Posted on 08/17/2009 8:26:35 PM PDT by Gordon Greene
The amino acid glycine, a fundamental building block of proteins, has been found in a comet for the first time, bolstering the theory that raw ingredients of life arrived on Earth from outer space, scientists said on Monday.
Microscopic traces of glycine were discovered in a sample of particles retrieved from the tail of comet Wild 2 by the NASA spacecraft Stardust deep in the solar system some 242 million miles (390 million km) from Earth, in January 2004.
Samples of gas and dust collected on a small dish lined with a super-fluffy material called aerogel were returned to Earth two years later in a canister that detached from the spacecraft and landed by parachute in the Utah desert...
...The initial detection of glycine, the most common of 20 amino acids in proteins on Earth, was reported last year, but it took time for scientists to confirm that the compound in question was extraterrestrial in origin.
"We couldn't be sure it wasn't from the manufacturing or the handling of the spacecraft," said astrobiologist Jamie Elsila...
...She presented the findings, accepted for publication in the journal Meteoritics and Planetary Science, to a meeting of the American Chemical Society in Washington, D.C., this week.
"We've seen amino acids in meteorites before, but this is the first time it's been detected in a comet," she said...
...The latest findings add credence to the notion that extraterrestrial objects such as meteorites and comets may have seeded ancient Earth, and other planets, with the raw materials of life that formed elsewhere in the cosmos.
"The discovery of glycine in a comet supports the idea that the fundamental building blocks of life are prevalent in space, and strengthens the argument that life in the universe may be common rather than rare,"
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Those aren't the only two answers, because nature isn't random. To the contrary, it is a very intricate interweaving of patterns and purposes.
Those aren't the only two answers, because nature isn't random. To the contrary, it is a very intricate interweaving of patterns and purposes.
If you examine the two questions I presented, you will note that only the first question addresses a "random" theory approach. If DNA did not appear by random processes, then if would had to have been created by a process addressed in the second question.
You are really skirting the whole issue here by dodging the question of how the first DNA appeared. If natural processes created the first DNA, please enlighten me as to the scientific explanation for its appearance. To just simply keep restating that nature is intricate and complex answers absolutely nothing.
There are many theories; I am not a proponent of any specific one.
However, the best answer is that things that work together are naturally drawn together.
A related fact is this: where DNA resulted from an A-B-C-D process, which is the only rational presupposition, that A-B-C-D process is what brought DNA to fruition whether that process was directed or arose non-randomly out of the very non-random harmony of the natural universe.
If DNA did not appear by random processes, then if would had to have been created by a process addressed in the second question.
That is a statement without substantiation. You contend that either DNA has to have appeared by random processes or it must be produced by a mysterious director.
I don't accept your claim of a limit of only those two possible options.
One can set aside the mysterious director option for just a moment, and dispute the premise of the other option that you put forth by noting that occurrences in nature are not in any way required to be random.
Quite the opposite: things happen because of their nature, and because of the nature of the things that affect them. That holds true for nature, and it holds true for people.
I could put together the components of a rather involved ecosystem under the right conditions, and they would hopefully (and distinctly probably) form that ecosystem. No mysterious director would have stepped in during the process, and what would happen would not be random.
Instead, per the blueprint offered a couple of paragraphs up, the components act together according to their nature and the effect of each on the other.
I would contend that DNA developed in the same way: the component parts came together in accordance with their nature and the effect of their nature on each other.
The opposite of randomness, but rather according to a beauty of natural design.
Of course, one could make a case for the nature of the component parts having an architect.
You believe that a planet need only have an abundance of liquid water for the probability of complex life to exist. I have to respectfully disagree. Although water is a crucial element for life, I believe a planet would need to meet numerous other requirements to sustain complex life.
You also believe that life can originate naturally (either randomly or by some act(s) of nature). Here again, I must disagree. I believe even the simplest form of life is far too complex to have originated randomly or by natural processes.
Differences of opinion, yet life goes on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.