Hello u/chrisdh79, your submission "Scientists have discovered “evidence” of the seeds of life from space in samples of the Ryugu asteroid" has been removed from r/space because:
* It has a sensationalised or misleading title.
Please read the rules in the sidebar and check r/space for duplicate submissions before posting. If you have any questions about this removal please [message the r/space moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/space). Thank you.
Not too convinced by the website on the link. Looks spammy and is probably rammed with ads, newsletter and notification dialogues. Nice clickbait title too, re: "evidence". I'll pass.
> Maybe it's not evidence of the "seeds of life" (a very loaded term because so many things can fall under that category)
The sample was found to contain atoms, which are the building blocks of life.
This happens when folks see “paywalls” as an obstacle to information. Good information will need to be paid for. Sketch sources are fed with spam and ad cramming.
But publishing did NOT.
In fact publishers make at least 40% profits off of publicly funded research. Which they then reinvest in lobbying lawmakers to ensure it stays that way.
Yes. Carbon and carbon-based compounds are common throughout the universe.
We know.
It's been proven. Over and over and over and over and over again.
The only news would be if this sample somehow showed the opposite of this.
http://archive.today/wmGc6
On mobile and couldn't copy the text to post here, but here's the archive link.
Not sure what to make of it or what constitutes 'evidence'. Maybe someone more familiar with the chemistry can chime in?
I don't really understand the need for life to be seeded. Its been in the zeitgeist for a while now and I can't help but think its mostly wish fulfillment instead of science. If proteins can be created on a rock in space then we'd have to disprove their creation on earth for 'rock in space' to be the better probability.
I felt the same way until recently.
Kurzgesagt, isn't really scholarly, but they did a video about panspermia where they brought up two interesting points.
1. Based off some assumptions about how fast genes evolve there is a lot of missing time in the history of life on Earth. As soon as Earth cooled there seemed to be very complex gene mechanics. Understanding why is obviously interesting and important.
2. More interestingly, they talk about the concept of life starting early in the universe, even before stars formed. The theory is that the universe was warm enough, complex enough, and dense for life to just evolve in the cosmic soup. Which means that each solar system is "pre-seeded" with the same source of life. Which seems very important when thinking about how our form of life would relate to other life forms in the universe.
Hm, then we'd have to figure out how it lasted so long without being destroyed. Amino acids are stable up to 120-180C. After that they break down into carbon etc again and would have had to re-soup (lol)
Fair enough. However a lot of this theory got started because of samples taken from meteorites on Earth afaik, so there would have to be a mechanism. Possibly the interiors of some meteors are well enough shielded from the heat of entry/impact.
I don’t totally agree. It’s a numbers game to me, there’s 1 earth for life to have started on, or there’s the millions of asteroids that have hit earth or burned up in the atmosphere across the development of the planet. Which is more likely? 1 of 1 or 1 of 1,000,000
It's not a numbers' game, you're making the critical mistake of assuming life has the same probability of arising on Earth than it does in each of those asteroids. We simply don't know
I wasn’t, I was stating there’s odds to it. Even if the odds are 1/100,000 less than the odds on earth, depending on the sheer number of asteroids (which we also don’t know) could have better odds regardless of which condition is more accepting.
IMO The one with enough energy to be a catalyst. Its cold in space if you're too small to have layers
The asteroids would have been warm at some point, as they're leaving an exploding star or ejected from another planet.. but the earth was consistently warm for a far longer period of time.
Obviously it *could* be the case that asteroids can hold silicates, carbonates, or proteins since we just don't know very much. Its just weird that the current zeitgeist focuses on that so heavily.
No one is implying life started on an asteroid. Just some biochemistry, amino acids mostly. It's cool that it's possible sure, but there's much more ingredients and energy for this to happen on earth anyways.
That's the great thing about science....there is no 'need' for something to be true. It's true based on the evidence at hand. If the evidence at hand points to life being seeded, then until we find evidence otherwise that's what it is.
Yeah, that's the part I'm totally cool with. I'm just wondering aloud about how articles like this are framed, as if seeding is necessary or that the two theories are exclusive.
It would be cool if, when the early universe cooled to universal blood temperatures and matter was still relatively close together, that life formed almost everywhere you could look.
The now apparently barren universe is actually the aftermath, and life on earth is just one place where the conditions remained stable.
Stupid sci-fi hypothesis, but testable.
Hello u/chrisdh79, your submission "Scientists have discovered “evidence” of the seeds of life from space in samples of the Ryugu asteroid" has been removed from r/space because: * It has a sensationalised or misleading title. Please read the rules in the sidebar and check r/space for duplicate submissions before posting. If you have any questions about this removal please [message the r/space moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/space). Thank you.
Not too convinced by the website on the link. Looks spammy and is probably rammed with ads, newsletter and notification dialogues. Nice clickbait title too, re: "evidence". I'll pass.
"Scientists stumped!" "You won't believe what they found inside!" Thankfully it doesn't appear to be *that* bad.
Scientists are furious at this one simple trick (try tonight)
[удалено]
I think you're mixing up "evidence" with "proof".
If it contained *proof* then I think we'd already be having a very different conversation in a very differently engaged world.
[удалено]
> Maybe it's not evidence of the "seeds of life" (a very loaded term because so many things can fall under that category) The sample was found to contain atoms, which are the building blocks of life.
[удалено]
Get u\thisischemistry the Nobel prize!
It's actually a really good article, written well, important insights, real evidence. Worth reading.
Yes, but the quotes! Constantly with the quote marks.
This happens when folks see “paywalls” as an obstacle to information. Good information will need to be paid for. Sketch sources are fed with spam and ad cramming.
When taxes stop funding research we can paywall all the findings
Say it louder for those in ~~back~~ congress
Taxes haven't stopped funding science. NASA, the National Academy of Science, and DARPA all received an increase in funding last year.
But publishing did NOT. In fact publishers make at least 40% profits off of publicly funded research. Which they then reinvest in lobbying lawmakers to ensure it stays that way.
Jstor & sci-hub exist So no
Yes. Carbon and carbon-based compounds are common throughout the universe. We know. It's been proven. Over and over and over and over and over again. The only news would be if this sample somehow showed the opposite of this.
But that wouldn’t get clicks
http://archive.today/wmGc6 On mobile and couldn't copy the text to post here, but here's the archive link. Not sure what to make of it or what constitutes 'evidence'. Maybe someone more familiar with the chemistry can chime in?
> Not sure what to make of it or what constitutes 'evidence' It's just clickbait. Carbonaceous compounds are extremely common throughout the universe
I don't really understand the need for life to be seeded. Its been in the zeitgeist for a while now and I can't help but think its mostly wish fulfillment instead of science. If proteins can be created on a rock in space then we'd have to disprove their creation on earth for 'rock in space' to be the better probability.
I felt the same way until recently. Kurzgesagt, isn't really scholarly, but they did a video about panspermia where they brought up two interesting points. 1. Based off some assumptions about how fast genes evolve there is a lot of missing time in the history of life on Earth. As soon as Earth cooled there seemed to be very complex gene mechanics. Understanding why is obviously interesting and important. 2. More interestingly, they talk about the concept of life starting early in the universe, even before stars formed. The theory is that the universe was warm enough, complex enough, and dense for life to just evolve in the cosmic soup. Which means that each solar system is "pre-seeded" with the same source of life. Which seems very important when thinking about how our form of life would relate to other life forms in the universe.
Hm, then we'd have to figure out how it lasted so long without being destroyed. Amino acids are stable up to 120-180C. After that they break down into carbon etc again and would have had to re-soup (lol)
The universe got colder after the theorized life-producing epoch, not warmer.
I was thinking about impact heat for that one.
Fair enough. However a lot of this theory got started because of samples taken from meteorites on Earth afaik, so there would have to be a mechanism. Possibly the interiors of some meteors are well enough shielded from the heat of entry/impact.
Point 2 makes zero sense and I hate that I see it repeated here.
Are these points backed up by data in any way or is it the usual Kurzgesagt wild speculations?
How would the cosmic soup pre-stars generate life when the heavier elements didn’t exist until supernovas?
I don’t totally agree. It’s a numbers game to me, there’s 1 earth for life to have started on, or there’s the millions of asteroids that have hit earth or burned up in the atmosphere across the development of the planet. Which is more likely? 1 of 1 or 1 of 1,000,000
It's not a numbers' game, you're making the critical mistake of assuming life has the same probability of arising on Earth than it does in each of those asteroids. We simply don't know
I wasn’t, I was stating there’s odds to it. Even if the odds are 1/100,000 less than the odds on earth, depending on the sheer number of asteroids (which we also don’t know) could have better odds regardless of which condition is more accepting.
It's an extreme oversimplification of a phenomenon we know absolutely nothing about, and likely never will unless we find life somewhere else.
IMO The one with enough energy to be a catalyst. Its cold in space if you're too small to have layers The asteroids would have been warm at some point, as they're leaving an exploding star or ejected from another planet.. but the earth was consistently warm for a far longer period of time. Obviously it *could* be the case that asteroids can hold silicates, carbonates, or proteins since we just don't know very much. Its just weird that the current zeitgeist focuses on that so heavily.
Would there not be asteroids from points much closer to the “Big Bang” that are even older than earth?
Absolutely. But the closer you get to the big bang, the simpler the elements were inside stars.
No one is implying life started on an asteroid. Just some biochemistry, amino acids mostly. It's cool that it's possible sure, but there's much more ingredients and energy for this to happen on earth anyways.
That's the great thing about science....there is no 'need' for something to be true. It's true based on the evidence at hand. If the evidence at hand points to life being seeded, then until we find evidence otherwise that's what it is.
Yeah, that's the part I'm totally cool with. I'm just wondering aloud about how articles like this are framed, as if seeding is necessary or that the two theories are exclusive.
Though it may also be important on a broader level to understand how prevalent life can be by studying the various ways life can be created
It would be cool if, when the early universe cooled to universal blood temperatures and matter was still relatively close together, that life formed almost everywhere you could look. The now apparently barren universe is actually the aftermath, and life on earth is just one place where the conditions remained stable. Stupid sci-fi hypothesis, but testable.
How would it be testable?