Asteroid contains building blocks of life

JustDave said:
Humans have an irrational need to understand what they don't understand. If no explanation is immediately available, they will make something up just to fill the empty space. The God of the Gaps fills that need, bringing a sense of closure and satisfaction. We are comfortable once again.
Click to expand...
We can't always make something up, like the mystery of the missing sock.
 

bobcat said:
There are so many unanswered questions. Why are there harmonies, or mathematics, or consciousness, or DNA, or even life itself. It seems to me there must be something behind it.
Click to expand...

Why must there be something behind it, other than simple processes leading to simple eventualities? That's the real question.

Some people claim design, but that's simply wrong to me. If it's all by design, why is only 24% of the Earth habitable by humans? Why is 99.9% of life that has been on this Earth - extinct? Why are our bodies so poorly designed? What does disease have to do with sin - and if nothing, what the deal with disease? I could go on, and I'm aware there are some pat responses to such questions. But consider how much of the universe would not support life at all - what was the point?
 
VaughanJB said:
why is only 24% of the Earth habitable by humans? Why is 99.9% of life that has been on this Earth - extinct? Why are our bodies so poorly designed? What does disease have to do with sin - and if nothing, what the deal with disease?
Click to expand...
(clunk!)
Issac: Ouch! Why did that apple hit me on the head?
Oliver: Because it did, you big stupid.
 

VaughanJB said:
Why must there be something behind it, other than simple processes leading to simple eventualities? That's the real question.

Some people claim design, but that's simply wrong to me. If it's all by design, why is only 24% of the Earth habitable by humans? Why is 99.9% of life that has been on this Earth - extinct? Why are our bodies so poorly designed? What does disease have to do with sin - and if nothing, what the deal with disease? I could go on, and I'm aware there are some pat responses to such questions. But consider how much of the universe would not support life at all - what was the point?
Click to expand...
Well, just to clarify, I'm not one who claims design or a designer. Again, they are unanswered questions. Perhaps it's nothing more than luck that matter over-balanced anti-matter. Perhaps all the things that seem finely tuned for life to exist just happened, and there is nothing more to it.

Maybe atoms that are not alive can combine to form something that is alive. Maybe molecules can, over time, assemble into something as complex as the DNA molecule. Maybe consciousness can arise from neuron interaction. Maybe the delicate balance of nature can happen on it's own. IDK

When I say I think there may be something more, I am thinking in terms of a creative energy with no design or plan. It just exists and gets expressed in multitudes of ways. I am not trying to convince anyone because it is only something that makes sense to me. If a better explanation comes along, I will keep an open mind.
 
bobcat said:
Well, just to clarify, I'm not one who claims design or a designer. Again, they are unanswered questions. Perhaps it's nothing more than luck that matter over-balanced anti-matter. Perhaps all the things that seem finely tuned for life to exist just happened, and there is nothing more to it.
Click to expand...

One of the reasons we have a divide is because some people require less evidence than others. For some, the lack of an explanation allows design to play a part - after all, we don't have evidence to sufficient the contrary. But it hinges on what "sufficient" means. And then you have the inexplicable - in the big picture - reality of how culture influences religious belief.

I base my disbelieve in a God on evidence. God, if he's real, could supply sufficient evidence to convince me. The reason I don't have it, most commonly, is a blindness on my behalf. But a God should/would known better. I am not averse to a God, other than a lack of evidence. I don't see it as a right/wrong instance. Instead, it's a simple lack of evidence to support one conclusion over another. Blind faith makes no sense to me. Is that my fault?

My very first Christmas in the US, I was invited/attended a Catholic ceremony at Midnight. People were lining up to get the body and blood of Christ. I sat still in my pew. The looks I received were palpable. But I couldn't lie. I didn't belong, and that was made clear. Faith is for those who stop questioning.
 
VaughanJB said:
One of the reasons we have a divide is because some people require less evidence than others. For some, the lack of an explanation allows design to play a part - after all, we don't have evidence to sufficient the contrary. But it hinges on what "sufficient" means. And then you have the inexplicable - in the big picture - reality of how culture influences religious belief.

I base my disbelieve in a God on evidence. God, if he's real, could supply sufficient evidence to convince me. The reason I don't have it, most commonly, is a blindness on my behalf. But a God should/would known better. I am not averse to a God, other than a lack of evidence. I don't see it as a right/wrong instance. Instead, it's a simple lack of evidence to support one conclusion over another. Blind faith makes no sense to me. Is that my fault?

My very first Christmas in the US, I was invited/attended a Catholic ceremony at Midnight. People were lining up to get the body and blood of Christ. I sat still in my pew. The looks I received were palpable. But I couldn't lie. I didn't belong, and that was made clear. Faith is for those who stop questioning.
Click to expand...
From what I am able to surmise, a lot of it has to do with how one processes information, and in this case, information relative to our existence and that of the universe, and the mysteries surrounding it. For some, they process that information in a more logical, deductive reasoning and scientific way. For others, they approach information of this sort in a rather intuitive method, which relies a great deal on feelings, and perceived sensations (Real or imagined).

Even though there may be no difference at all in the brains of believers and non-believers, and arguably the behaviors of each, those who believe base a great deal on how they feel. It really doesn't matter how much evidence to the contrary there is, the feeling trumps the evidence.

There is considerable debate over whether advanced education results in a decline in religious belief due to exposure of more worldviews, etc..., as well as learning new evaluative skills. There may be some credibility in that argument that it does have a relative impact. However, I still think a more intuitive minded person will more often gravitate to the familiar, and the more scientific minded will approach new information in the way that works for them. They don't understand each other because their brains just process things differently. JMO
 
One theory is that our universe started when an inconceivably tiny speck of - something, maybe not even matter, maybe it was pure energy, was the only thing inhabiting space. And it exploded, and kept expanding and diversifying, and billions of years later, is still doing so. And all the stars, planets, asteroids, comets, etc. were formed out of that singularity. The number of stars (or is it planets?) is so huge that we can't even conceive of it. Our earth is like one grain of sand, and all the rest of the stars are like all the other grains of sand on all the beaches of the world.

So, what are the chances that our grain of sand is the only one containing life? Or intelligent consciousness? There are probably millions of other "earths" containing life. And given the numbers, some of the inhabitants of those other earths can think, and invent, etc.

The part of this that blows my mind is that some scientists believe that eventually the universe will reach some kind of maximum size and begin shrinking back down to a tiny singularity again. (Don't worry, we won't be here to see it.) And it will explode again. And new forms of something that we might call "life" or maybe something else will form on lots and lots of the new entities. It goes on like that forever. We humans, and all the other life on earth, might just be a tiny blink in the enormity of space/time.

Of course this is pretty much inconceivable to our puny little minds. But looked at that way, there's nothing really amazing about an asteroid (or a few billion of them) carrying life. It would be very strange if they did not.
 
Sunny said:
We humans, and all the other life on earth, might just be a tiny blink in the enormity of space/time.
Click to expand...
Given the enormity of the thing, it's inevitable that other forms of creative life exist. Of course we will never meet them. There are many reasons why we won't, but here is one that is hardly ever brought up. Meeting them requires simultaneous existence. But we are just blips in eternity. The odds that another blip will occur are great, but at the same time as us? The odds go down in a system that is already rigged against meeting aliens.
 
JustDave said:
Given the enormity of the thing, it's inevitable that other forms of creative life exist. Of course we will never meet them. There are many reasons why we won't, but here is one that is hardly ever brought up. Meeting them requires simultaneous existence. But we are just blips in eternity. The odds that another blip will occur are great, but at the same time as us? The odds go down in a system that is already rigged against meeting aliens.
Click to expand...

If we can master quantum, there may be breakthroughs in that department.
 
Iā€™m fairly certain that there is or has been life on other planets but Iā€™m not sure that itā€™s in our best interest to go looking for them.


As far as the building blocks of life, I have the building blocks of a cake in my pantry but I doubt that a cake will ever appear. šŸ˜‰šŸ¤­šŸ˜‚
 
dilettante said:
What do you mean by "quantum?" Is this just another religious parroting of mysterious-sounding babble?
Click to expand...
Quantum mechanics, the study of behavior of smallest particles, as atomic and subatomic. (Somebody said that a quantum particle can travel to the end of the universe instantaneously That's iffy, but Einstein hated quantum, he called it 'spooky'.)

Quantum computers are coming, boss. Get ready for it!
 
Last edited:
Aunt Bea said:
Iā€™m fairly certain that there is or has been life on other planets but Iā€™m not sure that itā€™s in our best interest to go looking for them.


As far as the building blocks of life, I have the building blocks of a cake in my pantry but I doubt that a cake will ever appear. šŸ˜‰šŸ¤­šŸ˜‚
Click to expand...

I like the idea of an Asteroid containing the building blocks of a cake. What kind of cake? Something with butter-cream? A Walnut cake, perhaps? Or, ginger cake. That's good.
 
VaughanJB said:
GI like the idea of an Asteroid containing the building blocks of a cake. What kind of cake? Something with butter-cream? A Walnut cake, perhaps? Or, ginger cake. That's good.
Click to expand...
Ginger snaps with molasses are good too, We don't yet understand 'the spark of life' or its creation. Just because something is ubiquitous doesn't mean it's original was easy.
 
Last edited:
gruntlabor said:
Ginger snaps with molasses are good too, We don't yet understand 'the spark of life' or its creation. Just because something is ubiquitous doesn't mean it's original was easy.
Click to expand...

Not sure how the word "easy" applies to this case. I mean, it happened, and we're slowly learning more as we go. That's it really.
 
Obviously earth contains those building blocks. It took earth billions of years, multiple extinction events from asteroids, etc. for "human" life to evolve in the last million years or so. We consider something from 10,000 years ago to be ancient. The evolution of life on other planets that would contain similar building blocks might likely be on a far different timeline.

That there might be life somewhere out in the universe is quite possible, but being somewhere on the human timeline of a million years, becomes further unlikely. That it would be near our current evolution would seem remote, imo. It could be several billions of years away, or several billion year more advanced... or even extinct.
 
There is not enough time using even the most generous estimate of available time for one protein to accidentally form from these building blocks found in the dust of an asteroid. And that is not even close to life, but a building block of life. As Ben Carson put it "I don't have that much faith".
 
Michael Z said:
There is not enough time using even the most generous estimate of available time for one protein to accidentally form from these building blocks found in the dust of an asteroid. And that is not even close to life, but a building block of life. As Ben Carson put it "I don't have that much faith".
Click to expand...

Yet here we are. Formed from that very process. There's nothing "accidental" about it, it's just a process.
 
As I've related in the past, it is difficult to meaningfully discuss, much less debate, advanced science subjects like this on a web board with members with such a wide range of science education and knowledge from none to considerable. So best to just let members friendly post whatever briefly in a post or three that has value allowing understanding the typical ways others view issues and not technically engage much further.

But will suggest for those serious about understanding these issues to read the following 2000 best seller that is not too technical so as to be confusing:

https://www.amazon.com/Rare-Earth-Complex-Uncommon-Universe/dp/0387952896/ref=sr_1_1
 
David777 said:
As I've related in the past, it is difficult to meaningfully discuss, much less debate, advanced science subjects like this on a web board with members with such a wide range of science education and knowledge from none to considerable. So best to just let members friendly post whatever briefly in a post or three that has value allowing understanding the typical ways others view issues and not technically engage much further.

But will suggest for those serious about understanding these issues to read the following 2000 best seller that is not too technical so as to be confusing:

Amazon.com
Click to expand...
I appreciate being set straight by members with considerable knowledge.
I asked AI: Technically speaking, what is the origin of life?

Copilot: ... there are several leading theories and hypotheses that aim to explain how life might have begun on Earth:
  1. Primordial Soup Theory: This theory suggests that life originated in a "soup" of organic molecules in the early Earth's oceans. These molecules, under the influence of energy sources like lightning or ultraviolet radiation, formed more complex compounds that eventually led to the first living organisms.
  2. Hydrothermal Vent Hypothesis: Some scientists believe that life may have started around hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor. These vents release hot, mineral-rich water that could provide the necessary conditions for the formation of organic molecules and the emergence of life.
  3. Panspermia: This hypothesis proposes that life, or at least the basic building blocks of life, may have come from space. Meteorites and comets containing organic compounds could have delivered these materials to Earth, where they contributed to the development of life.
  4. RNA World Hypothesis: This theory suggests that RNA, a molecule capable of both storing genetic information and catalyzing chemical reactions, played a crucial role in the origin of life. According to this hypothesis, self-replicating RNA molecules were the precursors to all current life forms.
 
I posted in this thread earlier about how I've been expecting panspermia to soon put a nail in the coffin of the dominant abiogenesis theory so many scientists have doggedly defended.

Well science results of analysis of the asteroid in this thread are now just in and yes, that nail is now deeper. šŸ˜„ This PBS Spacetime episode with the excellent Matt O'Dowd lays out the logically analysis of argumentation well using the kind of relative terms I prefer.

Asteroid contains building blocks of life


More of my earlier panspermia posts:

Life contaminations between Milky Way Galaxy planets

Youtube video: Brian Cox - Alien Life & The Zoo Hypothesis

AI, super Artificial Intelligence in our lifetimes
 
The current abiogenesis theory, is still pretty much, "We don't know, but we think it only happened once." It doesn't rule out panspermia, which just like the current theory, doesn't explain how it happened the first time. And panspermia has never been universally ruled out. It's just one more possible event in a much more important process that everyone would like to understand. To me, where it happened is interesting, but a minor part of a bigger question.
 

Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top