Origin of vertebrates

Mario Petrinovich said:

Hi folks

Firstly, I am a layman, don't know much about biology. But, I like to watch documentaries
about life. Well, yesterday I saw an article on the Internet. Here is the link : www.nature.com/nsu/031215/031215-
2.html In this article they are talking how vertebrates "share a surprisingly large number
of genes" with some coral. Well, this is completly in tune with what I saw in
documentaries. What I saw in documentaries? Firstly, I saw a sea plant (I forgot which
one). A seed of that plant has a tiny brain, which it needs to find a good place to settle.
Whem it settles, it doesn't need that brain anymore, but instead it needs energy to grow,
so it eats its brain. Secondly, one documentary talked about origin of vertebral column.
According to tha documentary, a vertebral column in the beginning were sand-sized magnets.
If you take a few peaces of magnet, they would line themselves in line, pointing toward
bottom (if you are in fluid). This way they could lead a tiny organism toward rich mud at
the bottom. If you put this two together, you are having a plant seed, which is looking for
a mud (which it knows how to exploit, and live of it). It sounds logical that first it was
plants, and from plants emerged animals. Plants are eating sunlight. Plants seeds need to
move. Animals are moving. Animals are eating plants and other animals. I am puzzled how
authors of that article didn't come to same conclusions. -- Mario

First, for those looking on, the paper under discussion is

Kortschak, R. D., Samuel, G., Saint, R. & Miller, D. J. EST analysis of the cnidarian Acropora
millepora reveals extensive gene loss and rapid sequence divergence in the model invertebrates.
Current Biology, 13, 2190 - 2195, (2003).

The paper is available at download.current-biology.com0960Open ↗
9822/PIIS0960982203008728.pdf

I think you have misinterpreted some of the information you have read and heard. The coral studied
in the paper is from a group of animals, the Cnidaria, that diverged very early from the base of the
line of the multicellular animals, the metazoa. Any genes shared by corals and us should be present
in the ancestral metazoan and therefore should be found in virtually all other living animals. The
surprise was not that the coral shared genes with us, but that they are NOT shared in the two other
major "model" animals, the fruit fly Drosophila and the roundworm Caenorhabditis. The argument is
that these shared genes must have been present in the ancestral form and then lost in the insects
(Arthropods) and roundworms (Nematodes). Probably many of the "model" organisms for which we have
complete genomes are very specialized and may have lost substantial numbers of ancestral genes,
replacing them with others more suitable to their specialized life style and physiology.

Now for the two points you raise. First, the "plant" you learned about is not a plant at all, but
an animal called a tunicate or sea squirt. This branched out very early from the group of animals
that we humans belong to, the phylum Chordata. The tunicate is considered a model for the earliest
form of our own bodies. The "seed" is not a plant seed at all, but the larval form of the tunicate
which swims like a tadpole. It in fact does have a tiny central nervous system which has many
similarities with our own: it forms from a dorsal groove, then a tube, and includes an anterior
"brain" and a long hollow nerve cord lying just above a structure called the notochord. This
corresponds exactly to our own brain and spinal cord. In our own case, the growth and development
of the vertebral column destroys the cells from our original notochord so we call our own dorsal
cord the "spinal cord". When the larval tunicate matures, it settles to the bottom, sticks to a
rock, and metamorphoses into a very different form with virtually no nervous system at all. It
doesn't really "eat" the brain although, like all tissues fated for destruction, the cells do get
broken down and the constituents recycled in metabolism. The adult tunicate is stationary, attached
to a rock (sessile), much like sea anemones, corals, and sponges. Some people think these
stationary animals are plants simply because they don't move around. They really have no
evolutionary relationship to plants except for the fact that all organisms in the world are
eventually related one way or another.

Second, I don't know where you may have seen a documentary discussing the formation of the vertebral
column as "sand-size magnets". The vertebra develop from a series of segmental blocks of tissue
aligned along the embryonic notochord. Yes, these may be the size of sand grains and, yes, there are
developmental genes and intersegmental influences that cause them to line up and organize themselves
into a row. Still, the mechanism by which they align and interact has nothing whatsoever to do with
the way that pieces of a magnet would.

There are bacteria that can sense a magnetic field and the move along the magnetic lines of force.
In the northern hemisphere, the North-seeking lines dip into the earth so that an aquatic bacterium
that follows the lines eventually finds itself buried in the mud at the bottom of the water. I would
guess that you saw two documentaries (or one which discussed two ideas): one dealing with the
formation of the vertebral column from a series of segmental blocks, the other dealing with these
bacteria which find the mud they live in by following the magnetic field of the earth. You then
mixed the two notions -- not at all surprising in view of the enormous amount of science that we
encounter.

So your conclusion about the origin of animals, although seemingly logical and well thought out,
really is based on some incorrect assumptions. However, keep up thinking about things and sharing
your ideas! That is the important thing!

"Mario Petrinovich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi folks

Firstly, I am a layman, don't know much about biology. But, I like to watch documentaries
about life. Well, yesterday I saw an article on the Internet. Here is the link

:

Quoted message said:

www.nature.com/nsu/031215/031215-2.html

I tried to access this but could not, so my comments below can not take what was discussed in the
article into account - but I'll try again later.

Quoted message said:

In this article they are talking how vertebrates "share a

surprisingly

Quoted message said:

large number of genes" with some coral. Well, this is completly in tune with what I saw in
documentaries. What I saw in documentaries? Firstly, I saw a sea plant (I forgot which one). A
seed of that plant has a tiny brain, which it needs to find a good place to settle.

Whem

Quoted message said:

it settles, it doesn't need that brain anymore, but instead it needs

energy

Quoted message said:

to grow, so it eats its brain.

A brain is part of the vertebrate CNS, IIRC, and while invertebrates have comparable function,
plants do not (again, IIRC). Is it possible that the article used some sort of analogy that you took
as verbatim?

Quoted message said:

Secondly, one documentary talked about origin of vertebral column. According to tha
documentary, a vertebral column in the beginning were sand-sized magnets. If you take a
few peaces of magnet, they would line themselves in line, pointing toward bottom (if you
are in fluid). This way they could lead a tiny organism toward rich mud at the bottom. If
you put this two together, you are having a plant seed, which

is

Quoted message said:

looking for a mud (which it knows how to exploit, and live of it). It

sounds

Quoted message said:

logical that first it was plants, and from plants emerged animals. Plants are eating sunlight.
Plants seeds need to move. Animals are moving. Animals are eating plants and other animals.

My feeling is that you're making some enormous jumps, here. Your use of the term "knows" is
disturbing when you are trying to implant a "brain" in vegetation, as a plant "knows" nothing of
exploitation, IMO. Yes, it exploits, but no, it does not "know how to exploit" (and sorry if I'm
wrong here, as I'm also a layman and won't being corrected.)

My understanding in that multi-cellular orgamism capable of photosynthesis arose some 800 MYA to 1
BYA (presumabley these could be called plants) and that "animals", such as these primitive and
diverse ones were, arose 520 - 600 MYA (Cambrian explosion). Chordates appeared within that period,
roughly in the 550 - 580 MYA and arose (more or less) simultaneously (i.e. within a few tens of
millions of years) with many other body plans (most extinct), but presumably from these other
"animals", rather than plants. My $.02 (and not much more). Regards, Brett.

Quoted message said:

I am puzzled how authors of that article didn't come to same conclusions. -- Mario

"Mario Petrinovich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Hi folks

Firstly, I am a layman, don't know much about biology. But, I like to watch documentaries
about life. Well, yesterday I saw an article on the Internet. Here is the link : www.nature.com/nsu/031215/031215-
2.html In this article they are talking how vertebrates "share a surprisingly large number
of genes" with some coral. Well, this is completly in tune with what I saw in
documentaries. What I saw in documentaries? Firstly, I saw a sea plant (I forgot which
one). A seed of that plant has a tiny brain, which it needs to find a good place to
settle. Whem it settles, it doesn't need that brain anymore, but instead it needs energy
to grow, so it eats its brain. Secondly, one documentary talked about origin of vertebral
column. According to tha documentary, a vertebral column in the beginning were sand-sized
magnets. If you take a few peaces of magnet, they would line themselves in line, pointing
toward bottom (if you are in fluid). This way they could lead a tiny organism toward rich
mud at the bottom. If you put this two together, you are having a plant seed, which is
looking for a mud (which it knows how to exploit, and live of it). It sounds logical that
first it was plants, and from plants emerged animals. Plants are eating sunlight. Plants
seeds need to move. Animals are moving. Animals are eating plants and other animals. I am
puzzled how authors of that article didn't come to same conclusions. -- Mario

Mario,

I am a layman too, so don't take what I say TOO seriously.

The biologist's aren't impressed with your suggestion because you are not using THEIR definition of
"plant" and "animal". But, if you look at the question using a layman's definition, then your theory
may be right, and is certainly worth discussing.

One layman's definition is that a "plant" is something that is planted, while an "animal" is
something that moves around. By this definition, it is hard to say which came first - most
biologist think that both plants and animals came from something that floats around, but maybe
didn't move under its own power. So which is that? Plant or animal? Anyways, I'm sure that the
biologists have pointed out that a coral, even though it is planted, is really an animal under the
biologist's definition. Also, according to biologists, a mushroom is also not a plant, even though
it is planted too.

Another layman's definition is that a "plant" is green and does photosynthesis. This isn't a perfect
definition for biologists either. You may not know it, but there is a beastie that EVERYONE would
consider an animal (a kind of worm) that is green and does photosynthesis. But if your theory is
that all animals are descended from green things, then the biologists are probably right and you are
probably wrong. Current thinking is that photosynthesis wasn't there in the common ancestor of
plants and animals.

A third layman's definition is that a plant creates food (from sunlight and chemicals in the mud)
but an animal eats food (it eats plants, other animals, whatever). Biologist call the first kind of
plant-like thing an "autotroph", and the second kind of animal-like thing a "heterotroph". Your
theory seems to be that autotrophs came before heterotrophs. I agree, as do some real biologists,
but lots of other wise biologists disagree. It seems odd to claim that there were heterotrophs
before there were any other living things around to eat. But the theory is that there was a lot of
"whatever" to be eaten, and that the word "autotroph" really should only apply to absorbing simple
chemicals and sunlight, not to eating this organic "whatever" that they think was there in the
"prebiotic soup". Our theory that autotrophs came first is gaining ground, though.

So, no matter which layman's definition of "plant" and "animal" you go with, your theory is at least
interesting, and just maybe right when the biological establishment is wrong.

Jim

"Mario Petrinovich" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jim Menegay :

Quoted message said:

So, no matter which layman's definition of "plant" and

"animal" you go

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

with, your theory is at least interesting, and just

maybe right when the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

biological establishment is wrong.

Jim

Quoted message said:

Yes, Jim. You summed it up really nice, for me.

Thanks. It looked

Quoted message said:

kind of interesting to me also, and most of all - logical,

so I came here to

Quoted message said:

see what you, experts, think of this. I knew that the main

theory is that

Quoted message said:

"prebiotic soup", but this one looked better to me. I

thought that there

Quoted message said:

must be something why they don't consider it, and thought

that this is what

Quoted message said:

you've mentioned, no photosyntesis in common ancestor.

But, maybe there is

Quoted message said:

something wrong with evidence, or models they are

considering.

Quoted message said:

BTW, while we are talking about "prebiotic soup",

how much you folks

Quoted message said:

are aware that Huygens probe is to land on Saturn's moon

Titan, about a year

Quoted message said:

from now? -- Mario

Yes, and as for the prebiotic soup there is still a lot to be said for panspermia thys., and more
specifically, the possibility of the original generation of life in space itself. The very fact that
cometary bodies appear to have most all of the precursor chemicals of life aboard, makes me very
suspicious that at least a few events in space occurred where these chemicals went "all the way." Oh
well, someday we'll get humans out there to do a lot more research on such questions. ....tonyC

Brett Aubrey :
Mario Petrinovich :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you put this two together, you are having a plant seed, which is looking for a mud
(which it knows how to exploit, and live of it).

My feeling is that you're making some enormous jumps, here. Your use of the term "knows" is
disturbing when you are trying to implant a "brain" in vegetation, as a plant "knows" nothing of
exploitation, IMO. Yes, it exploits, but no, it does not "know how to exploit" (and sorry if I'm
wrong here, as I'm also a layman and won't being corrected.)

Thanks Brett No, nothing like that. I used it in a sense of like plant "knows" (capable of)
how to use sunlight, and to exploit soil to its benefit. Like, one plant is capable of
("knows"😉 how to exploit one type of soil, another "knows" how to exploit another type How
much animals are similar to plants in that respect, is another subject, though.

Quoted message said:

My understanding in that multi-cellular orgamism capable of photosynthesis arose some 800 MYA to 1
BYA (presumabley these could be called plants) and that "animals", such as these primitive and
diverse ones were, arose 520 - 600 MYA (Cambrian explosion). Chordates appeared within that
period, roughly in the 550 - 580 MYA and arose (more or less) simultaneously (i.e. within a few
tens of millions of years) with many other body plans (most extinct), but presumably from these
other "animals", rather than plants.

Thanks for a nice info Mario

r norman :

Quoted message said:

I think you have misinterpreted some of the information you have read and heard. The coral studied
in the paper is from a group of animals, the Cnidaria, that diverged very early from the base of
the line of the multicellular animals, the metazoa. Any genes shared by corals and us should be
present in the ancestral metazoan and therefore should be found in virtually all other living
animals. The surprise was not that the coral shared genes with us, but that they are NOT shared in
the two other major "model" animals, the fruit fly Drosophila and the roundworm Caenorhabditis.
The argument is that these shared genes must have been present in the ancestral form and then lost
in the insects (Arthropods) and roundworms (Nematodes). Probably many of the "model" organisms for
which we have complete genomes are very specialized and may have lost substantial numbers of
ancestral genes, replacing them with others more suitable to their specialized life style and
physiology.

I don't think that I misinterpreted this. Again, excuse my lack of knowlage, but, I suppose
that we already know something about gene loses, and loses in that amount. I suppose that
models of that are developed. Is anybody thinking about model in which there were no gene
loses of that amount?

Quoted message said:

Now for the two points you raise. First, the "plant" you learned about is not a plant at all, but
an animal called a tunicate or sea squirt. This branched out very early from the group of animals
that we humans belong to, the phylum Chordata. The tunicate is considered a model for the earliest
form of our own bodies. The "seed" is not a plant seed at all, but the larval form of the tunicate
which swims like a tadpole. It in fact does have a tiny central nervous system which has many
similarities with our own: it forms from a dorsal groove, then a tube, and includes an anterior
"brain" and a long hollow nerve cord lying just above a structure called the notochord. This
corresponds exactly to our own brain and spinal cord. In our own case, the growth and development
of the vertebral column destroys the cells from our original notochord so we call our own dorsal
cord the "spinal cord". When the larval tunicate matures, it settles to the bottom, sticks to a
rock, and metamorphoses into a very different form with virtually no nervous system at all. It
doesn't really "eat" the brain although, like all tissues fated for destruction, the cells do get
broken down and the constituents recycled in metabolism. The adult tunicate is stationary,
attached to a rock (sessile), much like sea anemones, corals, and sponges. Some people think these
stationary animals are plants simply because they don't move around. They really have no
evolutionary relationship to plants except for the fact that all organisms in the world are
eventually related one way or another.

Second, I don't know where you may have seen a documentary discussing the formation of the
vertebral column as "sand-size magnets". The vertebra develop from a series of segmental blocks of
tissue aligned along the embryonic notochord. Yes, these may be the size of sand grains and, yes,
there are developmental genes and intersegmental influences that cause them to line up and
organize themselves into a row. Still, the mechanism by which they align and interact has nothing
whatsoever to do with the way that pieces of a magnet would.

There are bacteria that can sense a magnetic field and the move along the magnetic lines of force.
In the northern hemisphere, the North-seeking lines dip into the earth so that an aquatic
bacterium that follows the lines eventually finds itself buried in the mud at the bottom of the
water. I would guess that you saw two documentaries (or one which discussed two ideas): one
dealing with the formation of the vertebral column from a series of segmental blocks, the other
dealing with these bacteria which find the mud they live in by following the magnetic field of the
earth. You then mixed the two notions -- not at all surprising in view of the enormous amount of
science that we encounter.

I am 95% (even more) sure that I saw what I said , but - who knows. If I ever see something
like that again, I'll let you know. Maybe the author of documentary was intrigued by ideas
od some young scientiest, or something like that. Who knows.

Quoted message said:

So your conclusion about the origin of animals, although seemingly logical and well thought out,
really is based on some incorrect assumptions. However, keep up thinking about things and sharing
your ideas! That is the important thing!

Yes. This is more fun than solving the computer games misteries,
: ). The only draw-back is that you need a lot of time to read all those
books (which I don't have). Thanks very, very much for spending your time to put me into
perspective. God bless the Internet, and the kind people who are willing to help. I'll do some
research on this, and if I find something to be in tune with what I said, I'll let you know. And,
please forgive me, I will have to forward your answer to another forum in which I posted this, so
that good people there wouldn't be mislead. This is Yahoo! AAT group. AAT means Aquatic Ape Theory,
a paleoanthropology group. This was a sort of Off Topic thread there, which I started. I think this
is OK since this ng is a public place, mad eot read by anybody. I won't post your signature,
though, just in case. I don't have time to wait for your answer on this, since I am in a hurry to
correct my mussings.

Thanks again very much Mario

Jim Menegay :

Quoted message said:

So, no matter which layman's definition of "plant" and "animal" you go with, your theory is at
least interesting, and just maybe right when the biological establishment is wrong. Jim

Yes, Jim. You summed it up really nice, for me. Thanks. It looked kind of interesting to me
also, and most of all - logical, so I came here to see what you, experts, think of this. I
knew that the main theory is that "prebiotic soup", but this one looked better to me. I
thought that there must be something why they don't consider it, and thought that this is
what you've mentioned, no photosyntesis in common ancestor. But, maybe there is something
wrong with evidence, or models they are considering. BTW, while we are talking about
"prebiotic soup", how much you folks are aware that Huygens probe is to land on Saturn's
moon Titan, about a year from now? -- Mario

"Mario Petrinovich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

BTW, while we are talking about "prebiotic soup", how much you folks are aware that
Huygens probe is to land on Saturn's moon Titan, about a year from now? -- Mario

Mario, I didn't know that. Is Huygens part of the Cassini mission? I'm not expecting much from Titan
- though it is probably the only reducing atmosphere we are likely to visit anytime soon. But it
will be nice if they get some high resolution shots of Saturn and the rings. I noticed that you
mentioned Aquatic Ape theory in one of your other responses. Is that still being talked about? I
read her book (What is her name?) back 15 years ago, or so, and kind of liked the idea. We need more
women generating theories about early human evolution - there is entirely too much talk about
hunters using language to coordinate and not enough about mothers telling their children not to eat
the purple berries! Hunters don't learn language - children learn language! Jim

Jim Menegay :

Quoted message said:

Mario Petrinovich :

Quoted message said:

BTW, while we are talking about "prebiotic soup", how much you folks are aware that
Huygens probe is to land on Saturn's moon Titan, about a year from now? -- Mario

Mario, I didn't know that. Is Huygens part of the Cassini mission? I'm not expecting much from
Titan - though it is probably the only reducing atmosphere we are likely to visit anytime soon.
But it will be nice if they get some high resolution shots of Saturn and the rings. I noticed that
you mentioned Aquatic Ape theory in one of your other responses. Is that still being talked about?
I read her book (What is her name?) back 15 years ago, or so, and kind of liked the idea. We need
more women generating theories about early human evolution - there is entirely too much talk about
hunters using language to coordinate and not enough about mothers telling their children not to
eat the purple berries! Hunters don't learn language - children learn language! Jim

Yes. Huygens is attached to the Cassini spacecraft. Cassini will come to Saturn on July,
1st, and it will release Huygens probe toward Titan six months later. Here is a citation and
a link where you can find more :

spaceflightnow.com/news/n0312/12titan/

" "We really don't know how life formed on the Earth, or on whatever planet it formed," Lunine said.
"Because we are organic, with carbon and hydrogen, we want to know more about organic molecules. How
do molecules change chemically into biomolecules in an environment that is not conducive to life?
There are no traces left of how it happened on Earth because all of Earth's organic molecules have
been processed biochemically by now. Titan is our best chance to study organic chemistry in a
planetary environment occurring in the absence of life over billions of years." Scientists have
focused much of their attention on Titan's thick atmosphere, which is four times denser than Earth's
atmosphere at sea level. Like Earth, and unlike Mars and Venus, Titan has mostly a nitrogen
atmosphere. But because Titan is 10 times farther from the sun than Earth, surface temperatures
hover around minus 290 degrees Fahrenheit. That's too cold for water vapor, even though the planet-
like moon is half rock and half water. Titan's primarily nitrogen atmosphere contains methane.
Methane reacts with ultraviolet sunlight, forming organic compounds that flake from the sky. The
thick atmosphere protects the hydrocarbons and other organic solids that settle on the surface from
being destroyed by damaging particle and ultraviolet radiation. Some of these organic molecules are
thought to have been important in Earth's prebiotic environment."

Aquatic Ape Theory. Well, yes. People are still talking about it. It isn't actually as
recent as Elaine Morgan. It was put down by Sir Alister Hardy, a marine biologist who
noticed that dissecting a human is more similar to dissecting an aquatic mammal, than a
terrestrial one (at least that is what I heard). But not many people accepred that, and so
the idea was almost forgoten. Then came Elaine Morgan, and pushed it whole her life (AFAIK,
even now she is writing some book about it).

It was opposed to savanna theory, but savanna theory is now dead, as far as I can tell,
after recent findings of pre-savanna fossils (Sahelanthropus, Orrorin), and AAT has even
more sense, since before savanna there was rainy forest. I could say, it is enough to take a
look at the nose

Regarding theories, it shocked me when I realised that anthropologists are awoiding making
theories, as hell. I know it is a sensible subject to a lot of people, but never-the-less.
If you ask some of them, they just smile, tell you that they are not looking that big, and
do their business. And stick to what is already accepted.

Regarding language, when I was a little boy (10 years or something) we (me and my two
sisters) used to play a little game. The main news on TV, at that time, were at 8:00 pm.
But, before news, a clock was shown, for more than a minute. The game was to start to hold
your breath at 7:59, and hold it until news start. The first 30 secs is easy, but then
trouble starts. You are starting to struggle. Mmmmm - hold - mmmm - hold - mmmm (the air
wants to go out). And finaly 8:00 - mmmmaaaaaaaaa. I don't know if all languages (I don't
know anything about languages, have to ask somebody) have a "mamma", but I think a lot of
them have. I think that aquatic environment is the best place to develop language. This is
environment where you cannot move and look around (you would lose too much energy). The
exchange of information of what is around you could be crucial.

At "Yahoo! groups" there is a group called AAT, largely maintained by one of main AATers,
Marc Verhaegen. So, anyone interested can stop by and take a look. It is paleoanthropology
group, but the basis of research there, very much is a living human, completly ignored by
current paleoanthropology. -- Mario

<< Yes, and as for the prebiotic soup there is still a lot to be said for panspermia thys., and more
specifically, the possibility of the original generation of life in space itself. The very fact that
cometary bodies appear to have most all of the precursor chemicals of life aboard, makes me very
suspicious that at least a few events in space occurred where these chemicals went "all the way." Oh
well, someday we'll get humans out there to do a lot more research on such questions. ....tonyC

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes but there is a catch in that argument. ALL the precursor chemicals - whether they fall from
space or are made on earth - could be made by the same UV which works well in Miller type
experiments. And remember - if if fell from space -
1. it was probably blown up from where it came (ejected from some earlier explosion), and/or
2. it probably burned up on the way down.

TomHendricks474 :

Quoted message said:

<< Yes, and as for the prebiotic soup there is still a lot to be said for panspermia thys., and
more specifically, the possibility of the original generation of life in space itself. The very
fact that cometary bodies appear to have most all of the precursor chemicals of life aboard, makes
me very suspicious that at least a few events in space occurred where these chemicals went "all
the way." Oh well, someday we'll get humans out there to do a lot more research on such questions.

Yes but there is a catch in that argument. ALL the precursor chemicals - whether they fall from
space or are made on earth - could be made by the same UV which works well in Miller type
experiments. And remember - if if fell from space -
1. it was probably blown up from where it came (ejected from some earlier explosion), and/or
2. it probably burned up on the way down.

The upcomming Titan research (Huygens probe landing on Titan, I think in January of 2005)
could shed more light on all this. -- Mario

Mario Petrinovich :

Quoted message said:

TomHendricks474 :

Quoted message said:

<< Yes, and as for the prebiotic soup there is still a lot to be said for panspermia thys., and
more specifically, the possibility of the original generation of life in space itself. The very
fact that cometary bodies appear to have most all of the precursor chemicals of life aboard,
makes me very suspicious that at least a few events in space occurred where these chemicals went
"all the way." Oh well, someday we'll get humans out there to do a lot more research on such
questions.

Yes but there is a catch in that argument. ALL the precursor chemicals - whether they fall from
space or are made on earth - could be made by the same UV which works well in Miller type
experiments. And remember - if if fell from space -
1. it was probably blown up from where it came (ejected from some earlier explosion), and/or
2. it probably burned up on the way down.

The upcomming Titan research (Huygens probe landing on Titan, I think in January of 2005)
could shed more light on all this. -- Mario

And, yes. I completly forgot. A spacecraft Stardust will pass 300 km (186 miles) from comet
Wild 2 on Fridey january 2nd, and collect particles from it. Those particles will be stowed
and sent back to Earth, where they will arrive in January of 2006 for research. Here is a
citation : " "This gives us a real opportunity to find out if our long-held suspicions are
right, that comets played a major role in the origin of life," Brownlee said. "No one really
knows how life began, but we're certain that carbon was key to the process. Comets are the
most carbon-rich materials in the solar system, and we know they are full of organic
compounds that fall on the Earth all the time."" And a link where you can find more :
spaceflightnow.com/stardust/status.html -- Mario