national

Asteroid samples contain clues to origin of life, say Japanese scientists

26 Comments
By Kyoko HASEGAWA

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2022 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

26 Comments
Login to comment

Yep, the chances that life was formed by some random chance are so astronomically low that it is far more likely that life came from space. We are aliens. Life is not some random phenomenon everything in the universe merges towards complexity so life is inevitable and probably everywhere in the universe

4 ( +6 / -2 )

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.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

FourIceToday  09:33 am JST

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.

Nope, as I said above it is becoming the more likely scenario that life came from space since for it to just happen by chance here on Earth is so remote. You are more likely to win every lottery happening on the same day around the world.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

At first glance, I thought they caught somebody with Hash

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Yep, the chances that life was formed by some random chance are so astronomically low that it is far more likely that life came from space. 

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.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Life finds a way, even when it does not exist.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Why are scientists looking for the origin of life from space?

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. )

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I'm just in awe that we have been able to travel so far and to return. I believe that everything is part of the fabric of life, the endless universe, our tiny earth, people, non-people, we are all connected in some way.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"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.

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.

Your conclusion is wrong and flies int he face of what the actual, real scientific experts in the article are saying.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Your conclusion is wrong and flies int he face of what the actual, real scientific experts in the article are saying.

Oh no, it doesn't. Are you perhaps confusing organic compounds with "life"?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Your conclusion is wrong and flies int he face of what the actual, real scientific experts in the article are saying.

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.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Your conclusion is wrong and flies int he face of what the actual, real scientific experts in the article are saying.

Can you even quote where the experts contradict the comment?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

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

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.

It might help with your comprehension of the article and accompanying comments if you were to read all in their entirety.

Can you even quote where the experts contradict the comment?

Why? I read where your comment contradicted what was written by the real science experts.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

It might help with your comprehension of the article and accompanying comments if you were to read all in their entirety.

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.

Why? I read where your comment contradicted what was written by the real science experts.

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.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

StrangerlandToday  10:11 am JST

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.

The fact you are still arguing your point without providing any rationale proves otherwise.

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.

You should go back to my previous post about comprehension--it might help with your confusion and misunderstanding of what is being discussed.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The fact you are still arguing your point without providing any rationale proves otherwise.

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.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Anyways, here's a recap of the Painkiller becoming confused. The reply is his:

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.

Your conclusion is wrong and flies int he face of what the actual, real scientific experts in the article are saying.

And what the "real scientific experts" in the article said, which the original comment had summarized:

"The discovery of protein-forming amino acids is important, because Ryugu has not been exposed to the Earth's biosphere, like meteorites, and as such their detection proves that at least some of the building blocks of life on Earth could have been formed in space environments," the study said.

...

"The Ryugu sample has the most primitive characteristics of any natural sample available to mankind, including meteorites," the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) said in a statement.

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.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Having access to the internet can make you an "expert" on asteroids.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

StrangerlandToday  10:29 am JST

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.

Repeating fallacious arguments does not make them valid arguments; maybe that is where your confusion and misunderstanding stem from?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Oh dear, I laid it all out above. Anyone with intelligence can see. But here, let me drop my truth bomb again:

here's a recap of the Painkiller becoming confused. The reply is his: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.

Your conclusion is wrong and flies int he face of what the actual, real scientific experts in the article are saying.

And what the "real scientific experts" in the article said, which the original comment had summarized:

"The discovery of protein-forming amino acids is important, because Ryugu has not been exposed to the Earth's biosphere, like meteorites, and as such their detection proves that at least some of the building blocks of life on Earth could have been formed in space environments," the study said.

...

"The Ryugu sample has the most primitive characteristics of any natural sample available to mankind, including meteorites," the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) said in a statement.

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.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Why? I read where your comment contradicted what was written by the real science experts.

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.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Still repeating a false assertion does not make it true.

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.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Still repeating a false assertion does not make it true.

But repeating a true one is enjoyable:

here's a recap of the Painkiller becoming confused. The reply is his:

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.

Your conclusion is wrong and flies int he face of what the actual, real scientific experts in the article are saying.

And what the "real scientific experts" in the article said, which the original comment had summarized:

"The discovery of protein-forming amino acids is important, because Ryugu has not been exposed to the Earth's biosphere, like meteorites, and as such their detection proves that at least some of the building blocks of life on Earth could have been formed in space environments," the study said.

...

"The Ryugu sample has the most primitive characteristics of any natural sample available to mankind, including meteorites," the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) said in a statement.

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.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

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?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If an asteroid contained organic materials, scientists would say that life had originated in space and came to Earth somehow. 

That's not what the article says.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites