NASA finds DNA components in meteorites, says they originated in space
space.com
space.com
Thirdly, the team found these nucleobases -- both the biological and non-biological ones -- were produced in a completely non-biological reaction. "In the lab, an identical suite of nucleobases and nucleobase analogs were generated in non-biological chemical reactions containing hydrogen cyanide, ammonia, and water. This provides a plausible mechanism for their synthesis in the asteroid parent bodies, and supports the notion that they are extraterrestrial," says Callahan. (from the NASA article: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna-meteorit...)
This does not mean that there is developed life on another planet that then traveled to us. What it does mean is that the building blocks of life that were seeded on earth are probably pretty common and therefore were probably also seeded elsewhere.
Edit: thanks downvoter, can you point me to your source of knowledge about all technological life in our Universe? I'd settle for just our galaxy if that's easier to come up with.
The problem with the Fermi paradox is that it doesn't tell us much. It could tell us that colonizing civilizations are unlikely or have a limited lifespan, or it could tell us merely that colonizing civilizations don't work at all the way we'd predict.
Its conjecture is that physical travel to other civilizations is so expensive, and light-speed communications are so slow and inefficient, that the only way highly advanced civilizations communicate is by digitizing their consciousnesses and transmitting those, to be run in simulations on the receiving end. However, since you wouldn't want to transmit a copy of your own consciousness to an alien only to have it tortured or worse (even in a simulation), there are very extensive negotiations around trust involved before full contact with other civilizations is established.
Life is probably not that rare. Familiar life probably is.
Even on a macro scale though, I imagine you'd probably see some of the same themes (assuming an Earth-like planet): photosynthesis, bilateral symmetry, hemoglobin- or hemocyanin-based blood, etc.
Amino acids on a comet, 2009: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17628-found-first-amin...
Amino acids in interstellar space, 2002: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2558-amino-acid-found-...
and a few more examples exist if you google "amino acids in space".
We've known about amino acids in space for a long time. Amino acids exist all over the damn place.
[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleobase [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid
The interesting point here was the nuceobases (vs the amino acids). Mars water should be interesting to look at.
And of course a sample return mission to Ceres would be interesting as long as we didn't open the capsule in an uncontrolled environment :-).
And this is the lab page, that also has no info on the paper.
http://astrobiology.gsfc.nasa.gov/analytical/index.html
This is one thing that consistently annoys me about most scientific journalism online, and about the press releases by institutions. Is it really that hard to post a link to the abstract page of the actual journal?
The comparison in complexity is the rough equivalent of finding a few MOV/JMP/ADD instructions in a random text file as opposed to the source tree for the Linux kernel (I might be underestimating the human genome a little here).
A better analogy than the Linux kernel might be a quine.
Even the simplest life is incredibly sophisticated.
does this star Samuel L Jackson?
They may not have to; I can't think of a religious faith that insists that humans are the only sentient beings in the universe. (John Polkinghorne [1] argues that even multi-verses are consistent with the notion of a Creator.)
> Do aliens get to go to heaven?
Same answer as above. And this assumes there is a heaven; not all religious people, indeed not even all 'Christians,' believe this. [2]
-----------------
[1] Polkinghorne is a retired Cambridge University professor of mathematical physics, a Fellow of the Royal Society, and a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire. He's now 80 years old; when he was 49 he went to seminary to become an Anglican priest, and has written a number of books about science and religion. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne.
[2] Some of us have provisionally concluded that a sensible way to bet is this: Over the very long term, the apparent on-going 'construction' of a cosmos, in which we seem to be participating, is likely to work out unimaginably wonderfully, but we really can't even speculate as to much more than that. See http://www.questioningchristian.com/2007/02/another_way_to_.... (Disclosure: I'm the author; the comments are worth reading as well.) EDIT: Polkinghorne has published what he describes as "naïve speculation" about how heaven might be explainable in terms of string theory. See http://www.questioningchristian.com/2006/04/resurrection_ap.....
God became man in Jesus in order to save us. So if
there are also other intelligent beings, it’s not a
given that they need redemption. They might have
remained in full friendship with their creator.
I look forward with horror to contact with the other
inhabited planets, if there are such. We would only
transport to them all of our sin and our acquisitiveness,
and establish a new colonialism. I can’t bear to think of
it. But if we on Earth were to get right with God, of
course, all would be changed. Once we find ourselves
spiritually awakened, we can go to outer space and take
the good things with us. That is quite a different
matter.http://vox-nova.com/2009/10/10/on-multiple-worlds-and-multip...
EDIT: This is quite good too:
Explored in the film "Contact" and the Carl Sagan book upon which it was based. Though apparently the ending differs significantly between the two. (I enjoyed the movie, but haven't gotten around to reading the book).
One citation: http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/76.16-24?lang=eng#... All to come forth in the resurrection of the just & unjust, through Christ the worlds are and were created, the inhabitants are sons and daughters of God.
He's quoting from the Doctrine & Covenants (like the Pauline epistles in that they're letters written by someone claiming to speak messages from God, but not like them in that they were written in the 1830s and 40s in America) and it's this more modern scripture that tends to talk about these kind of things. Basically any decent religion will start out with "Be nice to your neighbors" but when you start asking "Why?" it is inevitable going to end up in a discussion about the nature of the universe and its the modern scripture that tends to crystallize that a bit.
The example I was thinking of: http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/29.23-26?lang=eng#...
1) They can't be absolved of their sins, since Jesus didn't die for them.
2) The Earthly Jesus died for all sentient beings across the universe, but the fact that he did so on Earth demonstrates that Earthlings have a special place in God's creation (also, note that the Old Testament Jews were God's chosen people).
In a religious context, no good can come of this.
3) Extraterrestrials did not necessarily experience The Fall, and therefor have no need of a savior.
I'm not aware of Lewis's argument, but I did think about this. It seems to me that we'd be able to determine this by simple inspection.
I assume that when we met these aliens, we'll be able to observe that they are sinful creatures: they will lie, steal, murder, etc., just like we do. This being the case, they'll need some mechanism for unloading those sins, won't they?
But: (1) maybe they won't be sinful; or (2) maybe there's some theological point that makes "The Fall" as such pivotal, so that other sins can be freely absolved, so long as one (or one's ancestors) haven't eaten from the tree of knowledge?
EDIT: As already referenced elsewhere in this thread, C.S. Lewis hypothesized -- a search through the thread for "Lewis" shows our interchange, and one other mention that doesn't reference aliens directly, but only the evil that humans could bring to them. And searching for "Fall" shows it nowhere else as a single word. So I think you're unfair in suggesting that my post was redundant.
I suppose people sooner call the aliens soulless demons or rethink their whole religion than go half way in one direction and then stop in the middle.
Also; the existence or lack of existence of any alien life form would have no theological bearing on the western church. (That’s not to say that it would in the east. I just am ignorant of the details -- though if I was a betting man I would say that it is the same in that case also.) Wouldn’t change a thing; and not because it would get “swept under the carpet” but because it really changes nothing core to the dogma deemed necessary for the western church (i.e. the Ecumenical creeds).
And, just as an even further aside, some prominent Christian theologians believe that aliens might exist.
And I think this news is still no proof for skeptical people (like myself). They found molecules that are very rare on earth and are now suggesting they originated in space:
"...but were unsure whether these materials actually originate in space. The presence of these three molecules, however, suggest that they do, potentially raising new questions..."
So just new questions and suggestions. No proof of alien life for me. But interesting!
Sure, an agnostic might be put into a further tailspin, but so what? Most of the world's faithful have already demonstrated the enviable ability to suspend any desire to investigate the mechanics of their belief system. What difference will it matter that aliens were thrown into the equation?
The Vatican's chief astronomer said that aliens likely have souls and he would "gladly baptize one if it asked".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/17/pope-astronome...
(from SMBC, and I can't find the original :-P)
[1] http://vox-nova.com/2009/10/10/on-multiple-worlds-and-multip...
I also think it's an answer that will never come. I don't see any inconsistency between a universe created by God and any scientific observations we make within that creation.
I don't know if there's a name for this argument, but it would seem to imply that a god or gods are not necessary (whether or not it or they exist). When you combine that with Occam's Razor (the hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions is likely the correct one), my interpretation is that there is likely not a god or gods.
It changes everything. It is like being 30 years old and finding you were adopted. You want to know where you come from.
Edit: But besides what you and I think, what will it mean to the world if religion was "proven" to be man-made, as well as the idea of a Higher Power.
A successful and complete theory of the origin of life wouldn't do that. Not every religion claims seriously that God directly created life. To my knowledge, it's really only a serious problem for people who live in the Religion:Christian/Protestant/Evangelical/Fundamentalist folder, which is really not a big fraction of the people on the drive.
For example, I am Evangelical, and I wouldn't be bothered by either the success or failure of a scientific theory of the origin of life. Miracles are a part of my worldview, as are machines. I know that God created life, but whether he used a miracle or a machine, I don't know. I have seen him use one or the other at different times, so I would consider either an acceptable explanation. Now, I'm kind of interested as to what happened, but it doesn't affect my doctrine much either way.
/me leans back on his armchair
The organic compounds produced by the Miller Urey experiments were mostly amino acids and some sugars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment). These are the building blocks for most of the things that constitute a cell. This discovery may better our understanding of the origins of DNA and RNA - which are the blueprints for putting together the building blocks to make a cell.
Also according to that article, we've successfully reproduced the process of creating organic matter from inorganic matter.
We have three lines of evidence that together give us confidence these DNA building blocks actually were created in space. (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna-meteorit...)