Most Planets May Be Seeded With Life

"Astronomers have detected a building block of RNA floating within the hot, compact core of a massive star-forming region in the Milky Way"

reply to post by Canadianduder


I think they are looking at gas clouds not the stars themselves. They are using spectroscopic analysis. Chemicals emit light of a certain wavelength which can be detected by sensitive optical instruments. Often the look for signs of water which is a building block of life.

Originally posted by IceColdPro
This could mean that MOST if not ALL star systems and galaxies carry the building blocks for basic life and that even upon the birth of a planet, it may contain the basic ingredients that would allow life to flourish if the conditions become right.

Could this mean that extra terrestrial life is now undeniable? If the basic building blocks of life are the same in deep space as it is on earth, does this mean that we could even find planets that are almost carbon copies of earth? With the same trees and insects?

This is definitely a thought provoking discovery, and I look forward to reading opinions and comments on this article.

(Mods: please move my post if it is in the wrong sub-forum. I did a search and could not find a similar article so I believe it isn't a duplicate, apologies if I am wrong, thanks)

sciencenow.sciencemag.org
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit: title to same as source]
Headline: Please use the original story headline from your source.

[edit on 28-11-2008 by 12m8keall2c]

This is very interesting. I've always been of the belief that, given the vastness of the universe, extra-terrestrial life was undeniable. This new evidence seems to further prove this belief for me.

Originally posted by plumranch

"Astronomers have detected a building block of RNA floating within the hot, compact core of a massive star-forming region in the Milky Way"

reply to post by Canadianduder

 

I think they are looking at gas clouds not the stars themselves. They are using spectroscopic analysis. Chemicals emit light of a certain wavelength which can be detected by sensitive optical instruments. Often the look for signs of water which is a building block of life.

and you have strong reason to believe that all that crap works?
or that the "experts" are even on the right path with their research?
research will discover whatever if it funded to these days.

the above is nothing more than my current opinion, based on life long observations. I reserve the right to change that opinion.

HOGWASH
it has been proven that even with the elements essential to the formation of life present that the chances of life just "falling together" is a chance in a million. Again and again, trying to take credit away from GOD as lone creator of all life and all things, when will it end? I guess at the end.

Originally posted by GRANDWORLDDRAMA
HOGWASH
it has been proven that even with the elements essential to the formation of life present that the chances of life just "falling together" is a chance in a million. Again and again, trying to take credit away from GOD as lone creator of all life and all things, when will it end? I guess at the end.

where did you come up with all that crap?

without putting words in your mouth.
you demonstrate something i think is part of the problem...

the idea that: everything just seems to work too perfectly to have come together by chance. It must be designed.


life isnt perfect
its just our own lack of imagination, which makes nature seem perfect, as we are unable to fathom anything beyond that which we know.
everything doesnt need to be perfect in order to work.
things just need to be sufficient.

the sooner we realise our own lack of imagination being the cause of so much confusion the better.

Two of the greatest questions of existence--Are we alone? and How did we get here?


lol

i can answer those...

Are we alone? no

How did we get here? the Elohim

Are we supposed to believe a single RNA molecule was observed from lightyears away? I really don't think so. The "other life out there" debate aside, I just don't believe the science behind this article.

Originally posted by Jenna
Great find!

It always makes me laugh when I hear someone say that there is no way there is any other life out there somewhere. With the number of planets that are out there it's practically a certainty that there are many planets that do or did support life, the only problem is that it may not be in the forms we would expect.

That's a good point actually. Life forms on other planets aren't what most people think that scientists are looking for. It'd be pretty interesting to find actual aliens though. It'd freak me out a bit.

Originally posted by Nebadon
Two of the greatest questions of existence--Are we alone? and How did we get here?


lol

i can answer those...

Are we alone? no

How did we get here? the Elohim

Really? for me that doesn't answer anything. Weren't the Elohim in Lord of the Rings?? You know, the horsey guys...

The problem is that we can only evaluate what we see around us from what we know, or more importantly what we think we know.

If this is indeed a genuine scientific discovery then it can be added to the knowledge base that is used to redefine our views on the elements present upon formation of stars / planets etc.

Will we see similar 'Humanoid' life / plant life on other planets?

It is highly unlikely that life will follow the 4billion year pattern it has on Earth so we will most likely not see life similar to our own on other planets. Think about it, we are only the 'most successful' life (i use that term loosely) due to an asteroid impact that killed the previous most successful life...Dinosaurs. There are way too many variables that can and do influence not only the development of a planet but its eco-system and its capacity to support life and moreover these variables are not readily predictable.

Interesting find though.

If there is life on other planets...its just mind boggling how crazy they could be...we could be looking at an advanced alien species ie where we are now technology wise + a few million years point blank in the face and we might not even know it...While we burn coal they would be using stars as power sources....scouring unhabitable planets for resources...setting up colonies....population of the species could be in the trillions..

Yes about the chances of life,i watch a documentary about all the things that happened for earth to exist the way it does,soooo many variables that happened to amke it habitable,then again life finds a way so maybe that means moot..

[edit on 29-11-2008 by Solomons]

reply to post by niteboy82


"I'm not concerned about your after-the-fact edit you added."

Please don't lie about me and my actions. I edit my spelling errors and that is all. It is my right say one thing at the start of a post and then another at the end of it - that does not equate to me resorting to a posteriori editing of my post.

You have no right or cause to bring such accusations against me. I would never do it to you, or anyone else - I am not a liar...

In any case I was right - they could not see what they said they saw. You were wrong to lie about me; I've reported you.

Deep Space Stellar RNA ok w/e you say....

[edit on 29-11-2008 by Canadianduder]

Originally posted by Canadianduder
Deep Space Stellar RNA

ok w/e you say....

let me guess... Fundamentalist Christian?

I'm sure you have a PhD in astrophsyics for you to be able to make claims counter to the findings of scientists?

I'm sure you've been looking through a radio telescope spectrometer for years, and have determined that this isn't possible?

BTW, it didn't say RNA... it said a building block required to make RNA... which means t hey have found one of the basic organic molecules required for life...

reply to post by nj2day


"let me guess... Fundamentalist Christian?"

Nope. I am just a realist.

I know when something is being hyped - because I've researched this study and concluded that it is a load of sensationalised nonsense.

Common sense alone should tell you that they cannot ascertain such precise spectral data from such a vast distance.

The article is all hype. The research, though valid suffers at the hands of such editorial hyberbole. This is not a significant discovery - it is not a discovery at all, but an admittedly inaccurate guess.

The scientist heading the study even admits that they are just guessing based on a broad selection of probable substances, and what they believe to be a component of RNA may be something completely different.

This article poorly represents the nature of the research, which would have benefited from a less sensationalist approach on the part of the author. One might say that it was in fact misrepresented apurpose.

This research will forever be associated with that hyperbolic article, which grossly exaggerates the quality of the data acquired during the course of the investigation.


[edit on 29-11-2008 by Canadianduder]

reply to post by Canadianduder


sources?

I'd like to check your research and draw my own conclusions plz...

Originally posted by nj2day
reply to post by Canadianduder

 

sources?

I'd like to check your research and draw my own conclusions plz...

You are not being serious. You are joking.

Did you even bother to read the article?

Did you bother follow the links on the article to the websites of the lead scientists who worked on the project about which the article was written?

Apart from that, my opinions are my own. Are yours?

You read my opinion which I already stated is based solely of the article and provided link - and asked for sources, even though you know them. The height of ludicrasy

You can't be serious. If you are, that is just horrible. Horrible for all of us.

If you had even bothered to read the article or were genuine in your pursuit of knowledge, you wouldn't have asked for sources - you would not have had to, as they have been available to you all along and clearly stated by myself and others.

We are reading from the same thread aren't we?

Edit: As a source, you may as well include this thread as I have thus far ONLY acquired all my information from it using ONLY my mouse to access the posted links within it (the thread...) and the article (referenced in the OP). Simple enough?

..Or do I have copy and past the whole article onto the thread for you - which I think is unnecessary as it can be accessed from the OP, and clearly you are already 'on' the thread I just cited

But then you be demanding that I 'italics' or 'bold' specific portions on a point-by-point basis... It wouldn't take long before your demands started getting ridiculous as you descend into a variant of nit-pickery ad infinitum

[edit on 29-11-2008 by Canadianduder]

reply to post by Canadianduder

I've researched this study and concluded that it is a load of sensationalised nonsense.

I'm sorry, I thought that meant you did actual research, and could demonstrate the weaknesses in the findings...

Please don't misrepresent yourself by saying you've conducted research, when in fact you haven't.

Your free to have your own opinions... even if they are asinine.

edit: could you copy/paste the body of those articles at the bottom of the article? For those of us who aren't paid subscribers to that site like yourself


[edit on 29-11-2008 by nj2day]

Originally posted by Tippys Dad
Are we supposed to believe a single RNA molecule was observed from lightyears away? I really don't think so. The "other life out there" debate aside, I just don't believe the science behind this article.

Dude...

Are we to believe that a man could stand on a land 30,000 miles away, and communicate with someone here in real time?

In the 21st century this is known as telecommunication, and if you said this was possible to an average person 100+ years ago, they would have the same reaction.

Science Magazine is a credible source and the article is referring to real science and technology that we have in today's world. You shouldn't shoot the science down simply because you can't comprehend the science or technology behind the discovery.

Wow, more species for us to exterminate.... One day.. maybe just one day a species will consider us nothing more than a lampshade.

Here's hoping for a factory farmed future!!

This article may be right or it may be wrong...but science always ends up being right because that's its only goal. The human egos are what get in the way--so sure these guys may want to announce something to get more funding or feel they saw something interesting that needs more study. People can manipulate the "data" however they want (and do) and push science forward or backwards so questioning a discovery is mandatory! Just don't poo-poo it because you "think" so..."know" so and prove it.

As far as God vs. random life...ha ha...c'mon science is the discovery of "God", why do some people fear this? Humans may manipulate the "data" but over time science reveals God--enjoy it! Look you can chicken and egg this thing to death with God created everything, or everything created God. You can end your argument either way--we can't prove it because we haven't had God tell us yet; he can always be the answer to every mystery or he may be the answer to the mystery. The only way to disprove something we can't discover is to choose to say we know everything and we didn't find him. That my friends is probably never going to happen.

In the meantime enjoy the universe(s) and use science to see what he's cooked up for us!

reply to post by IceColdPro


Dude... Do you honestly believe that something a small as RNA could be seen from light years away?

The components being much smaller than the RNA molecule, could not possibly be seen from such a distance.

The article admits as much....

- you did bother to read it, didn't you? Of course you didn't. That would take time and require the exertion of intellectual rigour.

[edit on 30-11-2008 by Canadianduder]