Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

[deleted] t1_jd4nxd1 wrote

[removed]

95

[deleted] t1_jd4zrlm wrote

[removed]

26

[deleted] t1_jd51ydm wrote

[removed]

15

[deleted] t1_jd6fvgw wrote

[removed]

6

ColeWRS t1_jd6c9pw wrote

Very interesting. What would be more interesting in my opinion is if multiple different “building blocks of life” were found on the same asteroid. I wonder if any space experts could speak on this, or whether what I described has already been found? Imagine if a piece of earth flew off, one would imagine it would contain a few different molecules required for life, not just one.

36

brettmjohnson t1_jd6hjx0 wrote

It might be likely that the multiple "building blocks of life" arrived on different asteroids -- basically "BINGO".

31

More-Grocery-1858 t1_jd6i9gt wrote

If one assumes these compounds are common enough to be present in numerous asteroid bombardments, then this may well be a contributor to life on Earth.

The more reassuring assumption for me is that this means these compounds likely arise everywhere in the universe as a result of natural processes, lending credence to the idea that life might be common.

42

brettmjohnson t1_jd6jrq2 wrote

> The more reassuring assumption for me is that this means these compounds likely arise everywhere in the universe as a result of natural processes, lending credence to the idea that life might be common.

Precisely.

23

RedYachtClub t1_jd7v2gi wrote

What are the odds that similar DNA structures also arose on other worlds?

3

More-Grocery-1858 t1_jd7y8yd wrote

DNA is one of two common "coding languages" for life on Earth. The other is RNA.

The mere fact that we know of two functioning "coding languages" increases the odds of one of them being found elsewhere.

There may, however, be other possible languages that use the same or similar building blocks in different ways. Scientists on Earth have done some limited research in this area and it looks plausible. This also increases the odds.

Finally, finding these building blocks on objects outside the Earth's atmosphere increases those odds as well.

I can't cite specific numbers, but the chance of discovering alien life looks more promising the more we discover about the universe.

4

panmex t1_jd6sm85 wrote

Anyone who has any knowledge on how these craft are built that can give me an over/under on the Uracil having an Earth origin?

11

-TheOnlyOutlier- t1_jd7po0f wrote

Contamination wouldn't occur due to the spacecraft, but due to handling in the lab. While I'm not an expert on organic chemistry, I think it's pretty unlikely that organic contamination would ONLY include uracil. Scientists spend a lot of time making sure their data is significant. Additionally, this isn't the only research group with Ryugu samples that has found complex organics, though I think these might be the most complex found so far.

Source: I work with Ryugu samples. Take my opinion with a grain of salt as I'm still in grad school.

9

panmex t1_jd9l697 wrote

Thanks for the info appreciate it!

1

_richas_ t1_jd6mcht wrote

So, does a planet possible of life have to be destroyed or hit with a big rock to spew this out toward us? If so, life elsewhere died so we could see their building blocks (or Legos, if you prefer).

8

always_wear_pyjamas t1_jd711ed wrote

That's one idea. Another is that maybe something about the asteroids themselves serves as a medium where these things form easily from simpler molecules.

3

albertscoot t1_jd7lnbn wrote

Weren't microbes found in the stratosphere? If a rock misses fully colliding into a planet it could become contaminated I'm guessing.

1

DougFlag t1_jd6iv3t wrote

Where my Delta-V / Critical Mass fans at?

2

dirtewokntheboys t1_jd7m96i wrote

So, is the universe essentially pollinating itself with life? Which would mean life is probably common? I'm a firm believer in patterns and they look similar, ehether very small to very large scales. Almost like little hints for us.

2

allthemoreforthat t1_jd7mkd2 wrote

100% agree on the patterns, I've never thought of pollinating as one though, super interesting hypothesis.

1

AutoModerator t1_jd469vs wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

geezerhugo t1_jd9e0z9 wrote

And? It still isn't life.

1

owl_heart_72 t1_jd7e0f6 wrote

Somebody forgot to use enough RNAse before handling a specimen...

−1

Which_Professor_7181 t1_jd5s9gn wrote

I don't know why I just I hope that that was true. I hope that they were going to find that that was true because that means I mean comments are everywhere that means if a planet is habitable a comet could bring life and that's what is the starting that's what starts life on every planet that is tolerable to life at least carbon-based life that we know of. which would maybe all the life there is being that none of our planets have any life at all that we know of now we're starting to lean towards that that may not be true so I don't know I'm just voice texting this I'm basing all of this on nothing

−18

Brain_Hawk t1_jd51bl9 wrote

Uracil is a part of RNA but that far from evidence of life. I feel like the headline is a bit click baity that it's implying more than was found. It's not really evidence of any life related processes, simply a component that is probably necessary for early life as we know it.

Still interesting in that these molecules can develop into more, and it speaks to the probability of simple life forming. A whole back was in a discussion about the probability of intelligent life anywhere in the universe, and an argument we should be totally agnostic because we can't know the probability. Evidence like this suggests to me some of the basic chemical processes necessary for life are probably.common, and other evidence, to the best of my awareness, is suggestive that we can recreate the conditions for form amino acids in a lab.

So it looks like the building blocks of life form readily, which is an argument in favor of life forming fairly often. Of course advanced or complex life will be rarer, but also available evidence (ok mostly out N=1 planet, but many environments) supports the idea that organism are very adaptive which further supports the tendency to develop into more advanced organisms. So complex life may be fairly common.

Anyways neat. But can't help but be a bit miffed at how headlines are always written to implictly exaggerate the findings a bit.

−25

CardiOMG t1_jd5a7ky wrote

It literally says “a crucial BUILDING BLOCK of life” was found. Not that life was found.

38

Brain_Hawk t1_jd5alcv wrote

Yes like all good science clickbait, it didn't lie. It merely insinuated

It's a crucial building block of life, but it doesn't carry through this is anything to do with the actual existence of life. It's just a chemical, that's found that a lot of places.

−39

tricksterloki t1_jd5ci0j wrote

I'm going to need your source for uracil is found through natural, nonbiological, synthesis in lots of places.

22

Brain_Hawk t1_jd5cn4t wrote

I'm no chemist. But it is a precursor to life, not a consequence to life. So it must by definition be formed through non-biological process.

−29

tricksterloki t1_jd5cvqb wrote

You claimed it can naturally be found lots of places. Tell me of these lots of places.

22

Brain_Hawk t1_jd5d3ca wrote

I think you're just here to argue. I'm not saying it's ubiquitous. You want to evaluate the issue more thoroughly you're welcome too look it up on your own.

−14

Bobthehobnob t1_jd5rlyn wrote

There's the Urey-Miller experiment which tried to recreate early earth atmospheric conditions, and they succeeded in making DNA and RNA (and also proteins and polysaccharides iirc) from methane, water, hydrogen and ammonia, but I think people later remarked how the early earth atmosphere probably didn't have the conditions required by the Urey-Miller experiment to actually be able to make these molecules.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1161527?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed

I'm not an expert on early life origin work, but as a biologist it definitely drew my attention to see uracil being discovered on an asteroid, as AFAIK it's pretty much only formed in nature through biological methods (at least with the current earth conditions it is, as the earth has changed quite a lot over the past 4.5 billion years, so it is possible at one stage that it was formed non-biogically).

8

Brain_Hawk t1_jd5xtiu wrote

That's really interesting. The article and.somethibg else (I forget now) made me presume it was naturally occurring. If it's largely biological how did it get to be part of RNA? Maybe a different molecule started it off?

Interesting those experiments on early dNA did not replicate. Undergrade was a long time ago so last I had heard it was probably all the rage. Of course, ever will we debate what conditions are the right conditions, etc.

Thanks for the informative post.

−2

browncoat_girl t1_jd5c9if wrote

That's a pretty big leap. Water is a "crucial building block of life", but nobody acts amazed that water exists in space.

9

Brain_Hawk t1_jd5ciwo wrote

I agree that uracil is certainly more interesting didn't finding water, and is much more a building block of life. I think a lot of these headlines are written quite cleverly so that if you read it fast you misreaded, which is what I did, and I thought for a second it was saying RNA was found in an asteroid. Now that would be a groundbreaking discovery

Was still a good read. But so much of science news now is attempts to sensationalize things.

0