
NASA finds DNA components in meteorites, says they originated in space - ssclafani
http://www.space.com/12569-meteorites-dna-building-blocks-discovery.html
======
po
So one thing to keep in mind here is that according to NASA, the meteorite
itself is generating these compounds:

 _Thirdly, the team found these nucleobases -- both the biological and non-
biological ones -- were produced in a completely non-biological reaction. "In
the lab, an identical suite of nucleobases and nucleobase analogs were
generated in non-biological chemical reactions containing hydrogen cyanide,
ammonia, and water. This provides a plausible mechanism for their synthesis in
the asteroid parent bodies, and supports the notion that they are
extraterrestrial," says Callahan._ (from the NASA article:
[http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna-
meteorit...](http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna-
meteorites.html))

This does not mean that there is developed life on another planet that then
traveled to us. What it does mean is that the building blocks of life that
were seeded on earth are probably pretty common and therefore were probably
also seeded elsewhere.

~~~
bh42222
It means that the components of life are a "naturally" occurring things, which
appear all over the universe, and do not require life to produce them. This in
turn implies that life, not just any life, but carbon based, DNA using life,
could be more common in the universe then previously thought. And this implies
that we here on Earth are even less of an unique snowflake then we thought.

~~~
winestock
If we, here on Earth, are not unique precious snowflakes, then that makes the
Fermi Paradox even more paradoxical.

~~~
cloudkj
And along those same lines, adds more weight to the implications of the Great
Filter argument. That is, if the early steps in the path to intelligent life
are really not that unlikely, then the later steps to advanced intelligent
life are more unlikely.

~~~
cpeterso
Or, as Carl Sagan often suggested, intelligent life is likely to destroy
itself, perhaps if a civilization's technological progress outpaces its
ethical capacity.

~~~
gregable
Alternatively successful communication over vast distances turns out to be
impossible or at least very rare.

------
hugh3
Before anyone gets too excited:

Amino acids on a comet, 2009:
[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17628-found-first-
amin...](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17628-found-first-amino-acid-
on-a-comet.html)

Amino acids in interstellar space, 2002:
[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2558-amino-acid-
found-...](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2558-amino-acid-found-in-
deep-space.html)

and a few more examples exist if you google "amino acids in space".

We've known about amino acids in space for a long time. Amino acids exist all
over the damn place.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Not left over smudges from the former inhabitants of planet Krypton? Ah shucks
:-).

The interesting point here was the nuceobases (vs the amino acids). Mars water
should be interesting to look at.

And of course a sample return mission to Ceres would be interesting as long as
we didn't open the capsule in an uncontrolled environment :-).

~~~
eru
Are you concerned about the capsule getting contaminated, or about Earth
getting contaminated? I'd bet on the Earth's microbes to dominate.

------
baxter
The original NASA article:
[http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna-
meteorit...](http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna-
meteorites.html)

~~~
aab1d
Thanks for the link. Makes me wonder, if life did come from space then we will
have to start exploring space more seriously. The possibility of a aliens
existing somewhere else cannot be ignored any longer.

~~~
scott_s
This HN thread links to an article that describes the enormous difficulties in
interstellar travel: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2639456>

~~~
beambot
Mind you... space exploration does not have to be interstellar. There are
probably lots of interesting discoveries to be had here in our own backyard.

------
calebmpeterson
While NASA's discovery of nucleobases as opposed to amino acids is certainly
interesting, there's a long way between "hey, nucleobases on an asteroid," and
"wow, the entire genome of a living creature." There's a big jump in
complexity, structure, and organization between organic chemistry and the
multi-trillion cell organism we call homosapien.

The comparison in complexity is the rough equivalent of finding a few
MOV/JMP/ADD instructions in a random text file as opposed to the source tree
for the Linux kernel (I might be underestimating the human genome a little
here).

~~~
alanh
Why on earth would you compare these to the human genome, instead of the
smallest archeobacteria? Evolution adds complexity over time, we _know_ this,
we just need something to replicate first.

A better analogy than the Linux kernel might be a quine.

~~~
andrewflnr
There is still an enormous jump in complexity between a few nucleobases and
the smallest archeobacteria. Maybe a full Linux kernel is not the best
illustration, but the idea of a kernel in general is a remarkably apt one. At
the least, we're talking stuxnet or something.

Even the simplest life is incredibly sophisticated.

------
torstesu
I have always been curious as to how religion will tackle proof of alien life.
Do aliens get to go to heaven?

~~~
danteembermage
My religion has taught me there was alien life since I was a child. I was also
taught that all humans and all animal life will be resurrected. It's not too
hard to extrapolate that intelligent alien species, should they exist, would
as well. So maybe the answer to your question is "It depends on the religion."

~~~
dragonquest
If you don't mind sharing and I mean this respectfully, could you inform us
which religion is this?

~~~
danteembermage
I'm Mormon (or more pedantically I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints) so kbutler caught me.

He's quoting from the Doctrine & Covenants (like the Pauline epistles in that
they're letters written by someone claiming to speak messages from God, but
not like them in that they were written in the 1830s and 40s in America) and
it's this more modern scripture that tends to talk about these kind of things.
Basically any decent religion will start out with "Be nice to your neighbors"
but when you start asking "Why?" it is inevitable going to end up in a
discussion about the nature of the universe and its the modern scripture that
tends to crystallize that a bit.

The example I was thinking of: [http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-
testament/dc/29.23-26?lang=eng#...](http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-
testament/dc/29.23-26?lang=eng#22)

------
rokhayakebe
My biggest fear is dying before mankind finds the definite scientific answer
to death and our origin/s. We seem to be so near (~ one century away).

~~~
ams6110
This is _really_ your biggest fear? Or is that just a figure of speech. I'm
genuinely curious, as while I think this "answer" might be intellectually
satisfying to some degree, I see it as making little difference in practical
matters.

I also think it's an answer that will never come. I don't see any
inconsistency between a universe created by God and any scientific
observations we make within that creation.

~~~
rokhayakebe
_I see it as making little difference in practical matters_

It changes everything. It is like being 30 years old and finding you were
adopted. You want to know where you come from.

Edit: But besides what you and I think, what will it mean to the world if
religion was "proven" to be man-made, as well as the idea of a Higher Power.

~~~
Dove
_what will it mean to the world if religion was "proven" to be man-made_

A successful and complete theory of the origin of life wouldn't do _that_. Not
every religion claims seriously that God directly created life. To my
knowledge, it's really only a serious problem for people who live in the
Religion:Christian/Protestant/Evangelical/Fundamentalist folder, which is
really not a big fraction of the people on the drive.

For example, I am Evangelical, and I wouldn't be bothered by either the
success or failure of a scientific theory of the origin of life. Miracles are
a part of my worldview, as are machines. I know that God created life, but
whether he used a miracle or a machine, I don't know. I have seen him use one
or the other at different times, so I would consider either an acceptable
explanation. Now, I'm kind of interested as to what _happened_ , but it
doesn't affect my doctrine much either way.

------
abeppu
I vaguely recall from highschool bio that the Miller-Urey experiment
demonstrated that it's surprisingly easy to produce a lot of organic stuff by
abiotic means. Does anyone with some real knowledge about this area care to
explain how surprising this actually is?

~~~
nikhilgk
> lot of organic stuff

The organic compounds produced by the Miller Urey experiments were mostly
amino acids and some sugars
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment>). These are the
building blocks for most of the things that constitute a cell. This discovery
may better our understanding of the origins of DNA and RNA - which are the
blueprints for putting together the building blocks to make a cell.

------
axusgrad
Universe is only 13 billion years old, life on Earth started ~4.5 billion
years ago, and the travel times are pretty long. Even if DNA came from outer
space, it would have had to start somewhere. At some point it must have
developed from inorganic components.

~~~
srl
The current theory is that the organic material actually originated on the
asteroids themselves - on a class known as "CM2 Meteorites".
([http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna-
meteorit...](http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna-
meteorites.html) \- last couple of paragraphs)

Also according to that article, we've successfully reproduced the process of
creating organic matter from inorganic matter.

------
varjag
No, NASA says they _can_ originate in space. There is a difference.

~~~
srl
NASA is confident that these, at least, did. (Of course, they could also have
simultaneously been created terrestrially - but that doesn't change the fact
that they were also created in space.)

 _We have three lines of evidence that together give us confidence these DNA
building blocks actually were created in space._
([http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna-
meteorit...](http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna-
meteorites.html))

------
ColinWright
This item - <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2863503> \- is intended to be
the same thing, but incorrectly points to a generic front page. A pointer has
been put there to direct people here.

------
powertower
Amino acids have also been made by slamming meteorite like material into earth
like material at impact speeds (impact chemistry creates them due to the
greate pressures and energy involved).

~~~
omarchowdhury
Meteorite/comets hitting the sphere of the Earth. The sperm reaching the egg
cell. The answer to the beginning is at the beginning.

------
evilswan
This could just be the most significant news in all of human history. Mind
blowing that there's now evidence that the building blocks of life exist off-
Earth.

------
mykhal
cool. i have found components of my compiled code in ancient mesoamerican,
indian and arabic math

------
xerxes2001
I should not have watched Falling Skies before reading this...

~~~
haakon
I should not have watched Falling Skies either, but mostly because it sucks so
bad. :-(

~~~
DonnyV
WHAT!!! I have to say the show started out slow but it turned out really good.

~~~
haakon
It's gotten better, and the story is not that bad, but most of the actors are
just completely terrible. There is just nothing in their characters to care
about.

