Protein discovered inside a meteorite

[Michael]

https://phys.org/news/2020-03-protein-meteorite.html

This discovery (assuming it passes peer review) tends to lend credence to the notion of panspermia and it may suggest that life is abundant throughout the universe.

 

[Aussie Pete]

https://phys.org/news/2020-03-protein-meteorite.html

This discovery (assuming it passes peer review) tends to lend credence to the notion of panspermia and it may suggest that life is abundant throughout the universe.

Interesting. It could also lend credence to Walt Brown's belief that meteorites originated from earth (hydroplate theory)

 

[BobRyan]

https://phys.org/news/2020-03-protein-meteorite.html

This discovery (assuming it passes peer review) tends to lend credence to the notion of panspermia and it may suggest that life is abundant throughout the universe.

Not at all likely.

Your article says this "Proteins are considered by chemists to be quite complex, which means a lot of things would have to happen by chance for protein formation. For hemolithin to have formed naturally in the configuration found would require glycine to form first, perhaps on the surface of grains of space dust. After that, heat by way of molecular clouds might have induced units of glycine to begin linking into polymer chains, which at some point, could evolve into fully formed proteins."

The whole point of panspermia was to overcome the impossibility of DNA forming on its own. The article is trying to get a single bit of protein to form on its own without any reliance at all on a reproductive engine or DNA processing infrastructure etc. No encoding, no translation, ... nothing.

It makes the argument "it exists -- it therefore must have evolved to exist" the same circular argument made with the Amoeba and the horse.

 

[SelfSim]

Meh .. one short protein is a long way short of life .. which is a long way short of interstellar panspermia.

Interesting. It could also lend credence to Walt Brown's belief that meteorites originated from earth (hydroplate theory)

Nope ..

Analysis of the complete spectrum of isotopes associated with each molecular fragment shows 2H enhancements above terrestrial averaging 25,700 parts per thousand (sigma = 3,500, n=15), confirming extra-terrestrial origin and hence the existence of this molecule within the asteroid parent body of the CV3 meteorite class.

 

[Messerve]

From what I read, isn't it basically just iron and lithium? It seems very likely that somewhere in the universe those two elements would combine naturally, regardless of life or not.

@Selfism Could you explain what that quote means in English?

 

[Michael]

Meh .. one short protein is a long way short of life .. which is a long way short of interstellar panspermia.

I would certainly agree that it's way short of demonstrating interstellar panspermia, but it's a step in the right direction. If entire proteins can form somewhere else and be transported to Earth, then it's also possible that entire living organisms can also form somewhere else and be transported to Earth via meteorites as well. My money is on Tartigrades.

 

[SelfSim]

@Selfism Could you explain what that quote means in English?

It means the deuterium to hydrogen ratio of fragments of this molecule measure as being just under 3 times that of Earth's own water. (The highest measured thus far, I believe, was done via the onsite Rosetta probe which measured the 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko comet as being about three times that of Earth's water .. and this molecule is just a little under that). See attachment for comparisons (I hope -67P is at the bottom).

This would push the chondrite asteroid cluster containing this 'protein' molecule even further to the right of the Earth line .. suggesting a source closer to the Oort cloud or Jupiter family .. ie: not likely from Earth.

 

[SelfSim]

I would certainly agree that it's way short of demonstrating interstellar panspermia, but it's a step in the right direction.

Why is it the 'right' direction?

If entire proteins can form somewhere else and be transported to Earth, then it's also possible that entire living organisms can also form somewhere else and be transported to Earth via meteorites as well. My money is on Tartigrades.

I think transport of pre-biotic, (or maybe even dormant bio-) materials, locally, (say Earth-Mars), is more or less expected in planetary science nowadays, but until organics of relevance are found on/sub surface Mars, there ain't no cigars for panspermia .. ie: far from it .. still.

 

[Michael]

Why is it the 'right' direction?

Well, it's complex structure (complex arrangement of elements) that is a precursor to life, which didn't form on that Earth, but arrived on Earth by hitching a ride to Earth on a meteorite.

IMO, that's a step in the right direction at least if one is trying to provided scientific support for the concept of Panspermia. Admittedly it's not a complete life form, but it's a complex organic molecule that can survive the ride.

I think transport of pre-biotic, (or maybe even dormant bio-) materials, locally, (say Earth-Mars), is more or less expected in planetary science nowadays, but until organics of relevance are found on/sub surface Mars, there ain't no cigars for panspermia .. ie: far from it .. still.

Well, I'm not sure it would necessarily have to arrive on Mars (as opposed to Earth), but admittedly it's not strictly an "organic of relevance" per se, just a complex protein.

It does show that such complex molecules associated with life can remain in tact in meteorites over long periods of time. It was an unusual enough discovery to make the news.

In prior research, scientists have found organic materials, sugars and some other molecules considered to be precursors to amino acids in both meteorites and comets—and fully formed amino acids have been found in comets and meteorites, as well. But until now, no proteins had been found inside of an extraterrestrial object. In this new effort, the researchers have discovered a protein called hemolithin inside of a meteorite that was found in Algeria back in 1990.

FYI, I believe this is the paper described in the article:

Hemolithin: a Meteoritic Protein containing Iron and Lithium

 

[SelfSim]

IMO, that's a step in the right direction at least if one is trying to provided scientific support for the concept of Panspermia.

That's not a scientific approach .. (but I digress) ..

It does show that such complex molecules associated with life can remain in tact in meteorites over long periods of time. It was an unusual enough discovery to make the news.

Sure .. tis definitely interesting .. a first (if its verified).

I find it fascinating that just because we live on 'protein' central here on Earth, where proteins are associated with life, doesn't necessarily have to mean that proteins shouldn't also be expected where there is no life .. (its still just organic chemistry after all, y'know?).
Its hard for us to actually find somewhere where there is no life, in order to test this out however. Maybe this meteorite sample is that place?
One might also legitimately ask: what happened to the life that should have accompanied this Hemolithin protein in this meteorite fragment?

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Not at all likely.

And we all know unlikely things do not happen.

 

[BobRyan]

And we all know unlikely things do not happen.

In evolutionism bacteria will turn into a rabbit given enough time and just-so-chance all the way up mount improbable. With what Colin Patterson called "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" mixed in.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

just-so-chance all the way up mount improbable.

And we all know improbable things do not happen.

Also it sounds like you are mixing evolution and abiogenesis without understanding either one nor the other.

 

[BobRyan]

Also it sounds like you are mixing evolution and abiogenesis without understanding either one nor the other.

As usual - attacking the person who brings out the inconvenient details - rather than dealing with fact.

 

[BobRyan]

In evolutionism bacteria will turn into a rabbit given enough time and just-so-chance all the way up mount improbable. With what Colin Patterson called "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" mixed in.

In blind faith evolutionism - then dust rocks and gas will eventually turn into bacteria given enough time and just-so-chance all the way up mount improbable -- which will then turn into a horse -- given enough time and just-so-chance all the way up mount improbable relying heavily on what Colin Patterson called "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" mixed in.

So then as already stated -

Not at all likely.

Your article says this "Proteins are considered by chemists to be quite complex, which means a lot of things would have to happen by chance for protein formation. For hemolithin to have formed naturally in the configuration found would require glycine to form first, perhaps on the surface of grains of space dust. After that, heat by way of molecular clouds might have induced units of glycine to begin linking into polymer chains, which at some point, could evolve into fully formed proteins."

The whole point of panspermia was to overcome the impossibility of DNA forming on its own. The article is trying to get a single bit of protein to form on its own without any reliance at all on a reproductive engine or DNA processing infrastructure etc. No encoding, no translation, ... nothing.

It makes the argument "it exists -- it therefore must have evolved to exist" the same circular argument made with the Amoeba and the horse.

To which we get the response that unlikely things happen -- as if that is a science mechanism for getting dust, rocks and gas to turn into bacteria by first having them produce some sort of protein where the amino acids in the chain are?? what?? all mono-chirally oriented in the right form for a living cell component protein???

It was supposed to happen with a single protein of any sort that has random chiral orientation?

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

As usual - attacking the person who brings out the inconvenient details - rather than dealing with fact.

Your details are only inconvenient because they are mismash of evolution , abiogenesis, your personal preferences and exodus. That unfortunately is the only fact in your posting history.

 

[Yttrium]

Not at all likely.

The whole point of panspermia was to overcome the impossibility of DNA forming on its own. The article is trying to get a single bit of protein to form on its own without any reliance at all on a reproductive engine or DNA processing infrastructure etc. No encoding, no translation, ... nothing.

Except chemistry. Atoms and molecules only combine in certain ways. Provide energy, and atoms and molecules will combine. It doesn't matter if a chemical combination is unlikely. Given enough chemicals and enough time, the protein will probably happen.

 

[BobRyan]

Except chemistry. Atoms and molecules only combine in certain ways. Provide energy, and atoms and molecules will combine. It doesn't matter if a chemical combination is unlikely. Given enough chemicals and enough time, the protein will probably happen.

The "problem" as Urey/Miller experiment proves -- what you get is worthless "proteins" because the amino acid chains don't have the mono-chiral orientation needed for actual cells. Instead (as you would expect) -- they have a random distribution.

What is more - proteins do not "code for more proteins" and the DNA molecule itself - is not "A protein" any more than a gun is just a bunch of bullets (loosely illustrating the point). -- A bunch of proteins do not a nucleus make. You can't pile up a bunch of bricks and get "an architect", not even if you add some tiles

 

[BobRyan]

Your details are only inconvenient because they are mismash of evolution , abiogenesis, your personal preferences and exodus. That unfortunately is the only fact in your posting history.

if you post a fact that challenges the actual facts in my post -- I am ready to read it.

Your own link refutes your "hopeful suggestion" - because it is still trying to find a way to "get off the ground" from dust, rocks, gas - into a sloppy protein even if it is totally the wrong starting point for DNA or a cell.

Well as it turns out - and as Urey-Miller already prove - you don't have to go to outer space to witness that sort of colossal fail to get viable proteins.

Transpermia is not the hope of getting "junk proteins" -- it needs "LIFE" completely formed and on the move.

hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, distributed by space dust, meteoroids, asteroids, comets, planetoids, and also by spacecraft carrying unintended contamination by microorganisms."

Instead of a junk-protein with random chiral orientation -- that specific "hopeful accident" was supposed to solve all the problems by landing a fully formed microorganism on Earth.

That is not "abiogenesis" that is "transport" where the entire completed product "shows up" on your doorstep.

These facts do not change just because you post an insult directed at me... (as surprising as that fact might seem to you at the moment)

 

[Yttrium]

The "problem" as Urey/Miller experiment proves -- what you get is worthless "proteins" because the amino acid chains don't have the mono-chiral orientation needed for actual cells. Instead (as you would expect) -- they have a random distribution.

Well, as long as you concede that the proteins can form naturally, that's a start.

As for how you get a functioning cell... Eh. I'm not a naturalist. I'm open to all sorts of possible explanations. Biologic evolution doesn't require natural abiogenesis, it just requires a population of living organisms to start with.