Evidence! Amino Acids (building blocks of life) Formed by Collision of Comet

ZiggyMojo
For the first time we have some definitive evidence that the building blocks of life can be formed without the presence of life or outside intervention. It has oft been speculated and theorized by the scientific community that amino acids were somehow created from celestial objects impacting our planet. It has been an equally powerful argument from the creationist standpoint of debunking scientific theories, in saying that life simply cannot be created from rocks hitting one another.

New evidence suggests that perhaps, amino acids can be formed from nothing more than water and the proper amount of heat.

A team reporting in Nature Geoscience this week (September 15) replicated the impact shock of colliding astronomical bodies using a specialized gun to shoot high velocity, steel projectiles into icy mixtures with chemical compositions similar to comets. Hurling forward at seven kilometers per second, the projectiles triggered shock waves so intense that, upon impact, they caused amino acid to form from the mixtures’ basic chemical compounds. The researchers synthesized eight amino acids this way, including glycine and alanine, which are found in most proteins. In other words, as Time noted, “water plus heat can equal biology.”

“Our work shows that the basic building blocks of life can be assembled anywhere in the Solar System and perhaps beyond. However, the catch is that these building blocks need the right conditions in order for life to flourish,” Zita Martins, the study’s lead author and an astrobiologist at Imperial College London, said in a statement. “Excitingly, our study widens the scope for where these important ingredients may be formed in the solar system and adds another piece to the puzzle of how life on our planet took root.”

Source


It makes this guy sound like even more of a loon:

With this discovery, we gain more insight into the possible origin of life on our planet. If life on Earth came from another source, then at least we know that it is possible for this to have happened somewhere else.

The mathematical implications would show that this occurrence is still rare as conditions must be right. However, it also shows it is far less improbable as previously thought. It doesn't explain the theory of evolution, but it does give us a starting point that previously had little, if any, hard evidence to support it.

edit on 17-9-2013 by ZiggyMojo because: (no reason given)

That could suggest perhaps that with the exact right conditions that a body could be formed to receive life energy. But as we know that certain bodily functions continue even after the life energy has left the body, it cannot be a building block of life but only a tiny part of the brick of an overwhelmingly, enormous building that life resides in. But it is a good find. Star and Flag.

reply to post by ZiggyMojo


I don't take you for a fool at all and I'm sorry that's how you took my post. I was just stating that I don't believe it will change anything, in regards to the creationist argument. They already ignore well founded evidence. Why would this change their stance?

reply to post by solomons path

One word . . . Cabbits! (Make that three words . . . Target Food.)

And "adaptation", though UnifiedSerenity seems to have picked up where itsthetooth left off with regards to trying to drive a false wedge between the concepts of evolution and adaptation.

solomons path
reply to post by ZiggyMojo

 

I don't take you for a fool at all and I'm sorry that's how you took my post. I was just stating that I don't believe it will change anything, in regards to the creationist argument. They already ignore well founded evidence. Why would this change their stance?

No problem, I thought you were implying that I didn't understand panspermia's relation to evolution, no offense taken.

I agree though that creationists will undoubtedly ignore this evidence as they do most evidence that directly contradicts their stance. I guess I just look at it as a sort of cookie for those of us who have supported these theories for awhile. An "I told you so" cookie

Alas, the creationists are hard set in their beliefs and I've seen very few change their perspectives.. I just hope we continue to make verifiable discoveries like these

ZiggyMojo

camaro68ss

It takes more faith to believe that the big bang, space, and time, came from nothingness then from a creator. Then the question is, who created the creator..... wrap you mind around that one....

That is the question that I always pose to the Creationist's who ask how the big bang was created.. Generally it's followed by befuddlement. I'm not denying the existence of some omnipotent power, but I will say I think it's a lot more vague than what people believe "God" to be.

The hardest thing about science to understand for most people is the vastness and infinite nature. Even for myself.. I can't wrap my head around it all and I don't think we're meant to. If we knew, then what would be the point of life?

I genuinely believe that we will never truly know the truth of the universe and its infinite mystery!
curiosity in our species is the inquisitive search for knowledge and truth and it has also been linked to our memory in many ways and the novelty of information

So the meaning of life for me is to remain curious , search for truth and knowledge rinse repeat ad infinitum

reply to post by ZiggyMojo


interesting building blocks but I still think there is something out from another place dimensionally or from another star system who knows .. there that helps with creation and Evolution ! a great part of it .. as Humans have 97-8 percent genes as Apes and the Complicated DNA n Junk DNA we have don't forget the 2nd chromosome that fused from 48 to 46 chromosomes that scientifically fact ...

Which is Creation (Alteration Manipulation ) From Something ...

Peter Weyland TED Talk 2023 (Prometheus Viral)



We are Like the Gods Now Truth to this Fact !!

Here what we can do the Proof !! So far ( Well in the Public Eyes that is that they revealed )

Animal Farm Episode 1, Part 1 of 10
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by ZiggyMojo


Thanks. But I thought this was settled long ago. *sigh* And btw I hate those labels - evolutionist, creationist, truther... gahhh! For the record, I'm just a thinker.

soficrow
reply to post by ZiggyMojo

 

Thanks. But I thought this was settled long ago. *sigh* And btw I hate those labels - evolutionist, creationist, truther... gahhh! For the record, I'm just a thinker.

I'd tend to agree with all of that.. The one part I disagree with though is that this has been settled. Panspermia was essentially a theory, and still is, but as previously stated.. This evidence gives theories like Panspermia and more complex theories like Evolution legs to stand on. It's kind of a feather in the hat..

Beyond that..

There is something to be said about so many different religions essentially preaching the same ideas with different perspectives.. Even more to be said about those ideas falling in line with science. My intentions have always been to bridge the gaps between science and religion, because their is truth to be gleaned from all of it. By doing so, I might create a better understanding of everything for myself. By discussing things through the perspective of creation vs evolution, you can pick out parallels and get the whole picture. You can get the most out of conversations when all sides and perspectives are represented equally. Less is learned when you only discuss ideas with those who think the same.

reply to post by ZiggyMojo


You go guy! I no longer have the patience. In fact, what I find most interesting is that while the general population is being distracted with ridiculously circular fundamentals, the opportunists are rolling along and using the science to modify our world - not just at the molecular level but the nano level too. So while people are focused on questioning whether or not evolution happens, corporations are forcing evolution and accelerating it too. For profit. How dumb is that?

reply to post by ZiggyMojo


If comets and such breed life therefore a space rock is playing god. Therefore those Russian folks who are worshiping the meteorite that came down in February may not be so crazy after all. LOL

Really this means Nothing for us Humans. So what a collision makes this chemical exchange, this new creation of acids take place - thats all it means. There is nothing here that suggests we humans got our present life's start by the help of a comet.

JohnPhoenix
reply to post by ZiggyMojo

 

If comets and such breed life therefore a space rock is playing god. Therefore those Russian folks who are worshiping the meteorite that came down in February may not be so crazy after all. LOL

Really this means Nothing for us Humans. So what a collision makes this chemical exchange, this new creation of acids take place - thats all it means. There is nothing here that suggests we humans got our present life's start by the help of a comet.

I think you're grossly misinterpreting my post. Amino's are proteins.. The same exact ones that make up RNA which later becomes DNA. That's pretty substantial evidence that a simple interaction of heat and h20 can create the initial building blocks needed to start life. Prior to this it was only speculated that this could happen and there was no evidence. We know that under the right conditions, amino acids combine to create nucleotides. The Nucleotides band together to create RNA. In labs, setup with RNA replicators, scientists have witness RNA evolving into DNA. DNA is THE "building block" of life.

I never said anything about humans coming from a comet.. I said that scientific theories like panspermia are being supported by the evidence provided by these experiments. If Panspermia proves to be real, then it blows a huge hole in creationist belief.

This answer the question of "where" does it start for life.. Or how could it have started here?

Now the transition from DNA to complex organism is the next step in the process. We've witnessed species evolve in experiments and even seen speciation through geographic separation, but we haven't been studying "evolution" long enough to witness dramatic differences that would explain something as different or complex as human origin. The pieces are coming together and this part was essential for making the rest even a remote possibility.

reply to post by ZiggyMojo


I find it hard to believe that I am the only one to question the makeup of the mixture. If the human body can synthesize 12 of the twenty amino acids, is it to much of a stretch to assume that heat is a necessary ingredient? I think that we should question the process, because, absent a strict and meticulous experiment, we just have magic. I mean, do we really know what the chemical composition of a celestial body is, we don't even know what was in the composition used for this experiment. Talk about blind faith, science has only one main agenda and that is to disprove God, and to except all of its conclusions at face value is no different than...

onthedownlow
reply to post by ZiggyMojo

 

Talk about blind faith, science has only one main agenda and that is to disprove God, and to except all of its conclusions at face value is no different than...

No it doesn't. Just because you seem to think it does doesn't make it so. Science maintains that God can exist, believers just need to produce evidence to show he exists. Science also doesn't ACCEPT all of its conclusions at face value either. Apparently you need to familiarize yourself with the Scientific Method. Here, a link for you to read. I hope you do before you post any further.

Introduction to the Scientific Method

I want you to read the next two sentences very carefully now. Evolution DOESN'T disprove God. Evolution and God CAN coexist.

Krazysh0t

onthedownlow
reply to post by ZiggyMojo

 

Talk about blind faith, science has only one main agenda and that is to disprove God, and to except all of its conclusions at face value is no different than...

No it doesn't. Just because you seem to think it does doesn't make it so. Science maintains that God can exist, believers just need to produce evidence to show he exists. Science also doesn't ACCEPT all of its conclusions at face value either. Apparently you need to familiarize yourself with the Scientific Method. Here, a link for you to read. I hope you do before you post any further.

Introduction to the Scientific Method

I want you to read the next two sentences very carefully now. Evolution DOESN'T disprove God. Evolution and God CAN coexist.

Thank you.

To add. We know what comets are made of and because of this, we can replicate these materials in the lab. For this particular experiment, several variations and potential comet make-ups were used and it sounds like all of which yielded similar results..

They made batches of ice mixture laced with ammonia, methanol and carbon dioxide to represent different compositions of comets.

Writing in the journal Nature Geoscience, the researchers show that an impact at around seven kilometres per second produced scores of amino acids in one ice mixture.

The impact creates an intense shock wave that fragments the simple compounds, which then recombine into amino acids, such as alanine and glycine. Among the roles they play in life, glycine is a neurotransmitter which is active in the brain stem and retina, while alanine is found in bacterial cell walls.

Source

So there are your chemicals.. It wasn't all magic, it wasn't blind luck.. Experimentation after development of hypothesis is what led these researchers to the discovery. It is repeatable and verifiable.

Krazysh0t

onthedownlow
reply to post by ZiggyMojo

 

Talk about blind faith, science has only one main agenda and that is to disprove God, and to except all of its conclusions at face value is no different than...

No it doesn't. Just because you seem to think it does doesn't make it so. Science maintains that God can exist, believers just need to produce evidence to show he exists. Science also doesn't ACCEPT all of its conclusions at face value either. Apparently you need to familiarize yourself with the Scientific Method. Here, a link for you to read. I hope you do before you post any further.

Introduction to the Scientific Method

I want you to read the next two sentences very carefully now. Evolution DOESN'T disprove God. Evolution and God CAN coexist.

I will read your link in just a moment. Courtesy of Merriam-Webster -
2 : an underlying often ideological plan or program

I happen to believe that many of sciences theories are mere conjecture, but I am sure that you can probably think of at least a few that are. I never suggested that evolution disproves a creator, I am not suggesting that amino acids were not created by firing a bullet into a mystery solution, but I am suggesting that science is agenda driven, and sometimes the perfect conditions do not occur naturally, but they are created. Ahh, yes, science does except conclusions at face value until they are disproven- kind of a problem when so few are willing to disprove them.

ZiggyMojo

Krazysh0t

onthedownlow
reply to post by ZiggyMojo

 

Talk about blind faith, science has only one main agenda and that is to disprove God, and to except all of its conclusions at face value is no different than...

No it doesn't. Just because you seem to think it does doesn't make it so. Science maintains that God can exist, believers just need to produce evidence to show he exists. Science also doesn't ACCEPT all of its conclusions at face value either. Apparently you need to familiarize yourself with the Scientific Method. Here, a link for you to read. I hope you do before you post any further.

Introduction to the Scientific Method

I want you to read the next two sentences very carefully now. Evolution DOESN'T disprove God. Evolution and God CAN coexist.

Thank you.

To add. We know what comets are made of and because of this, we can replicate these materials in the lab. For this particular experiment, several variations and potential comet make-ups were used and it sounds like all of which yielded similar results..

They made batches of ice mixture laced with ammonia, methanol and carbon dioxide to represent different compositions of comets.

Writing in the journal Nature Geoscience, the researchers show that an impact at around seven kilometres per second produced scores of amino acids in one ice mixture.

The impact creates an intense shock wave that fragments the simple compounds, which then recombine into amino acids, such as alanine and glycine. Among the roles they play in life, glycine is a neurotransmitter which is active in the brain stem and retina, while alanine is found in bacterial cell walls.

Source

So there are your chemicals.. It wasn't all magic, it wasn't blind luck.. Experimentation after development of hypothesis is what led these researchers to the discovery. It is repeatable and verifiable.

Thank you, I did not see the formula for the mixture at the original source, perhaps I missed it? Anyhow, I will solemnly place my left foot in my right side mouth.

reply to post by onthedownlow


No see you are misusing the word theory here. A scientific theory is completely different from a layman's theory. Another link for you:

Scientific Theory

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.

There I extrapolated the bit from this article that is pertinent to the conversation at hand. Theories aren't agenda driven, all you need is the facts to support your pet theory and it will gain credence. The world wide conspiracy to silence scientists who have alternate theories to mainstream ones doesn't exist. Those scientists just don't have enough evidence yet to make their theories mainstream.

p.s. You are also misusing accept. You've done it twice now. Except is used to exclude something from a set.

So panspermia is a real possibility now? How very enlightening!

reply to post by onthedownlow


Well, it appears that the original source doesn't include those quotes, but another article concerning the same experiment does. I'd post the journal, but of course it costs money so I'd be in trouble for copyright infringement if I distributed it freely lol

reply to post by ZiggyMojo


Can you post the source or the isbn?

I can probably get access through my library and would love to read the article.