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: DNA's Building Blocks Are Created in

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
The Earth was actually devoid of all life as we know it for hundreds of millions of years, even thought conditions for life were suitable. I've always held the belief that Earth was "seeded" by a meteorite, by something that was already "alive".
This is an excerpt taken from Linda Howe's website, she has some interesting things on there sometimes....


Michael P. Callahan, Ph.D., Research Physical Astrochemist, Astrochemistry Lab, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland:

“We find building blocks of DNA in meteorites. Most people have seen a picture of DNA, the double helix structure. So if you look at it, it looks like a twisted ladder. These are very, very large, complex molecules that are essential for all of life on Earth and they carry the genetic information.

So, if you break down the structure of DNA a little bit further, they are made up of repeating components called nucleotides. You can take that nucleotide building block and break it down into three pieces:
1) a nucleobase
2) a ribose sugar molecule
3) a phosphate group

What we find in meteorites are the nucleobase. The easiest way to picture this is if you imagine the double helix structure, the twisted ladder, the DNA. We’re looking at the rungs of the ladder.

And so our discovery is that when we look at meteorites and we find these nucleobases and nucleobase analogs, it looks like the product of a chemical reaction. So these things can be created in space on the meteorite.


www.earthfiles.com...

 
Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.
Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.
edit on 26/8/2011 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Just goes to show that there needs to be more than one chef in the kitchen for life to begin, lol.....

I don't know what the big deal is. I think that pretty much most planets that are habitable to life as we know it will develop life if given enough time. This means that the many things necessary to make life happen, be it meteors or whatever will usually happen. I don't know what the big deal is. I doubt any world that is clicking hot and molten will generate life without a few extra "ingredients" added a little later on (say, after it cools down a bit)......so I guess your angle is thinking we are all "aliens" or something, lol. More like we are all nothing more than intelligent mold. Leave the bread out in the right conditions and it turns green...go figure, lol.

So while worms and slime might be the universal version of life, I wonder how much of those worms and slim make it to be thinking individuals (after all, it hasn't happened here yet, lol)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by MainLineThis
 


Did you watch "Through the Wormhole" this week? The show was actually titled "What would aliens look like?" and discussed the biomechanics of lifeforms and how they'd likely evolve on different worlds, given the vast array of conditions be it gravity, pressure, light (or lack of), etc. It was pretty interesting.

One of the more interesting points was that there are a couple things that they are "fairly certain" would remain similar on other Earth-like worlds. The general body design (spinal cord, 2 or 4 appendages, moving hands, etc) would be somewhat alike, due to the fact that dozens and dozens of species on the "evolutioniary tree" that have either been created or died out over the hundreds of millions of years keep coming back to the same design.


edit on 26-8-2011 by dtrock78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by dtrock78
 


Yeah, saw it. Love that show. Morgan's voice is the most calming thing in the universe, lol. He could preach violence in that voice and it would put me to sleep!


But yeah, I agree that there are things that are biologically necessary and repeatable among every life-form on Earth, which I think can be expandable to every life form in the universe.

In the end, I suspect there will be a moderate difference between us and aliens, however the social differences will be the big things...



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
No doubt. I totally believe in a meteorite delivering the needed 'materials' for life to start off on our planet. The Through the wormhole episode was very interesting, as was the idea that we are from a different set of materials than some living things in this very acidic environment (can't remember where exactly it was). If that was true, then it would prove that different meteorites carry different genetic material. All very interesting stuff!



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
4 combined chemicals = reason to believe there are complex life forms

Faulty logic.

Given enough time = combine chemicals to produce life forms.

Faulty logic.

Example:

1 million sets of four playing cards. Drop the cards from 5 ft. Time: 1 sec. Arrangement of cards: some, but few.

Drop the cards from 1000 ft. TIme: 4 min. Arrangement of cards: less.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Ah.

So Jim, you're towing the "Adam and Eve" line?

Because there 's not much wiggle room in terms of this argument. You either believe that some greater power snapped their finger(s) and BOOM!, created man.

OR you believe that a various concoction of amino acids eventually formed "life". And over hundreds of millions of years, a timeframe that is almost incomprehensible for the human mind to actually grasp, this "life" went from simple bacteria, to algae, to insects and slugs, to fish, etc...something that is outlined in this little thing called a fossil record.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
First of all , I think that its important to realise that our understanding of the universe, and life in the context of its presence within the universe is EXTREMELY limited.

Its possible that DNA based life is NOT the norm within the universe. We have only our own experience of life , and its history on Earth to go on, and that is leading us to be VERY blind to the sheer scale, and therefore the probable diversity of life, and its origins within the universe.

Imagine a life form which appears to be a rock and has no recognisable organs or biological processes, other than communication and curiosity. If we met it,would we ignore it because it had no recoverable DNA? I think we would. Thats because our ignorance as a species is only outweighed by our arrogance and lack of experience.

Plus the places and situations in which life are to be found, are constantly assumed to be limited by factors which I personaly feel have nothing to do with the issue. An example would be the generaly accepted idea that Binary and Triple star systems are less likely to contain life forms, than single star systems.
How can we, the human race, a race that has not even traveled outside the orbit of our satellite, a race that has never sent a man to its closest neighbor planet, not to mention to the edge of our own star system, make such ridiculous statements as these? For all we know there may be life forms which specificaly REQUIRE a multi star system to remain alive.

The only way we can know enough to discount the possibility of life on ANY planet, hell even life in the vacuum of space, is to go look at every square inch of it personaly, under every rock, behind every blackhole, and through every single vibrating subatomic particle in the universe. When THAT has been achieved, we may consider ourselves informed enough to make these all encompassing and sweeping generalisations.

Until then even the greatest minds on our planet have no business trying to bias the people by spouting thier mere opinions.

Heres how it is , plain, and godamn simple. The only legitimate way for our species to learn about whats out there, is to go there. We need to stop putting billions in research into increasingly obscure experiments , and focus, as a community, as a species, on engine tech, so we can go and look at the universe for ourselves , and do what mankind has proven that he is made for. Exploration.
edit on 26-8-2011 by TrueBrit because: Spelling and grammar issues. Probably still badly written, but I tried.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by dtrock78
Ah.

So Jim, you're towing the "Adam and Eve" line?

Because there 's not much wiggle room in terms of this argument. You either believe that some greater power snapped their finger(s) and BOOM!, created man.


Because you mentioned "Adam and Eve", your "snapped their finger(s) and BOOM!, created man" statement is a strawman. In reality, according to the "Adam and Eve" story, man was created from "dust of the ground", which denotes a procedure (with a specified ingredient no less), not "magic":

"Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground"

We are carbon-based, and carbon can indeed be found in the ground (even in dust form itself, as any coal miner knows).

Additionally, the creation of Eve also describes a procedure:

"Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."

This is a description of a surgical procedure, one which parallels the main elements of a modern one, i.e.:

1. General anesthesia
2. Removal of rib
3. Closure of wound

Again, this a procedure that is being described, not "BOOM".

The rib would be a good choice for biological material, given that a completely removed rib can regenerate as long as the periosteum is left intact.


OR you believe that a various concoction of amino acids eventually formed "life". And over hundreds of millions of years, a timeframe that is almost incomprehensible for the human mind to actually grasp, this "life" went from simple bacteria, to algae, to insects and slugs, to fish, etc...something that is outlined in this little thing called a fossil record.


Too many problems solved (on the order of what, "zillions"?), not enough problem solvers (zero problem solvers in fact, according to the theory). I would buy into the theory if it could be demonstrated. By "demonstrated" I don't mean demonstrating evolution itself, I mean demonstrating what is often called "The Theory of Evolution". I would love to witness highly complex machinery (well beyond the level of complexity that we, as intelligent beings, can create) which is fully automated to the point of sentience and even significant levels of intelligence in some cases, being blueprinted and built, sans any intelligence whatsoever guiding the process.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Ok, Recoil, so a "procedure" over the course of day?

Also, I have a question for you, did God create Neanderthal man? Was Stegosaurus living alongside man for millions of years?
edit on 27-8-2011 by dtrock78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by dtrock78
Ok, Recoil, so a "procedure" over the course of day?


I don't know what really happened, nor how long it took. I wasn't there. However, the Bible doesn't say that God "snapped his fingers" as you suggested, nor anything else similarly "magical". It says he formed (forming something is a procedure by default) "man of the dust of the ground" (as opposed to out of nothing by "snapping his fingers").


Also, I have a question for you, did God create Neanderthal man? Was Stegosaurus living alongside man for millions of years?


Why are you asking me? I don't know exactly what happened, nor does it really matter. What I do know is that intelligence can create complex machinery. Not only can it, but it is the only thing that we know of that can. Given that, intelligent engineering is the most plausible mechanism responsible for all these organic machines running around. On the other hand, random processes are not known to create complex machinery, and the explanations for how they might do so are more optimistic than you believing that you could win the lottery (without coming up with a way to cheat) every week for the next 100 years.

Some people say about "The Theory of Evolution": "Well it's the best we've got," except it isn't the best we've got, because it relies on mechanisms which are not known to work to an extent that would make the theory plausible. I'll take a theory with a known-working mechanism (but with an unknown applicator[s] of said mechanism) over a theory with proposed mechanisms that are not known to work; any day.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join