The "first time" Glycolaldehyde, a key ingredient for life, is found in a star-forming region of the galaxy.

Arxiv mirror site.

Related:

http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2004/coldsugar/

__________________
What brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart

Sweet!

Still it's about as unexpected as "Lego blocks found in child's toy chest."

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Good find Argos. They keep finding more and more complex molecules in interstellar space. There's an ATM theory in there somewhere.

Wow...

I wonder if there might be nebulae or other regions with higher densities of organic molecules?

Glucose and fructose in the Beehive Cluster!

And, of course, lactose in the Milky Way.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Milk and cookies, anyone?

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

Well considering that we don't KNOW that life spontaneously began here on Earth, all genesis theories should be given equal thought. The abiogenesis hypothesis is too speculative to call it "mainstream" in my opinion. We only assume life began in a soup pond here on Earth. Crick might have something to say about that.

__________________
"In the end the aggressors always destroy themselves, making way for others who know how to cooperate and get along. Life is much less a competitive struggle for survival than a triumph of cooperation and creativity."- Fritjof Capra

www.gonzoscience.com

I should give equal thought to all genesis theories? Why? It's my mind and I'll spend time thinking what I want, thank you very much.

I think I shall think about the Big-Boiling creation of the Universe by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We are clearly progressing down the trail to the inevitable discovery of complex carbohydrates in space, praise His Noodliness.

Noodle soup!

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

I won't be convinced until we discover semolina in the rings of Saturn. :-)

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

Sorry, I was referring to headlines like- 'Cockroach found in Space!!!'. Maybe I should have said CT rather than ATM.

There are a few origin of life theories that get tossed around. Unless they're completely nutty, (cockroaches came from outer space!!!), I'm in no position to judge. I'm no expert.

But I have to say my current favourite is Miller's 'life evolved in ice' theory. Counter-intuitive and interesting.

I don't KNOW that I'm not dreaming all this while strapped up in a straight jacket and drooling on myself in a padded room./

Prove to me that I'm not.

Toothdust, we can make rational educated guesses as to what is the most likely, based on evidence.
What you choose to believe is your own choice.
I choose to not believe at all.

As far as if Abiogenic life is Mainstream- what's your point?
If life did not originate on Earth- it MUST have originated SOMEWhere, so how did it originate THERE?
Click* hello.
Endless Loop: See entry under Loop, Endless.

It's speculative but rationally so. The abiogenic origin theory is sound and well supported by bio-chemistry. Very Well Supported.
The only real issue is: Did life originate here once or many times? Because it's actually pretty easy for life to form...

We can´t rule out the possibility that precursors to life contained in the primeval solar system dust cloud were present in that soup.

__________________
What brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart

Directed panspermia might at first seem outlandish but I don't find it difficult imagining earthlings, not too far in the future, seeding other planets with earthly life. For me, nothing precludes the possibility of some advanced ETi having done so.

A few reasons I'm skeptical of abiogenesis on Earth: as best we can tell, as soon as early Earth was habitable it was inhabited, and those earliest forms of life were rather complex already; the 4 main elements which make up Life are found more in abundance off planet than on (this, I think, is actually a main reason scientists began looking to space); there is no accepted "standard model" for abiogenesis theories, no proof-of-principle.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

I find this to be a lame argument against exo genesis as well as panspermia. I think it's quite plausible Life formed, or began forming, as soon as was possible in the universe, say some 8-9Gyrs ago, and has since been spreading widely.

Curious, the wiki entry for abiogenesis states, "There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life. Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. Under that umbrella, however, are a wide array of disparate discoveries and conjectures..."
and
"As of 2008 no one has yet synthesized a protocell using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life."

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Ok, exactly how is it a "lame" argument?
If Life must have an origin- WHERE did it happen?
Be realistic.
It's JUST as plausible that the life that exists on Earth Originated on Earth, more so considering that so far, there is no hint of life existing anywhere else in the Solar System.
Is it possible that life on Earth did not originate here? Sure, it's possible. But as of right now, we have no real reason to think it didn't.
To me, it's a lame argument to say, "Life couldn't have just formed here."
Ok then where did it?
Or did a deity do it?

And again...

It is NOT Difficult for life to begin.
It really isn't.
Not in Chemistry.
Given the chemistry- it WILL happen. It's just a matter of when.

One scientist managed to create the precursors in a test tube over the course of just 25 years.
25 years... THink about that.
So what?
Nice thinky face. You like that one.
You know, A.DIM, it would be helpful if you rationally made rational arguments instead of trying to act coy.
Coy doesn't suit you.

Wouldn't that Martian meteorite found in Antarctica, though controversial, constitute a "hint of life" having exhisted somewhere in the solar system?

I tend to favor the Rare Earth Hypothesis and thus, I wonder if abiogenesis may be due to a combination of space and earth hypotheses where part of the chemistry occurs in space and is able to become life once it falls onto a planetary environment suitable for it to turn into life.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

The Martian rock may be a hint- but sadly, that's all it is.
I remember when the announcement was first made and the excitement (for me) that it caused.
Sadly, it's only a hint- a could be... There isn't much left to study there to see what it was exactly, that looked like microbes.

Even if there had been, and those Microbes were Earth like or had the same DNA structure that we do- it could be panspermia from Earth to Mars, that later was sent back to us in that meteorite.

We just don't know.

If it was life but different- it wouldn't be particularly surprising.
Millions of years ago, the conditions on Mars were quite suitable for life.

We just are flat out lacking evidence at this time.
The only strong evidence we have is probabilities, chemistry and observation of how these things worked out on Earth. Even that, is more than vague as to how we originated.

Personally, I do not care if we are the result of Earth combined with space, Earth Abiogenesis, alien seeding- Whatever. I just want to KNOW what it was.
And it doesn't look like we will have much to base that knowledge on anytime soon.
Our best guess is the one that currently makes the most sense. And that is that the life that is here originated here.
That it did so because of the chemical reactions that, almost inevitably, lead to life.

It's amazing to me how we can always, always, always discover that the things we thought were amazing turned out to be based on very simple and mundane science. Like Virii causing illness rather than demons.
And yet, when there is uncertainty or an unknown, people then think that it's suddenly, magically, OK to start pandering to the fantastic. Do they refuse to accept that the odds are great that that one will also turn out to be basic and mundane and well founded in science? Or is that ONE Special in some way that unlike everything else, it can be fantastic simply because they want to believe so and can get away with it because we currently lack evidence?

Why does ignorance always have to beget arrogant delusions?

It's not just the ignorant, the enlightened are capable of it too. Due to progress in science, it sometimes seems like todays enlightenment is tomorrow's ignorance. Every man want's to " boldly go where no man has gone before", to be famous and immortal due to some noble success, or at least some noble failure.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

As some of us may be aware, the Planetary society is sponsoring a "pseudo" trans-spermia experiment; in which, a cannister of "pre-biotic" molecules is launched into space and orbits Phobos and returns home... Given the vagaries of space and the possibilities of what might happen to the contents of the cannister during the round-trip... e.g. degradation of the molecules from harsh ionizing radiation, alteration of the structure of the molecules, etc...it seems like this may have been done before... http://www.planetary.org/programs/pr..._20081015.html

I have read papers in the some-what recent past that state the sorts of molecules that are and may have been present in the so-called "soup":

(1) Pre-biotic synthesis from CO atmospheres: Implications for the origins of life
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 2002

(2)Amino Acids in the Martian meteorite Nakhla
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 1999

(3) Identification of diamino acids in the Murchison meteorite
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 2004

(4) Hydropyrolysis of insoluble carbonaceous matter in the Murchison meteorite: New insights into its macromolecular structure
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 2004

(5) Fullerenes: An extraterrestrial carbon carrier phase for noble gases
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 2000




Although the papers are "dated"... I am trying to optimistically point out ( milk and cookies, included ) that there is a definite long road to hoe over the discussion as whether we are it(?) or how many other places support life (including intelligent life). I don't want to stoke the fire, but this seems to be what de-bunking bad science is about...

Please correct my citations if need be...

Best Regards

****
post script

I am not using the citations for any type of homework, thesis, or major scholarly work)...feel free to use them (if need be...)

__________________
"The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir."
---Carl Sagan

OK, realistically, merely asking "if it didn't start here, it MUST've started somewhere... where?" does nothing to negate the potential for Life having done so.
While it's a valid question and we don't have an answer as yet, I still find it lame as an argument against exogenesis or panspermia.

Yes, it is just as plausible Life originated on Earth but I disagree with "more so" based on what we think we know about our solar system. We barely understand our nearest neighbors, Luna and Mars, and Ara Pacis pointed out, there are what one might consider hints of Life. Although, as you said, "sadly, that's all it is" and at this time we just don't know. (at least we know you're willing to change your stance... )

Well, I pointed to a few reasons one might consider an alternative to abiogenesis on earth being as likely; they are, I think, some of the very reasons some scientists consider exogenesis and panspermia as viable alternatives.

I haven't seen anyone state this but I'd agree it would be a lame argument against abiogenesis on Earth.

No doubt; as you well know, a mantra I have is "similar ingredients in similar environments produce similar results."
I think Life has been happening for maybe 9Gyrs, everywhere, all the time.
But given you think the chemistry leading to Life is inevitable, what for you, precludes the possibility that the earliest known life on earth was transported here from elsewhere, to the point you think it is more likely to have originated here?
Do you view galaxies, solar systems, planets, moons, comets, asteroids, meteors, meteorites, cosmic dust... as closed systems? As though the elements and chemistry, physics too, at work in these things will inevitably lead to Life sometime, but there is no real potential for swapping or mixing and transporting organic material between these systems?

Miller, I take it?

"So what?"?!

Neverfly, you suggested "It's speculative but rationally so. The abiogenic origin theory is sound and well supported by bio-chemistry. Very Well Supported.
The only real issue is: Did life originate here once or many times? Because it's actually pretty easy for life to form..." which is contrary to what wiki states.
If there were an "only real issue", as you say, we'd have more of a standard model, not a "wide array of disparate discoveries and conjectures."
Hell, we don't even have proof of principle, do we?
I mean, has Life been created from nonLife?
That's what abiogenesis is, after all.

Nothing coy here; although it's not about me and your misperception.
My thinky was appropriate (regardless if I like it) since your statements didn't jive with consensus mainstream.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Indeed.
Reviewing history we find much of what was once accepted as fact proved wrong.
Knowing this, why would anyone in his right mind think that what we know today won't be disproved tomorrow?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

One major ignorance is that people are ignorant of history.

Many people also ignorantly assume that old beliefs were scientific, when they were NOT scientific.

How often do we hear dumb things like "5oo years ago scientists said the Earth was flat?"
Whatever. Scientists said no such thing. They said it was round. Some BELIEVERS did say it was flat though. Because they were uneducated and ignorant.

A.DIM, present a case that does not confuse believers with scientists.

Science does get shown to be wrong occasionally. And that's a good thing because it helps us develop better theories.

But That's progress.

Your claim is that if science can be shown wrong then it ALL can be all wrong. Wake up to reality- your claim suggests that we can never really know anything. So why should we listen to you? You can be 'proven wrong' in the next two seconds.

Finding interstellar sugar is a great step to finding other life.

....now if you want to find INTELLIGENT life, look for the coffee molecule...

;-)

Neverfly, my remark was more in jest than "making a claim."
Wake up; that should've been obvious.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Most Planets May Be Seeded With Life is how ScienceNow titled this discovery.

"The discovery is significant for two reasons. First, G31.41+0.31 lies far away from the radiation-filled center of the Milky Way, so if any biological processes start up there, they will have a chance to establish themselves. Second, the abundance of glycolaldehyde in the G31.41+0.31 cloud suggests that the molecule is "common throughout star-forming regions," says astrophysicist and co-author Serena Viti of University College London. The implication is that wherever there is starmaking and planet formation going on, organic building blocks could be assembling as well."

I tend to agree.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Actually, since scientific method became established, very few "accepted truths" were proven wrong. Some were found to be incomplete, but not wrong -- Einstein's theory of gravity does not negate Newton's Einstein's theory of gravity, rather the latter is a subset of the former. And even that is more an exception than a rule.

Not to put too fine a point, A.DIM is being full of it.

__________________
Fiction has to be plausible. Reality is under no such constraint.

Oh, I see -- it was a joke. Well, it is so similar to your (presumably) serious posts in the past, Neverfly and myself took it seriously.

__________________
Fiction has to be plausible. Reality is under no such constraint.

What gave it away?



I imagine if there were eyes in that smiley, they'd be brown...

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

It seems this particular debate goes round and round in circles for ever.

Surely the whole point about life and I mean LIFE and not precursor organic chemicals is that there needs to be a certain range of conditions in existence in a particular place or places for certain minimum period of time for the Chemistry to work in order for life to develop. Now of course it is possible that given the size of the universe that this process may well have happened in more than one place at several different times. It is possible that there it may have happened in more than one place within our own Galaxy.

The point is until we can lay down a series of specifications that can determine what sort of place, with which sort of conditions, needs to exist for how long for living cells to emerge then we cannot say whether one place or another was a viable cradle for life. It therefore follows we cannot on the one hand suggest other places in space ARE SUITABLE birth places for life, whilst on other hand we CANNOT for the same reason say the early Earth was UNSUITABLE as a birth place for life.

However it is not enough to vaguely suggest against some imprecise criteria that the early Earth WAS NOT an adequate place for life to emerge unless you can also propose in your argument the sort of place which would have been necessary to produce life on its own. Simply saying that this or that astronomical body contains a few useful organic chemicals PROVES NOTHING. For the simple reason, it may be easy for those precursor chemicals to form in all sorts of places but the step to living cells is a very different matter. A comet containing formaldehyde might orbit a star for billions of years but never produce a single bacterium by itself.

Only once you have a viable alternate location or set of locations outside of earth, each of which can be demonstrated as being a better place for life to have originated than here, can you then move on to the next phase of the argument. Which of course is the probability of seeding. In other words, could life which formed somewhere else have been transported here before life here got going on its own accord? Remember we are talking LIFE here, that is cells or spores being transported across interstellar distances (not precursor chemicals). This means you have to go back to your first argument to determine how many places are likely to have originated life based on the required criteria.

Now you run into a trap. If you lower the bar to increase the number of places where life can emerge then it is likely you will bring the early Earth within those boundaries, thus making abiogenesis more reasonable. If however you raise the bar to exclude the early earth then you reduce the number of locations where life can emerge. The consequence of that is a less dense distribution of seeding sources, consequently fewer seeding packages being ejected into interstellar space and a reduced probability of one of those packages actually hitting this planet. Not only that but this reduced population of source locations will increase the mean interstellar distance those packages of life will have had to travel, which in turn increases the probable transit time, thus giving this planet more time to evolve life all on its own. So once again abiogenesis comes back into the frame

Only after you have got good numbers for all of this, can you start discussing if this or that transport mechanism might work and whether the spores could survive an interstellar transit lasting maybe 100K to 1M years.

The trouble is when you go back to basics - how do you prove that some other place was better for life to emerge than here? When we have not yet discovered any such place. Life is here, we know that. There is no reason to suppose that all the basic chemicals were not already around in the solar system even if this planet may have collected them at different stages during its early formation. Then that would still be classed as abiogenesis and not Panspermia. So far we have not found another place that is demonstrably a better place to be the cradle of life, which means that at the moment the Rare Earth hypothesis is just as valid (perhaps more so) than your Universe Teeming with Life.

__________________
Note 1. All requests for planetary demolition must now be submitted in quadruplicate on form UX-565/B4 and be counter-signed by the assistant administrative officer for interstellar traffic calming - department QG-7. Subject to approval by the chief planning officer and the infrastructure development coordination sub-committee.