Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Protein discovered inside a meteorite

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 61 posts

Re: Protein discovered inside a meteorite

#11

Post by gipp »

aldoushuxley001 wrote: post #7

Seems like this should be bigger news

It's a potentially pretty big deal for understanding extraterrestrial chemical processes and estimating the likelihood of life, but to be clear this isn't anything like actual evidence of alien life.

It's a bit of a stretch to call this a "protein" TBH. The protein part is composed of only glycine, so there's really no information (e.g. DNA) required to synthesize it, just glycine and a chemical environment that would cause it to polymerize. The caps at either end are not protein components at all, as the article mentions, and protein backbones on Earth are never cyclic afaik.

But, it's still a very complex organic molecule ofc, which is very significant on its own, and its similarity to protein is evidence that protein-based life could be more common.

Re: Protein discovered inside a meteorite

#12

Post by TallGuyShort »

tartoran wrote: post #3
westmeal wrote: post #2

Proponents of panspermia are pretty happy about this finding I bet.

"The team's paper has not yet been peer reviewed"..

At the best of times, what exactly does peer review add? I'll buy that it catches glaring flaws in their methodology or conclusions drawn from data. But it's not going to catch little mistakes or unlikely events that might have contaminated the sample.

Re: Protein discovered inside a meteorite

#15

Post by eindiran »

rolph wrote: post #6

A team of researchers from Plex Corporation, Bruker Scientific LLC and Harvard University > has found evidence of there is a mismatch between the title of that article and the level of confidence these researchers were expressing. the preprint is here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.11688

I mean, the first sentence of the preprint is "This paper characterizes the first protein to be discovered in a meteorite." The Significance section states that "[the preprint] is the first report of a protein from any extra-terrestrial source." And they claim that their evidence[0] that the protein is not a terrestrial contaminant is quite strong, so I would say that the confidence level of the researchers matches the title exactly.

[0] For example, from the conclusion: "The average molecular deuterium excess above terrestrial is (25,700 ± 3,500)%, or a D/H ratio of (4.1 ± 0.5) x10^-3, comparable to cometary levels, interstellar levels and also equal to the highest prior report in micro-meteorites."

Re: Protein discovered inside a meteorite

#16

Post by eternalban »

forinti wrote: post #13
westmeal wrote: post #2

Proponents of panspermia are pretty happy about this finding I bet.

It might hurt humanity's pride if this material turns out to be dejects spewn from passing spaceships.

Possibly, but the explanatory power of your little theorem is rather substantial.

Re: Protein discovered inside a meteorite

#17

Post by rolph »

eindiran wrote: post #15
rolph wrote: post #6

A team of researchers from Plex Corporation, Bruker Scientific LLC and Harvard University > has found evidence of there is a mismatch between the title of that article and the level of confidence these researchers were expressing. the preprint is here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.11688

I mean, the first sentence of the preprint is "This paper characterizes the first protein to be discovered in a meteorite." The Significance section states that "[the preprint] is the first report of a protein from any extra-terrestrial source." And they claim that their evidence[0] that the protein is not a terrestrial contaminant is quite strong, so I would say that the confidence level of the researchers matches t…

thats the preprint, if you look at the language used on the phys.org article there is a big difference between the two

Re: Protein discovered inside a meteorite

#18

Post by qubex »

westmeal wrote: post #2

Proponents of panspermia are pretty happy about this finding I bet.

To be perfectly honest, you’ve drawn my attention to an ambiguity I had never before noticed: does panspermia’s hypothesis that “life” came from space require that life arrive fully formed and functional, or does it advocate that complex organic chemicals arrived from space and assembled on earth into a working configuration?

I have always found the idea of panspermia to be a bit of a cop-out as it totally sidesteps the problem of abiogenesis: it’s all fine and well to say “life came from space” but you still need to explain how life arose in space to begin with.

Re: Protein discovered inside a meteorite

#19

Post by UI_at_80x24 »

westmeal wrote: post #2

Proponents of panspermia are pretty happy about this finding I bet.

So far sugars, and amino acids have been found in both comets & gas clouds. BUT to find this protein is the slam-dunk, holy-shit they were right, proof that Panspermia is how we got here, and there _MUST_ be life in other parts of the universe.

Re: Protein discovered inside a meteorite

#20

Post by Mountain_Skies »

westmeal wrote: post #2

Proponents of panspermia are pretty happy about this finding I bet.

While I have no objection to panspermia being possible, if it were true, it would be a significant hurtle added to the search for the origins of life. We would know how life on Earth started, but until we expand out into the galaxy, understanding the origins of the life that seeded Earth would be essentially unknowable.
Post reply on HN