The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© 2022 AFPAsteroid samples contain clues to origin of life, say Japanese scientists
By Kyoko HASEGAWA TOKYO©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.
26 Comments
Login to comment
FourIce
Why are scientists looking for the origin of life from space? Probability is likely low. Shouldn't they start thinking that what they are seeing in space may probably originated from earth, where life is lushing and blooming?
Why look at the desert for life when there is life in the garden? It is no brainer.
WA4TKG
At first glance, I thought they caught somebody with Hash
virusrex
That is not what can be concluded from the presence of amino acids on the asteroid. That life is able to be transported to a planet is also astronomically low, but the possibility that the materials that make life possible can survive the travel is much higher. This would mean that life being originated in the planet from those materials is easier than if they had to be all produced locally.
The Avenger
Life finds a way, even when it does not exist.
albaleo
Are they not looking for whatever they find and not specifically the origin of life? They found organic matter, which keeps open the possibility that life on earth originated from space. Basically, the purpose is to reduce our ignorance. (But imagine if they'd found some non-organic scissors. )
painkiller
"Scientists have been questioning how organic matter -- including amino acids -- was created or where it came from, and the fact that amino acids were discovered in the sample offers a reason to think that amino acids were brought to Earth from outer space," he told AFP.
Thank you outer space.
Your conclusion is wrong and flies int he face of what the actual, real scientific experts in the article are saying.
albaleo
Oh no, it doesn't. Are you perhaps confusing organic compounds with "life"?
Strangerland
What? His "conclusion" was a re-statement of what the article said. Maybe if you told us which part you were unclear on, we could enlighten you as to how you misunderstood.
virusrex
Can you even quote where the experts contradict the comment?
painkiller
Another mainstream theory about the origin of amino acids is that they were created in Earth's primitive atmosphere through lightning strikes, for example, after Earth cooled down.
Mainstream doesn't mean valid, as we have seen often the past two years.
StrangerlandToday 04:28 am JST
It might help with your comprehension of the article and accompanying comments if you were to read all in their entirety.
Why? I read where your comment contradicted what was written by the real science experts.
Strangerland
But I'm not the one who had troubles understanding it, and I didn't make the comment you made, that showed you understood it. So I'm not sure why you're saying this to me.
Now you're really confused, which comment of "mine" are you talking about? And which part contradicted what was said by the real experts? It's telling that you've made this claim twice now, yet not explained any actual discrepancies either time.
painkiller
StrangerlandToday 10:11 am JST
The fact you are still arguing your point without providing any rationale proves otherwise.
You should go back to my previous post about comprehension--it might help with your confusion and misunderstanding of what is being discussed.
Strangerland
Um, you made an incorrect statement, didn't support it, and I called you out.
I'm not still arguing my point, I'm pointing out that your comment was was wrong when you posted it, and still is.
I'm sorry that bothers you so much. Maybe try re-reading your comment and we can help you with the confusing parts.
Strangerland
Anyways, here's a recap of the Painkiller becoming confused. The reply is his:
And what the "real scientific experts" in the article said, which the original comment had summarized:
...
Clearly the original poster was saying the same thing as the article, and clearly Painkiller had some reading comprehension issues with that, as I have laid out very clearly in this post.
Tom San
Having access to the internet can make you an "expert" on asteroids.
painkiller
StrangerlandToday 10:29 am JST
Repeating fallacious arguments does not make them valid arguments; maybe that is where your confusion and misunderstanding stem from?
Strangerland
Oh dear, I laid it all out above. Anyone with intelligence can see. But here, let me drop my truth bomb again:
And what the "real scientific experts" in the article said, which the original comment had summarized:
...
Clearly the original poster was saying the same thing as the article, and clearly Painkiller had some reading comprehension issues with that, as I have laid out very clearly in this post.
virusrex
But you are unable to argument what is the contradiction, this means there is none, both the comment and the article are saying the same thing.
In both cases the conclusion is that building blocks of life can be transported by asteroids, calling a re-statement of what has been said a contradiction do not make it so, for that you still have to demonstrate where both things contradict each other.
virusrex
You have pointed exactly zero contradictions, that means the assertion is true, from the beginning you did not comprehend the article and imagined a contradiction until it was shown to you that there was none.
Strangerland
But repeating a true one is enjoyable:
And what the "real scientific experts" in the article said, which the original comment had summarized:
...
Clearly the original poster was saying the same thing as the article, and clearly Painkiller had some reading comprehension issues with that, as I have laid out very clearly in this post.
voiceofokinawa
If an asteroid contained organic materials, scientists would say that life had originated in space and came to Earth somehow. But how, actually?
Couldn't one equally say that, if asteroids had organic materials, Earth, too, had had organic materials from the very beginning?
Strangerland
That's not what the article says.