Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Brain_Hawk t1_jd5alcv wrote

Reply to comment by CardiOMG in A crucial building block of life exists on the asteroid Ryugu. Uracil, a component of RNA, was found in a sample collected by Japan’s Hayabusa2 spacecraft. by Science_News

Yes like all good science clickbait, it didn't lie. It merely insinuated

It's a crucial building block of life, but it doesn't carry through this is anything to do with the actual existence of life. It's just a chemical, that's found that a lot of places.

−39

tricksterloki t1_jd5ci0j wrote

I'm going to need your source for uracil is found through natural, nonbiological, synthesis in lots of places.

22

Brain_Hawk t1_jd5cn4t wrote

I'm no chemist. But it is a precursor to life, not a consequence to life. So it must by definition be formed through non-biological process.

−29

tricksterloki t1_jd5cvqb wrote

You claimed it can naturally be found lots of places. Tell me of these lots of places.

22

Brain_Hawk t1_jd5d3ca wrote

I think you're just here to argue. I'm not saying it's ubiquitous. You want to evaluate the issue more thoroughly you're welcome too look it up on your own.

−14

Bobthehobnob t1_jd5rlyn wrote

There's the Urey-Miller experiment which tried to recreate early earth atmospheric conditions, and they succeeded in making DNA and RNA (and also proteins and polysaccharides iirc) from methane, water, hydrogen and ammonia, but I think people later remarked how the early earth atmosphere probably didn't have the conditions required by the Urey-Miller experiment to actually be able to make these molecules.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1161527?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed

I'm not an expert on early life origin work, but as a biologist it definitely drew my attention to see uracil being discovered on an asteroid, as AFAIK it's pretty much only formed in nature through biological methods (at least with the current earth conditions it is, as the earth has changed quite a lot over the past 4.5 billion years, so it is possible at one stage that it was formed non-biogically).

8

Brain_Hawk t1_jd5xtiu wrote

That's really interesting. The article and.somethibg else (I forget now) made me presume it was naturally occurring. If it's largely biological how did it get to be part of RNA? Maybe a different molecule started it off?

Interesting those experiments on early dNA did not replicate. Undergrade was a long time ago so last I had heard it was probably all the rage. Of course, ever will we debate what conditions are the right conditions, etc.

Thanks for the informative post.

−2