What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
Who knows you better than your phone? view!
youtube.com - See you from the perspective of your phone.
118 Comments
- radicaldementia, on 07/09/2009, -2/+178This article has some of the facts mixed up. Proteins, not DNA, are made of amino acids. DNA, being a nucleic acid, is a polymer made of sugar (deoxyribose), phosphate groups, and nucleobases. DNA encodes sequences of amino acids which are translated into proteins in your cells.
The idea that all life in the universe would be mostly made of the same stuff is certainly not new. We've known for a long time that 10 of the 20 amino acids used in life can naturally form throughout the universe (the others being created biologically as life became more complex). It seems this new study is helping quantify the probability of each amino acid being created in non-biological processes.
Furthermore, this study reinforces the relatively new molecular coevolutionary theory, that since proteins cannot replicate themselves, another less stable molecule (in our case nucleic acids, but particularly RNA) must develop alongside proteins which encodes them. So if other lifeforms in the universe are based on proteins, they should also have some other molecule that contains gene-like sequences, though not necessarily DNA.
Here's the full research paper
http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.0402 - Zarimus, on 07/10/2009, -1/+71Good lord, what are you doing here on Digg with all your facts and whatnot. I was expecting the comments to be a cesspool of pro- and anti- religion fanboys arguing over the God of the gaps theory.
Thanks for elevating the dialog. - jjh941, on 07/09/2009, -16/+79DNA is built from a set of twenty amino acids..... this is an insult to anyone that has taken high school biology. Buried.
- m0laria, on 07/10/2009, -1/+30EDIT: OH that's what the article says, in that case yeah this author is retarded.
If you've taken a COLLEGE biology course, you would know that there are several proposed evolutionary precursors to DNA-based cells, some which DO NOT include amino acids, lipids, or nucleotides. See: Iron-Sulfur world theory, RNA world theory, Clay theory, liposomes, and more.
Oh, and one more thing, DNA is built from NUCLEIC ACIDS, not 20 amino acids. Furthermore, not all life forms require all 20 amino acids to survive. - inactive, on 07/09/2009, -19/+45*long pause while I rip this jay* Life...cough cough....it's built in, maaaan. Like, built into the universe. Whoa
- radicaldementia, on 07/09/2009, -0/+19That's not really what the study is saying. It is more along the lines that of all the hypothetical extra-terrestrial life in the universe, it is likely that at least some of it would resemble our own in terms of molecular structure... that the conditions necessary to create Earth-like life are not unique to Earth. It is not saying that all life in the universe HAS to be Earth-like, although nobody has come up with yet a viable model of non-carbon/amino-acid-based life.
Also, if you think about how all the diverse life on Earth, from humans to slime molds to viruses, all are based on these 20 amino acids, it's pretty apparent that even if extra-terrestrial life also uses the same amino acids, their evolutionary path could (and probably would) be dramatically different from anything we've seen on Earth. - Angostura, on 07/10/2009, -0/+19I'm all for simplifying ideas. Getting them wrong is an entirely different matter.
- Angostura, on 07/10/2009, -5/+22Not only that but the line that the "first ten of those can create simple prebiotic life" is entirely nonsensical, you cannot have pre-life life.
Seriously, this article is an embarrassment. - gendou, on 07/09/2009, -1/+16I don't see why this should come as a surprise at all. If life on our planet relied on scarce building blocks, it would be mysterious indeed. Thanks radicaldementia for the link to the full paper.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 07/10/2009, -1/+15Other life in our solar system isn't entirely likely. Other life in our galaxy is much more likely and other life in our universe is essentially a statistical certainty.
- Dolorous, on 07/10/2009, -0/+13correction: news article written by a layperson - no one would bother pointing it out if whoever wrote this article got their facts right -- DNA is not composed of amino acids.
- GeyserShitdick, on 07/10/2009, -3/+15once, just once, i'd like to see a digg comment thread on a science story without someone making this tired ***** joke
holy ***** people - Damo69, on 07/10/2009, -1/+13That isn't faith based reasoning. What it means is that once basic organic systems that are the precursor for basic evolutionary systems occur then you can increase the difficulty of the amino acids occurring and then allow mutation and natural selection to take its course. The experiments have been done to evolve these basic systems to something more complicated so it is already KNOWN they turn up. Not faith based at all.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 07/10/2009, -1/+12What kind of question is that? Of course life is "hardwired" into the universe. It exists, does it not?
They seem to imply that something could possibly exist in the universe which did not belong there. - copypastry, on 07/10/2009, -2/+12"The other ten amino acids aren't as easy to form, but they'll still turn up - and the process of "stepwise evolution" means that once the simpler systems work, they can grab the rarer "epic drops" of more sophisticated chemicals as they occur - kind of a World of Lifecraft except you literally get a life when you play. And once even the most sophisticated structure is part of a replicating organism, there's plenty to go round."
For some reason I imagined Chinese phenylalanine farmers. - Bic823, on 07/10/2009, -1/+10You should watch Waking Life.
- R3t0x, on 07/10/2009, -0/+9Watch out all that deep thinking may get you sucked into a wormhole.
- inactive, on 07/09/2009, -0/+8You've made some wonderful assessments here, radicaldementia. I just want to add that we haven't even completed satisfactory models of our own life on Earth yet we can use our rudimentary methods to make such profound assertions; this is the kind of thing that routinely fascinates me about science. That's all. :^D
- Colesif, on 07/10/2009, -4/+12Agreed. jjh941 is a shining example of how easy it is to get dugg, as long as you pretend to know what you are talking about, and use technical jargon regardless of its correctness.
- inactive, on 07/10/2009, -0/+8Forty Two.
- Sagags, on 07/10/2009, -0/+8digg is so lonely at night, time for the valium...
- Nacon, on 07/10/2009, -1/+8Dugg for this:
"they can grab the rarer "epic drops" of more sophisticated chemicals as they occur - kind of a World of Lifecraft except you literally get a life when you play." - SpeedSteamBoat, on 07/10/2009, -1/+7Why waste time with belief when you can see?
- vizerei, on 07/10/2009, -0/+6So you figured out a long way to basically say "That depends on what the definition of "is" is"
Congratulations. - sageerrant, on 07/10/2009, -0/+6Hey, that's an important issue in philosophy!
I really wish I were kidding, but my BA says otherwise.
I will never have a real job. - otterp, on 07/10/2009, -1/+6Hey, if God wanted to create life, what better way than to hard wire it into physics?
- carbonetc, on 07/10/2009, -1/+6@nathan43082
Why would an omniscient, omnipotent God need to periodically hack his own creation? Are you suggesting that he was lacking in foresight when he put it into motion? - Junkyarddawg, on 07/09/2009, -3/+8To me this just seems like the flipside of the "extraterrestrial life may be so radically different that we don't even recognize it" argument. In that case they totally decouple themselves from the restrictions of Earth-type life and conclude that life might be everywhere, while in this study they see what is minimally possible within Earth-type restrictions and conclude that all life must be similar to Earth-type life.
Neither approach seems particularly valuable to me, as far as extraterrestrial life goes it's simply so that until we've found a couple of independent Lifes we don't know what the envelope of possible solutions might be. - RIB08, on 07/10/2009, -1/+4This article needs a picture of Megan Fox.
- 68024, on 07/10/2009, -1/+4I would argue that of course it is hardwired. After all there is no coder putting the software for life together.
- vectoron, on 07/10/2009, -2/+5Even if it does, any traditional Theist would have to re-evaluate how God interacts with the universe, because this idea is more in the realm of start it and leave it then start it and constantly dick around with things.
- mbelrose, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3The Earth was created last Thursday. Your navel is fake.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3I said nothing of "almost certainty."
The fact cannot be denied that the possibility and even the relative likelihood for the existence of a tin of baked beans must be "hardwired" into the universe. If the possibility and even the affinity toward its existence was not present in our universe, how then would it come to exist?
No one will ever know what will happen "if the universe was restarted from scratch" so that seems like an especially useless hypothetical. We exist in a place where there is life. We exist in a place where there is a tin of baked beans. What other evidence do you need to say with certainty that the foundation for the existence of such things is inherent in our universe? - manlyandy, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3Where did it say it was easy?
- Quisquis, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3Science gives rise to technology...
- bigbadgoat, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3Technology is the application of science.
- soupdawg30, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3Saturns moons are pretty crazy.
- fretslide, on 07/10/2009, -1/+4Someone told me "If you are lucky maybe on your death bed you'll find the real answer behind life" and I told him "I hope that answer will be 42 "
- johnnysaucepn, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3@nimadude, trees don't think or invent things either. What he's saying is that the dividing line between alive and not-alive is surprisingly vague and narrow, as is the line between one living entity and another.
A tree, which is alive, feeds itself off non-living chemicals in the soil, and non-living sunlight from space. It produces a living apple, which is picked and eaten by a human. At what point does matter go from being non-living to living, or from being part of one entity to another? - R3t0x, on 07/10/2009, -1/+4As soon as you mention the universe perception and viewpoints start becoming skewed because they are all just ways of looking at the same thing. Which is weird because everything in the universe is like that. It's like how you say a word continuously and it loses its meaning. You can explain the universe by infinitely complicated means or even say it's nothing. You can say we are the perfect hardwired conduits for the universe or we simply are the universe. It matters yet it does not.
This can be seen as my simple understanding of a complicated issue
As well as a complex understanding of a simple issue depending on your perspective. - Bandersong, on 07/10/2009, -1/+4I'm glad someone besides myself caught that.
- nathan43082, on 07/10/2009, -3/+6What you describe is fairly close to Deism.
As a non-Deist Christian, I can accept this "universe is hardwired for life" evidence just fine and still believe that God reserves the right to temporarily and locally suspend natural laws when it serves a purpose. - inactive, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3The universe is so vacuous, like 99.9999999999999999....% empty, the universe being nothing is a good approximation.
- Angostura, on 07/10/2009, -1/+4There is something special about life in that self-organising complexity that locally reverses entropy is quite unusual. A star, even the organisation of an entire galaxy is massively less complex than a single virus.
" If but one atom in the entire universe had never existed than the universe as we know it would never have been able to exist."
Actually, I suspect that the net effect of one atom not existing would be negligible. You might have one star less in the universe, at a pinch. - Moralogic, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3Thumbs up, good read from you guys, thanks.
- Armorfist, on 07/10/2009, -3/+5How convenient.
- CaffieneMan, on 07/10/2009, -1/+3I'd love to believe that life is everywhere out there, but so far I'm just not seeing evidence of it.
- ObeseSnake, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2I'm digging you up in the hopes you'll stick around Digg and comment more often. We need more people like you here.
- IdanFire, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2Totally man.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 125 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is