Proteins and DNA Building Blocks Found in Stellar Disk
NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope has been used to discover some of life's most basic ingredients in the dust swirling around a young star. The ingredients -- gaseous precursors to DNA and protein -- were detected in a region around the star where rocky planets such as Earth are thought to be born. The findings represent the first time that these gases, called acetylene and hydrogen cyanide, have been detected outside of our Solar System.
Comments:
Hydrogen, the basic stuff out of which stars create all the building blocks of life, including amino and nucleic acids, sugars, and fats, has been found by a NASA research team to be found pretty much everywhere. "We were stunned to find that the concentrations of this gas were increased in the vicinity of the several billion stars we were looking at. In fact there is evidence that this concentration goes through the roof as one gets even closer to the stars in question, which raises the possibility that life might be found within those stars.." said Kwaamie Optimystiq, the team spokesperson, who spokes with us from the Hiddin Ames Research Center.<br><br>It has long been known that hydrogen is converted in stars to higher elements, in a process known as confusion. First hydrogen is converted to Judaism, then to Christianity, and finally to Islam, from which it then jumps to an apo-state which allows the creation of life-bearing elements (such as carbon, Oxygen, and the We- network for Women) without the need for an I.D.<br><br>Because this process is self-cattlizing it is thought that nucleic acid replication must start here. "We aren't sure exactly how it happens, but we speculate that there must be some sort of cooling-off period after a big blow-out", he said. He also added that probably a lot of other stuff happened in between, but that wasn't as important as getting their grant renewed.<br><br>The implications of the lab's research findings are truly staggered. "If even one of the planets which might circle these heavily hydrogen-concentrated stars has life, there is a very high probability that it too, will contain hydrogen and the other elements which are formed from it."<br><br>The team will summarize their findings later this month and present them at the upcoming USA-Today Conference on the Origins of Complex Explanations.<br><br>
That only works for those who believe in "the big plop" theory. And I have to correct you, confusion is not a process, it's a state.<br><br>There are also 3 possibilities for this state.<br><br>There is collapsing confusion where "the big plop" happens again and again and will forever lead to more confusion. This is an old theory that has pretty much been flushed.<br><br>There is the expanding state of confusion where the confusion just builds upon itself forever and ever. Somehow this leads to a saddle shape, eventually pony rides, balloons and clowns. Although we eventually grow out of this, it is said you can take the scientist out of the expanding state of confusion, but you can't take the expanding state of confusion out of the scientist.<br><br>Then there's the steady state of confusion, which is an extremely balanced state and the odds of actually being in this perfect state of confusion are so extremely unlikely that nobody can figure it out. However, the facts tend to lead to the conclusion that no matter how unlikely, we are actually completely in a steady state of confusion.<br><br>It's only fair, since we mentioned the other three, to bring up another less accepted state. It does have a small following led by Don Jobson who says that there never was a big plop and all confusion recycles itself in a process of stellar reformation. However, he completely ignores confusion and he neither adds to nor takes away from confusion. You could say it is another steady state of confusion but not to be mistaken for the real steady state of confusion.<br><br>With that being said, all I want to know is did they get their Grant refunded? Because if they didn't I want some.
From what I understand, there are about 41 finely tuned characteristics (which are all random) that need to be just right for life "as we know it" to exist. The Drake equation doesn't even come close to including all of them.<br><br>The odds for all of these is extremely astronomical, infinitesimal, incomprehensible.<br><br>If you believe in God, here is a link to a good read. If you don't it's still a good read for the info within. It starts out with cosmological data but then gets into solar system specifics, leaving out some but including many that people rarely consider.<br><br>http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm<br><br>I still think we should head to Enceladus <img class='' src='http://new.astromart.com/astromart/javascripts/sceditor/emoticons/smile.png' alt='smile' title='smile'/><br>
I think that saying that conditions need to be just like ours for life to exist is circular reasoning. I think it is more practical to say that conditions CAN be just like ours- which allows for them to be different too. I would venture a guess that there is some life on earth that doesn't fit the equations and criteria some might say are prerequisite to life.<br><br>For that matter, let's look at life on our planet. In every crevise (sp?), deep ocean vent, cave, dirt, rock, where there is water, electrolytes, and an energy source (sun, vent heat, chemical) on our planet- there is life. I think that people will eventually be astounded as to how common life is. I do think that the majority of life will turn out to be microbial. They were here on our planet for billion(s) of years before anything more advanced showed up.<br><br>The real trick, however, is to find find life that is approximately as sentient as we are. We have become self-aware only in the last ~0.0002% (as opposed to bacterial life's ~70%) of our solar system's life span. To find life that we overlap with as sentient beings I think will be quite challenging.<br><br>So I would say then that I agree with your initial estimations, JD. 8)
It's a heck of a stretch from the detection of 'acetylene and hydrogen cyanide' to 'gaseous precursors to DNA and protein' and again to 'Proteins and DNA Building Blocks'. I'm not even sure of the point of such a statement. I'm a big fan of observable, recordable, reproducable data. wake me when someone finds some kind of organism. is there a better example of an oxymoron than 'simple cell'?<br>my opinion only. genuinely no offense intended
Hi Mark-<br><br>This is also in the article:<br> "If you add hydrogen cyanide, acetylene, and water together in a test tube, and give them an appropriate surface on which to be concentrated and react, you'll get a slew of organic compounds including amino acids and a DNA purine base called adenine..."<br><br>So I don't think the stretch is as far as you suggested. I'm also pretty sure the chemical sequence descirbed above is observable, reproducable, etc. The relevence of the discovery is that step one of what is required for life has been observed around a star besides our own. IMO, the eventual discovery of life elsewhere will go through several/ many incremental discoveries such as this. I for one am very excited about it- <img class='' src='http://new.astromart.com/astromart/javascripts/sceditor/emoticons/wink.png' alt='wink' title='wink'/> <br><br>Best Regards,<br>John
We see, we form our (sometimes differing)uderstanding on what we judge probable or improbable. but we share the joy of viewing wavefronts of photons that reach us practically undisturbed and undistorted across hundreds, even thousands of light years. have enjoyed the discussion.
Hear! Hear!
Funding Member
