Fossils point to oldest life on earth.

Started by Phoenix20012 pages

Fossils point to oldest life on earth.

WASHINGTON - Odd-shaped mounds of dirt in Australia turn out to be fossils of the oldest life on Earth, created by billions of microbes more than 3 billion years ago, scientists say in a new report.

And these mounds are exactly the type of life astrobiologists are looking for on Mars and elsewhere.

A study published Thursday in the journal Nature gives the strongest evidence yet that the mounds dotting a large swath of western Australia are Earth's oldest fossils. The theory is that these are not merely dirt piles that formed randomly into odd shapes, but that ancient microbes burrowed in and built them.

"This is the pointy end of the fossil record; this is the first really compelling record," said study lead author Abigail Allwood, a researcher at the Australian Centre for Astrobiology. "It's an ancestor of life. If you think that all life arose on this one planet, perhaps this is where it started."

The mounds come in different shapes — like egg cartons, swirls of frosting on cupcakes or waves on the ocean. They are called stromatolites and have been studied for a long time, but the big question has been if they were once teeming with life.

Allwood's research, which included examining thousands of the mounds and grouping them into seven subtypes, is the most comprehensive and compelling yet to say the answer is yes, according to a top expert not on her team.

"It is the best bet for the best evidence of the oldest life on Earth," said Bruce Runnegar, director of the NASA Astrobiology Institute in Moffett Field, Calif. "These are too complicated to be attributed to non-biological processes — but we don't know that for a fact."

Allwood said her study made the case for life solidly by looking at how the stromatolites fit with the rock formations around them, with each other, and what would have been happening on Earth at that time. One of the clinchers was putting them in seven repeating subtypes, which indicates they weren't random.

"It's just the sheer abundance of material and to be able to put it all in context," Allwood said.

Runnegar who has examined the mounds in western Australian several times said the first time he saw them — some of which jut out from hills at eye-level — he experienced an otherworldly feeling.

In a similar situation 10 years ago, scientists at NASA claimed they found evidence of fossilized microbial life in a Martian meteorite. Those claims have been sharply disputed.

One of the chief skeptics of the Martian meteorite claims, Ralph Harvey, a geology professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, said he is far more inclined to believe that the Australian mounds were once alive.

The key difference is that on Mars, scientists were looking for evidence of life on "a potentially dead planet" and the requirement for proof is extraordinary, Harvey said. Less evidence, he said is needed for Allwood's claims because "we already know that life has been on Earth for a very, very long time; all we're trying to do is push it further back."

Interesting stuff. 3 billion years, eh? Wonder what they might find next.

It's a plot by those evil Jew scientists to disrupt our pure Christian morals!

Interesting stuff. 3 billion years, eh? Wonder what they might find next.

Life may be older than that.
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/neo/life.html

BTW, Kritish, very cool sig. 😉

Originally posted by Mindship
Life may be older than that.
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/neo/life.html

BTW, Kritish, very cool sig. 😉

I was noticing that too. I thought maybe you had a sock. 😆

Originally posted by Mindship
Life may be older than that.
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/neo/life.html

BTW, Kritish, very cool sig. 😉

Oops, I didn't know this sig was taken. 😮

*the distant thumping of a bible grows increasingly louder*

Originally posted by Kritish
Oops, I didn't know this sig was taken. 😮

It's a plot by those evil Jew scientists to disrupt our pure Christian morals!

A bit off topic, but I've always wondered how scientists are able to determine something as being "billions" of years old. Are there any substantiated and widely accepted methods used to gauge the age of something over several thousand years?

From what I've read on the subject, most dates given above several thousand years are just speculation and conjecture.

If anyone chooses to answer this question, please give answers that are unrelated to "carbon" or "radiometric" dating. Neither technique is widely accepted as accurately determining the age of something over several thousand years.

Originally posted by Normal Guy
Neither technique is widely accepted

Neither technique is religiously accepted.

Originally posted by Normal Guy
A bit off topic, but I've always wondered how scientists are able to determine something as being "billions" of years old. Are there any substantiated and widely accepted methods used to gauge the age of something over several thousand years?

From what I've read on the subject, most dates given above several thousand years are just speculation and conjecture.

If anyone chooses to answer this question, please give answers that are unrelated to "carbon" or "radiometric" dating. Neither technique is widely accepted as accurately determining the age of something over several thousand years.

Those methods are not excepted by the religious movement who believe life and the earth itself is only around 6 thousand years old even when there's proof that one could see, touch and taste if necessary that human's have been around for way over 6 thousand years.

The science community by and large accepts those methods, they're not 100% accurate since we're dealing with millions sometimes billions of years, but they work nonetheless.

Originally posted by Normal Guy

If anyone chooses to answer this question, please give answers that are unrelated to "carbon" or "radiometric" dating. Neither technique is widely accepted as accurately determining the age of something over several thousand years.

anyone, please give whobdamandog a scientific answer without any scientific evidence or formulas, which are accepted by the entire community, but not in the vatacan.

Originally posted by PVS
anyone, please give whobdamandog a scientific answer without any scientific evidence or formulas, which are accepted by the entire community, but not in the vatacan.

Jesus was a woman.

Those secular bastards trying to destroy our Church™. Get out the stones!

I see. Well, I've read many articles in science journals which have also questioned the accuracy of both techniques. Many of which were very reputable.

Back on topic. How on earth does one make a direct correlation between a mound of dirt, a few microbes, and outer space? Does anyone else besides me see any faulty logic with this assumption?

I don't mean to play the part of the sceptic, but it does seem as though many scientists have been grasping at straws trying to substantively prove evolutionary theory as of late.

Why don't you explain it for us Whob. Or better yet, why don't you bury your head and in 6000 years we'll see if it's fossilized.

Originally posted by PVS
*the distant thumping of a bible grows increasingly louder*
Not all people that believe in the bible believe everything in it.

Originally posted by NineCoronas
Not all people that believe in the bible believe everything in it.

Then you wouldn't be a bible thumper.

Originally posted by Normal Guy
If anyone chooses to answer this question, please give answers that are unrelated to "carbon" or "radiometric" dating. Neither technique is widely accepted as accurately determining the age of something over several thousand years.

As far as I know, there are no other methods. So seems to me, to request that one "give answers that are unrelated to 'carbon' or 'radiometric' dating," is kind of like asking, "Let's talk about God's plan for humanity, but please give answers that are unrelated to the Bible."

In any event: any single radiometric method, by itself, might be questionable. As such, scientists will often use several independent radiometric dating methods to minimize error. This multiple approach has shown high correlation and is widely accepted.

Is it perfect? Heck, what is? Like Science itself, it is the best "as if" we currently have.

Oldest known signs of life are 3,8 billion years old. This was published years ago...

Originally posted by Normal Guy
I see. Well, I've read many articles in science journals which have also questioned the accuracy of both techniques. Many of which were very reputable.

Back on topic. How on earth does one make a direct correlation between a mound of dirt, a few microbes, and outer space? Does anyone else besides me see any faulty logic with this assumption?

I don't mean to play the part of the sceptic, but it does seem as though many scientists have been grasping at straws trying to substantively prove evolutionary theory as of late.

Even though this is unrelated to what you asked, look into Creation; especially the revamped version of it going around called 'Intelligent Design', you'll see some solid straw grasping there. So given the choices before us, evolutionist aren't really grasping at straws.

Here's one argument from 'Intelligent Design' / anti-science people:

'The eye is so complex that God must have had a hand in creating it. ..'

Gee, that has to be it, there can't be any other logical reason. It's a wonder we ever advanced past the Dark Ages with people of this mindset around.