounds you want and put them in a test tube and shake them, shock them, heat them, cool them, whirl and twirl them, and they will still just be a bunch of hamburger or mud or whatever they were when you first put them in the test tube. You can, as I said before, even take an already created and perfectly formed creature, a human even, one whose soul has just left, or as you say the "vitalism" (which you say is no mystical thing and seem to think is no big deal) -- and you can shock the body, shake it, heat it or cool it, and nothing you do will change it from being what it is now without its soul -- JUST DEAD MATTER!!!

That may not be "scientific evidence" to you. But why should you trust your lying eyes when you can read what NASA has to say instead?



[edit on 14-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance

There's just one problem here. It's been conclusively proved that dead matter does not produce life -- REGARDLESS of any "chemical processes." Life is not a chemical reaction. You do not take dead matter and put it in a test tube and shake it up and produce life. (Remember your earth science lessons in sixth grade about the supersitious and ignorant belief people used to have in so-called "spontaneous generation" or life spontaneously arising from dead matter? Remember the experiment that was done with the dead meat (organic material) and that when meat was placed in a vacuum where the flies could not land and lay their eggs there were no maggots produced.) Remember that?


And your point is what ?

When flies can't get to the meat then there are no fly eggs laid on the meat.

There is a world of difference between putting meat in a vacuum and thinking flies will spontaneously generate , and thinking life can develop on other planets in the Universe after discovering that dying Stars are producing Chlorophyll and other organics.

The former being absolutely ridiculous , and the latter being absolutely fascinating.



You can take all the chlorine, chlorophyll or any other kind of chemicals, organic or otherwise, put them into a test tube, shake them up, shock them with electricity, heat them, cool them, whatever you do -- and they will not produce life.


Chlorophyll in the presence of sunlight and H2O produces Glucose and Oxygen. That simple reaction is the basis for almost all life as we know it on Earth, with exceptions of course. For example extremophiles do not depend upon this reaction to survive.



The only thing that will produce life is OTHER LIFE. This is a proven scientific fact that never deviates under any circumstances whatever.


Life reproduces , it does not create itself that would be a paradox. I think you should check into your Scientific facts. Just because you can not throw a bunch of chemicals into a bottle and shake and shock to produce life , does in no way prove scientifically that life cannot develop in the Universe. You are here on Earth are you not ?



The story of Frankenstein is a fairy tale. It is not real. It's just make believe.


That we can agree on .



Matter plus electricity does not equal life.


I have to agree with that also , electricity is one of the sub atomic particles together with other particles they are what we call Matter.



There is only one source of life in this universe and that is God. Without God, we have NOTHING -- i.e. no matter and no life. Atoms are amazing things, very mysterious within themselves, a wonder, an amazing wonder. But they are not self-existant and they are not capable of thinking or planning or designing or inventing or producing life. The atoms themselves are a creation; they are not the Creator.


If you believe God created Matter then why not believe that simply Matter, as a creation of God , is alive also as opposed to the dead Matter and a dead Universe.

Don't you think that God is Beyond your understanding? Isn't it going a bit far to set limits on the works of God simply because he didn't include a Physics lesson in the Bible?




[edit on 14-10-2005 by lost_shaman]



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by nukunuku
but Nygdan, since its all so simple to you and the rest of "know it all" western scientists, why havent they managed to do it?

I'm not a scientists, and what does it have to do with being 'western' scientists? All scientists are the same, there aren't 'eastern' scientists doing some other thing.

Anyway, I didn't say it was simple, its obviously a complex problem. But saying that, because none one's figured it out yet, that that means its not possible, is silly, just like with the organic via inorganic sythensis issue and just like the whole 'you can'tmake amino acids from non living sources' bit. People worked at it, and couldn't figure it out for a long time. That didn't mean it was unanswerable, jsut that it was difficult.


resistance
Your "organic compounds" produced in a test tube are another debate entirely

There is nothing to debate, it clearly happened.

The fact is, you can take all the organic compounds you want and put them in a test tube and shake them

Repetition is hardly an answer.

But why should you trust your lying eyes when you can read what NASA has to say instead?

Are you capable of having a discussion on this subject or no? You seem to have already made up your mind and are clinging to whats apparently a religious-faith-based understanding of how things work, and don't seem to be interested in what scientific evidence has to do with anything.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Great Post Resistance - but fail to see how you can say this :

'There is only one source of life in this universe and that is God. Without God, we have NOTHING -- i.e. no matter and no life.'


I am still waiting for someone to show proof that this 'God' exists.

Can you prove it ? If not then you may want to reword your statment to
'I personally think'



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Sorry wrong thread Doh!


[edit on 14-10-2005 by Whiterabbit29]



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   


There is only one source of life in this universe and that is God. Without God, we have NOTHING


That's ONE explanation, but it has no more proof (and in fact, far less), than current scientific theories on it as well. Why not Buddha? Why not Allah? Why not the tooth fairy?

If we took the Bible as the end all be all of knowledge, we'd still live in castles, cook with a pit fire, and be swacking each other with swords.

Even accepting the existence of God, it doesn't mean we are expected to never explore the universe around us, and ask questions. If God wanted mindlessly obedient zombies, he wouldn't have given us a brain in the first place.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan


BlueEyes
Yes, the evidence for a God creating life, as opposed to life creating itself, are truly overwhelming

Please present a single peice of scientific evidence that supports this.


I was being ironic. If there is anything unproven in this universe, it is the existence of any form of god.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I just got an email response from a guy who works for NASA. I won't release his name. In the email he says...

"The argument I always use is that, given the vastness of the universe,
and the number of stars within that vastness, however long the odds of
intelligent life developing, that there must be uncounted numbers of
other civilization out there."




new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join