Scientists Confirm That Parts Of Earliest Genetic Material May Have Come From The Stars

Physorg ^ | 6-13-3008 | Imperial College London

[blam]

Scientists confirm that parts of earliest genetic material may have come from the stars

Scientists have confirmed for the first time that an important component of early genetic material which has been found in meteorite fragments is extraterrestrial in origin, in a paper published on 15 June 2008.

The finding suggests that parts of the raw materials to make the first molecules of DNA and RNA may have come from the stars.

The scientists, from Europe and the USA, say that their research, published in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters, provides evidence that life's raw materials came from sources beyond the Earth.

The materials they have found include the molecules uracil and xanthine, which are precursors to the molecules that make up DNA and RNA, and are known as nucleobases.

The team discovered the molecules in rock fragments of the Murchison meteorite, which crashed in Australia in 1969.

They tested the meteorite material to determine whether the molecules came from the solar system or were a result of contamination when the meteorite landed on Earth.

The analysis shows that the nucleobases contain a heavy form of carbon which could only have been formed in space. Materials formed on Earth consist of a lighter variety of carbon.

Lead author Dr Zita Martins, of the Department of Earth Science and Engineering at Imperial College London, says that the research may provide another piece of evidence explaining the evolution of early life. She says:

"We believe early life may have adopted nucleobases from meteoritic fragments for use in genetic coding which enabled them to pass on their successful features to subsequent generations."

Between 3.8 to 4.5 billion years ago large numbers of rocks similar to the Murchison meteorite rained down on Earth at the time when primitive life was forming. The heavy bombardment would have dropped large amounts of meteorite material to the surface on planets like Earth and Mars.

Co-author Professor Mark Sephton, also of Imperial's Department of Earth Science and Engineering, believes this research is an important step in understanding how early life might have evolved. He added:

"Because meteorites represent left over materials from the formation of the solar system, the key components for life -- including nucleobases -- could be widespread in the cosmos. As more and more of life's raw materials are discovered in objects from space, the possibility of life springing forth wherever the right chemistry is present becomes more likely."

Paper: “Extraterrestrial nucleobases in the Murchison meteorite”, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Sunday 15 June 2008 (Print publication) A full copy of the research can be downloaded at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2008.03.026

Source: Imperial College London

[vpintheak]

Confirm? Evidence? Sounds like they’re trying to “prove” something.

[vpintheak]

I forgot “We believe”.

[RightWhale]

How is it that anybody can confirm that something may have happened? Is this what passes for science anymore? No wonder. Call us post-scientific.

[aruanan]

Ha ha ha. Confirmation that something may have happened.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Oh boy.

That’s great.

I love reading about these scientifically validated hypothetically conjectured guesses. They are so...scientific.

[shineon]

[CHEE]

I just confirmed that the time I found my buddy passed out on the golf course of the Fort Polk Officers Club in 1960 might have been because he aced the second hole. Of course I have to ignore the fact that it was at 2300 hours on a Friday night and he was clad only in his BVDs and didn't even own a set of clubs.

[Tallguy]

A Scientific Fad.

[editor-surveyor]

Scientists?

How can we call them scientists if they can confirm something that is at odds with all physical evidence?

propagandists is what they are.

[Rudder]

Well, there goes the Great Spaghetti Monster theory.

[editor-surveyor]

"Because meteorites represent left over materials from the formation of the solar system, the key components for life -- including nucleobases -- could be widespread in the cosmos. As more and more of life's raw materials are discovered in objects from space, the possibility of life springing forth wherever the right chemistry is present becomes more likely."

1 in 10^39.99999 as opposed to 1 in 10^40?

[allmendream]

Uracil and xanthine cannot form spontaneously on earth?

Assuming the meteorite wasn't contaminated by landing on earth (in which every living organism makes uracil), assuming the molecules on a meteorite could survive the burning and crash landing, assuming that the meteorites were a significant source of biomolecular precursors that somehow didn't or couldn't form in significant amounts on Earth, I might be inclined to listen to them.

That is a lot of assumptions. A physicist once asked someone who made a hypothesis that fit (a bit too close) to his observations “How many parameters?” “Four” the guy admitted “Give me four parameters and I can fit an elephant! Five and I can make him wiggle his trunk.”

The formation of biological molecules spontaneously is not a problem, and we needn't invoke the ‘great cosmic life contamination’. Getting them to metabolize energy in order to replicate their structures is something else entirely.

[Doctor Don]

Another case of pagan scientists defying the Creator of the universe.......I have read the last chapter......science boys lose!

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

It does NOT say that life came from outside of the Earth, and it does NOT say that genetic material came from outside of the Earth. It says that material from outside of the Earth MAY have been useful in the process that led to the appearance of life on Earth.

However, I expect the headlines to say “Science confirms extraterrestrial origin of life”.

[figgers3036]

...Or maybe it came from God.

But what do I know? I’m an ignorant, gun-toting bitter Bible-thumping white Christian male.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Science is diametrically opposed to Christianity? You cannot be a scientist and a Christian?

[carcar]

Scientist cannot confirm anything and qualify it for a “may” possibility. If it is confirmed, it means that it is is confirmed. There is no “may”. I personally will take God at his word and believe no matter what scientists confirm. They once confirmed the earth was flat.

[shineon]

Psalm 121

I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help.

My help cometh from the LORD, which made heaven and earth.

He will not suffer thy foot to be moved: he that keepeth thee will not slumber.

Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep.

The LORD is thy keeper: the LORD is thy shade upon thy right hand.

The sun shall not smite thee by day, nor the moon by night.

The LORD shall preserve thee from all evil: he shall preserve thy soul.

The LORD shall preserve thy going out and thy coming in from this time forth, and even for evermore.

[dartuser]

Professor Mark Sephton, ... believes this research is an important step in understanding ...

My belief ... and a token ... gets me a ride to WalMart on the county transit.

[Caramelgal]

Scientist cannot confirm anything and qualify it for a “may” possibility. If it is confirmed, it means that it is is confirmed. There is no “may”.

You and many others really don’t understand how science works. All theories begin with the “may” possibility.

Take for instance the discovery of penicillin.

The discovery of penicillin is attributed to Scottish scientist Sir Alexander Fleming in 1928. Fleming, working in his laboratory in the basement of St. Mary's Hospital in London (now part of Imperial College), noticed a halo of inhibition of bacterial growth around a contaminant blue-green mold Staphylococcus plate culture. Fleming concluded that the mold was releasing a substance that was inhibiting bacterial growth. In other words, he made an observation and said it “may” inhibit bacterial growth and set out to prove it. Of course many other scientists were also involved in developing it as a pharmaceutical drug. Fleming started out thinking that it “may” be useful as a disinfectant while others thought that it “may” have a pharmaceutical application.

I personally will take God at his word and believe no matter what scientists confirm. They once confirmed the earth was flat.

Actually it was a literal interpretation of scripture by religious authorities that made it dogma to believe the Earth was a flat plane or that the Sun revolved around the Earth. It was scientists like Copernicus and Galileo who challenged the status quo.

[GodGunsGuts]

Very true. BTW, I was debating Allmendream re: Starlight and Time, and, after repeated attempts to get him to finish the debate, he completely bugged out. Apparently, he’d rather clam-up than go down any scientific road that might open the door to YEC.

[FatherofFive]

I’m an ignorant, gun-toting bitter Bible-thumping typical white Christian male.

There, fixed it!

[Coyoteman]

Sure a lot of anti-science folks jumping on a science thread.

[LiteKeeper]

"confirm...may have"

Wow! that sounds definitive.

[LiteKeeper]

Baloney!

[LiteKeeper]

a literal interpretation of scripture by religious authorities that made it dogma to believe the Earth was a flat plane or that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

Nowhere in Scripture is either of those taught.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Huh? It appears that some on this thread feel that science and Christianity are incompatible, notably the post I replied to...

[LiteKeeper]

Sorry - I missed the question marks. My bad!

[Tribune7]

confirm something “may” have happened. I love it.

[figgers3036]

Oh, thanks. I’m too ignorant to notice petty things like the stereotypes I’m supposed to be aware of, reinforce, and detest.

[FatherofFive]

That’s OK. Just keep clinging to your guns and your Bible, and let B. Hussein Obama (May peace be upon him) and his friends think for you and spend your money. /s

[Caramelgal]

Nowhere in Scripture is either of those taught.

True enough but then that all depends on who is doing the “teaching” and their own “interpretation”.

At one time it was religious dogma based on scriptural interpretation of the time to believe that the Earth was a stationary body and that the Sun and all other observable heavenly bodies revolved around us. Fear of religious excommunication is what made Copernicus publish his works posthumously and Galileo to recant his observations and scientific findings on Heliocentrism even though he and Copernicus were later proved to be correct.

Today there are some (including a few who post on FR) who will tell you emphatically that the Earth is only 6,000 years old based on a biblical chronology dating the Creation to the night preceding October 23, 4004 BC.

Of course no where in Genesis does it say that God created the Earth on October 23, 4004 BC or anything of the sort, but that doesn’t stop a lot of people from believing it despite all reason and scientific findings.

Some people also believe that the Moon landings were staged on a Hollywood film set, that the Twin Towers were brought down by a controlled demolition and that Area 51 is a government cover up of an extraterrestrial alien landing.

[LiteKeeper]

I was responding to a post which stated that a literal reading of Scripture leads to the conclusion that the Earth is flat, and that the Sun travels around the Earth. Those two assertions are unfounded, based on Scriptural evidence.

You have changed the playing field to one of "interpretation" - that is a different ball game.

I happen to be one of those who believe, based on very solid Scriptural evidence, that the Earth is around 6000 years old. The date you are referring to was calculated by Bishop James Ussher in the 1600's. To say that the Bible does not state that the Earth was created on October 23, 4004 negates the ability of scholars to add up the clear references to time in the Scripture, and to draw a conclusion. If you had read the rationale behind Bishop Ussher's assertion, you would be free to accept or reject it. But your complaint is a non sequitor...it just doesn't hold water.

BTW - the methodology of arriving at the age of the Earth is a simple process: add the ages of the fathers in Genesis 5, to the clear references to time periods, such as the time in Egypt (400 years), and other clearly stated periods of time, and we arrive at something very close to 4004 BC.

Accept it or reject it, but please give us our due. We are not idiots, we have a pretty good idea of what we are doing.

[Caramelgal]

I was responding to a post which stated that a literal reading of Scripture leads to the conclusion that the Earth is flat, and that the Sun travels around the Earth. Those two assertions are unfounded, based on Scriptural evidence.

I beg to differ as far as a literal scriptural interpretation that the Sun travels around the Earth.

Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and I Chronicles 16:30 state that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." Psalm 104:5 says, "[the Lord] set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."

Galileo defended heliocentrism, and claimed it was not contrary to those Scripture passages. He took Augustine's position on Scripture: not to take every passage literally, particularly when the scripture in question is a book of poetry and songs, not a book of instructions or history. The writers of the Scripture wrote from the perspective of the terrestrial world, and from that vantage point the sun does rise and set. In fact, it is the earth's rotation which gives the impression of the sun in motion across the sky.

You have changed the playing field to one of "interpretation" - that is a different ball game.

I’m not changing the playing field. You are. Either every word of the Bible is absolute literal truth or it isn’t. You can not pick and choose and then have it both ways. What parts of the Bible are an absolute truth and which parts are allegory and parable? Can you not agree that this is open to interpretation?

I happen to be one of those who believe, based on very solid Scriptural evidence, that the Earth is around 6000 years old…

BTW - the methodology of arriving at the age of the Earth is a simple process: add the ages of the fathers in Genesis 5, to the clear references to time periods, such as the time in Egypt (400 years), and other clearly stated periods of time, and we arrive at something very close to 4004 BC.

Accept it or reject it, but please give us our due. We are not idiots, we have a pretty good idea of what we are doing. .

I do reject it as a basis for explaining the physical world because there is no solid evidence for a 6,000 year old Earth. Calculating the age of the Earth based on the calculations of a 17th century religious bishop who based it on some very poor mathematical and totally wrong historical assumptions and based solely on a religious text that is meant to teach us how to live our lives in a moral context is not scientific proof no matter how much you want to believe it so.

And while I don’t think you are an idiot based on your religious faith, I do think you are very misguided in confusing science and religion. They are not in conflict with on another except among people with narrow minds.

[editor-surveyor]

He dreams, but thinking is out of the question.

[GodGunsGuts]

Yep. It’s definitely starting to look that way.

[GodGunsGuts]

Yep. It’s definitely starting to look that way.

[GodGunsGuts]

Yep. It’s definitely starting to look that way.

[editor-surveyor]

You can say that again again again.