5 ms·

Wait what? How was that not bigger news?? How is not finding them on an asteroid not bigger news??? This brings up many more questions than answers, but how is

Wait what? How was that not bigger news?? How is not finding them on an asteroid not bigger news??? This brings up many more questions than answers, but how is it not possible at least to say that we're not the only place in the universe where life exists?

Engineering-MD 4y ago
I think the conclusion is more amino acids form naturally without life rather than amino acid based life is widespread.
- MattPalmer1086 4y ago
  Indeed. It would actually be more surprising if it turned out the molecules we are built from do not arise easily and naturally. This doesn't mean that all life would be based off them though.
ivanbakel 4y ago
Because naturally-occurring amino acids are nothing new. You can make them yourself by sticking some chemicals together and applying energy to the mixture [0]. "Building blocks of life" is a phrase with no strong definition. Science journalists like to apply it to anything from water to DNA chains, though those are very different molecules in terms of complexity. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Especially when the life-relevant amino acids are mixed with all sorts of irrelevant amino acids, with the concentration of any particular species of molecule declining exponentially with the number of atoms it contains. This is supposed to be exciting?
  - MattPalmer1086 4y ago
    It is uncertain where the amino acids on earth came from. A leading theory is that asteroids and comets seeded the early earth with a good mix of them. So it is a data point supporting the idea that they could have been a source of these molecules. You may or may not find that exciting.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      I just find it an indication that formation of amino acids is not that important as a bottleneck for the origin of life. It's also not that surprising, as you'd expect life to use monomers that are fairly stable (and therefore could be formed by random processes, because of that stability.)
- jerf 4y ago
  It's important to understand what amino acids are, if you want to know why this is more "interesting, but only somewhat so, science" than "groundbreaking news that changes our view of life in the universe": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid#General_structure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid#General_structure Those may seem complicated, but you have to also remember an "amino acid" is the entire family, and carbon tends towards "a bit complicated" naturally because it has so many bonds it needs to fill in. Fill an environment with carbon and the right other elements and it isn't "surprising" that amino acids form, it's inevitable. Like, literally unavoidable, you couldn't stop it if you tried. "The right environment for amino acids" would also be full of many other larger structures. It's a thing carbon does no matter where it is, not an exception. They would just be, if you'll pardon the convenient anthropomorphization, pointlessly larger structures, not doing anything in particular or having any particularly interesting properties beyond size. You get similarly large carbon structures in the soot of a fire, for instance. Compare with hemoglobin, just to pick a popular protein of moderate size: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemoglobin#Structure_of_heme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemoglobin#Structure_of_heme This is a specific combination of 574 amino acids, in the correct chirality. Some deviations are possible that will retain functionality, it isn't that exact 574 amino acids, but there's limited variation possible. "Things useful for life" are much more than just bare amino acids. This isn't something that should be downplayed; it is legitimately interesting, but at the same time, it doesn't materially move our probabilities on any particular theory of life because it was always predictable that amino acids would exist elsewhere in the universe. At a bare minimum for excitement would be demonstrating some sort of significant chirality preference. That would turn some heads.
trompetenaccoun 4y ago
It's common knowledge among those who're interested, most people simply don't care. >how is it not possible at least to say that we're not the only place in the universe where life exists? Almost every expert believes that. In fact, it's entirely possible life didn't originate on earth in the first place. Not that it necessarily has an origin outside the solar system, but who knows.
hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
Well, we know that we can produce some amino acids from the so-called "primordial soup" (which hit the news in the 50s). But there is still a wide gap between these simple chemicals and a simplest living organism.
unixhero 4y ago
Exactly that's why I was perplexed I got the first comment on this thread and that nobody seems to care.
fnordpiglet 4y ago
It’s not possible because we’ve not yet observed it. It’s possible to say it’s very possible, but the strong assertion isn’t valid without proof.

Engineering-MD 4y ago

I think the conclusion is more amino acids form naturally without life rather than amino acid based life is widespread.

MattPalmer1086 4y ago
Indeed. It would actually be more surprising if it turned out the molecules we are built from do not arise easily and naturally. This doesn't mean that all life would be based off them though.

ivanbakel 4y ago

Because naturally-occurring amino acids are nothing new. You can make them yourself by sticking some chemicals together and applying energy to the mixture [0]. "Building blocks of life" is a phrase with no strong definition. Science journalists like to apply it to anything from water to DNA chains, though those are very different molecules in terms of complexity. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

pfdietz 4y ago
Especially when the life-relevant amino acids are mixed with all sorts of irrelevant amino acids, with the concentration of any particular species of molecule declining exponentially with the number of atoms it contains. This is supposed to be exciting?
- MattPalmer1086 4y ago
  It is uncertain where the amino acids on earth came from. A leading theory is that asteroids and comets seeded the early earth with a good mix of them. So it is a data point supporting the idea that they could have been a source of these molecules. You may or may not find that exciting.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    I just find it an indication that formation of amino acids is not that important as a bottleneck for the origin of life. It's also not that surprising, as you'd expect life to use monomers that are fairly stable (and therefore could be formed by random processes, because of that stability.)
jerf 4y ago
It's important to understand what amino acids are, if you want to know why this is more "interesting, but only somewhat so, science" than "groundbreaking news that changes our view of life in the universe": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid#General_structure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid#General_structure Those may seem complicated, but you have to also remember an "amino acid" is the entire family, and carbon tends towards "a bit complicated" naturally because it has so many bonds it needs to fill in. Fill an environment with carbon and the right other elements and it isn't "surprising" that amino acids form, it's inevitable. Like, literally unavoidable, you couldn't stop it if you tried. "The right environment for amino acids" would also be full of many other larger structures. It's a thing carbon does no matter where it is, not an exception. They would just be, if you'll pardon the convenient anthropomorphization, pointlessly larger structures, not doing anything in particular or having any particularly interesting properties beyond size. You get similarly large carbon structures in the soot of a fire, for instance. Compare with hemoglobin, just to pick a popular protein of moderate size: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemoglobin#Structure_of_heme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemoglobin#Structure_of_heme This is a specific combination of 574 amino acids, in the correct chirality. Some deviations are possible that will retain functionality, it isn't that exact 574 amino acids, but there's limited variation possible. "Things useful for life" are much more than just bare amino acids. This isn't something that should be downplayed; it is legitimately interesting, but at the same time, it doesn't materially move our probabilities on any particular theory of life because it was always predictable that amino acids would exist elsewhere in the universe. At a bare minimum for excitement would be demonstrating some sort of significant chirality preference. That would turn some heads.

trompetenaccoun 4y ago

It's common knowledge among those who're interested, most people simply don't care. >how is it not possible at least to say that we're not the only place in the universe where life exists? Almost every expert believes that. In fact, it's entirely possible life didn't originate on earth in the first place. Not that it necessarily has an origin outside the solar system, but who knows.

hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago

Well, we know that we can produce some amino acids from the so-called "primordial soup" (which hit the news in the 50s). But there is still a wide gap between these simple chemicals and a simplest living organism.

unixhero 4y ago

Exactly that's why I was perplexed I got the first comment on this thread and that nobody seems to care.

fnordpiglet 4y ago

It’s not possible because we’ve not yet observed it. It’s possible to say it’s very possible, but the strong assertion isn’t valid without proof.