hazelm Posted April 26, 2018 Report Share Posted April 26, 2018 Exchemist, I didn' study this very hard as I am overwhelmed right now. I thought to put it here so you can see if it is worth considering and adding to the collection of ideas we have already looked at. Maybe I will get back to it. I shall try. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180425120217.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMJones0424 Posted April 27, 2018 Report Share Posted April 27, 2018 While the article you linked to is interesting, I think a more appropriate title to this thread would mirror the article and be "How the building blocks of life may have formed in space" This is indeed a worthwhile avenue of study, as I think most research assumes that life formed from geochemical processes on planets like Earth. It is already known that a lot of of the chemical materials for life are available in space, but I think it is commonly assumed that the processes needed to create life must take place in gravitational wells like Earth. This study seems to show that this may not be an appropriate assumption.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazelm Posted April 27, 2018 Author Report Share Posted April 27, 2018 While the article you linked to is interesting, I think a more appropriate title to this thread would mirror the article and be "How the building blocks of life may have formed in space" This is indeed a worthwhile avenue of study, as I think most research assumes that life formed from geochemical processes on planets like Earth. It is already known that a lot of of the chemical materials for life are available in space, but I think it is commonly assumed that the processes needed to create life must take place in gravitational wells like Earth. This study seems to show that this may not be an appropriate assumption..If you wish but it's such a long title and seems to say the same thing given my question mark. Anyway, I'm glad it is useful. I still like the volcanic hypothesis. If life started in outer space, we then have to figure out how it got to Earth -- And, come to think of it, why isn't it still happening? Or, is it? Just thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMJones0424 Posted April 27, 2018 Report Share Posted April 27, 2018 That's the question, and it isn't answered in the article you linked to. The article doesn't claim that life started in space. It claims that the building blocks for life can be formed in a vacuum and in circumstances found in space. This is new to me, but ****, a lot of stuff is new to me. However, it is false to claim that this article is saying that life could have formed in space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazelm Posted April 27, 2018 Author Report Share Posted April 27, 2018 That's the question, and it isn't answered in the article you linked to. The article doesn't claim that life started in space. It claims that the building blocks for life can be formed in a vacuum and in circumstances found in space. This is new to me, but ****, a lot of stuff is new to me. However, it is false to claim that this article is saying that life could have formed in space.Oh, I failed to pick up on that. You are right, of course. Just the building blocks of life. All right. Doesn't that maybe make it easier to see how those got to Earth? Then life might still have formed on Earth. So, I still get to cling to my volcanic idea. Isn't speculation fun? So long as you label it that! A friend once said to me "Never stop imagining." I think I read later that Einstein said pretty much the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMJones0424 Posted April 27, 2018 Report Share Posted April 27, 2018 (edited) The problem is that we don't know. If the building blocks of life can easily be formed in space, then there may be nothing particularly notable about planets other than that they smoosh the building blocks together. Or, if the building blocks can be formed in space but there is some unique transformation that takes place in planets, then maybe this changes nothing. This article represents just one more piece in a puzzle that we're pretty sure what it should look like but not entirely sure and aren't even sure that we have enough pieces to put the puzzle together. On top of that, there's a few different pictures that the puzzle pieces match and we aren't entirely sure which puzzle we are putting together. According to the puzzle box that I'm working off of, in order to create life, you need to have chemical structures that interact with their environment and convert chemical energy to perform work. This article doesn't change my perception of the overall picture, but it might change some of the pieces I am working with. Edited April 27, 2018 by JMJones0424 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted April 27, 2018 Report Share Posted April 27, 2018 Exchemist, I didn' study this very hard as I am overwhelmed right now. I thought to put it here so you can see if it is worth considering and adding to the collection of ideas we have already looked at. Maybe I will get back to it. I shall try. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180425120217.htmHo hum, glycine again, I see - the simplest amino acid. I seem to have read quite a few ways in which this could have been made on the pre-biotic Earth or indeed in space. I really think the interesting challenges in studying the origin of life are not so much in how you can make the simplest amino acids but in how more complex - and therefore potentially sensitive to degradation - molecules could have been assembled in environments sufficiently well-protected for them to combine with other materials. But another glycine synthesis route does not go amiss....... JMJones0424 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.