Recent comments in /f/science

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

Eadiacara t1_jd5sqg0 wrote

I wonder what they're counting as "exotic" here. There's a huge range, imho. I mean obviously they've got a picture of a macaw, but are they including things like leopard geckos? There's a huge difference between a leopard gecko, a macaw, and say, a tiger.

3

Which_Professor_7181 t1_jd5s9gn wrote

I don't know why I just I hope that that was true. I hope that they were going to find that that was true because that means I mean comments are everywhere that means if a planet is habitable a comet could bring life and that's what is the starting that's what starts life on every planet that is tolerable to life at least carbon-based life that we know of. which would maybe all the life there is being that none of our planets have any life at all that we know of now we're starting to lean towards that that may not be true so I don't know I'm just voice texting this I'm basing all of this on nothing

−18

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

goat666forLF t1_jd5gvx4 wrote

3