Evidence of Earliest Life Disputed

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-earliest-life0524may24.story?coll=sns%2Dap%2Dpolitics%2Dheadlines ^ | PAUL RECER

[Dallas]

WASHINGTON --

A conclusion that a 3.85-billion-year-old rock contains evidence of life may be in error, according to a study that suggests the rock formed at temperatures too torrid to make life possible.

A study published in 1996 concluded a band of rocks on the Greenland offshore island of Akilia contained a high ratio of the isotope carbon-12, which was interpreted as evidence for the presence of microscopic life billions of years ago.

But the new study, by Christopher M. Fedo, a George Washington University geologist, and Martin J. Whitehouse of the Swedish Museum of Natural History, concludes the Akilia deposit was formed from superheated melted rock and that the enriched levels of carbon-12 could have been caused by chemical action, not by some life form.

"Our conclusion is that the rock came from a source that was molten, like a volcanic fountain," said Fedo, first author of the study released Friday in the journal Science. "The temperatures of molten rock would be far in excess of anything living. Therefore, any carbon in there got there by some other process."

The original study suggested that the rocks were sedimentary and therefore formed at temperatures cool enough to permit life. The interpretation that the rocks contained evidence of life was based on the ratio between carbon-12 and carbon-13. Living things, such as microbes, extract carbon from the environment and tend to concentrate carbon-12 instead of the heavier carbon-13. As a result, deposits that once contained life may be enriched with carbon-12.

But Fedo said geologists are now recognizing non-biological actions can enrich rocks with carbon-12, which means that, by itself, the isotope cannot be absolute proof for the evidence of life.

"These non-biological processes are consistent with the kinds of rocks exposed on this island," said Fedo. "The rocks are not sedimentary and were formed from a molten state. Any carbon trapped in there would have come from a later process. Also, we know that carbon-12 occurs in this type of rock."

Fedo said that if his interpretation is accepted, it will mean that a sedimentary rock formation on the mainland of Greenland may contain the oldest known evidence of life on Earth.

That formation, located at Isua, has been dated at 3.7 to 3.8 billion years old, only slightly younger than the formation on the island.

"The sedimentary origin (of the rocks at Isua) is important because that is consistent with the temperature range of liquid water, and liquid water and life are closely linked," said Fedo.

Gustaf Arrhenius of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at University of California, San Diego, a co-author of the 1996 study, said his team is doing a new examination of the Akilia rock formation and "believe there is much basis for a careful reconsideration."

"If it is true, as Fedo interpreted it, then it is a mystery still how the isotopic ratio was achieved," said Arrhenius. He conceded, however: "It is not impossible that there are non-biologic mechanisms."

* __

On the Net:

Science: www.sciencemag.org

Copyright © 2002, The Associated Press

[nimdoc]

placemark

[Mr. Lucky]

Doubtless, all public high school biology text books will be immediately rewritten to correct this boo boo.

[jlogajan]

What? I thought you creationists said scientist just make up facts and will never accept new evidence. Here it looks like scientists always seem willing to follow where the evidence leads. It sure isn't creationists doing the researh.

As I always say, science can be wrong for decades, but the Bible is wrong forever.

[Mr. Lucky]

What does any of this have to do with the Bible? In this instance, convention has been shown to be in error and should be corrected.

The fact that you immediately hurl insults would suggest that, perhaps, you should cut back by a couple of cups of coffee a day.

[MeekOneGOP]

But the new study, by Christopher M. Fedo, a George Washington University geologist, and Martin J. Whitehouse of the Swedish Museum of Natural History, concludes the Akilia deposit was formed from superheated melted rock and that the enriched levels of carbon-12 could have been caused by chemical action, not by some life form.

"Our conclusion is that the rock came from a source that was molten, like a volcanic fountain," said Fedo, first author of the study released Friday in the journal Science. "The temperatures of molten rock would be far in excess of anything living. Therefore, any carbon in there got there by some other process."

Let's build a Time Machine and find out for SURE !

How'd He Build That?
Click Here !

[parsifal]

This guy must have a lot of time on his hands. parsy.

[AndrewC]

Fine tuning ping.(up to 150 million years worth)

[Gumlegs]

Oh come on. What's 150 million years among friends?

[Protagoras]

As I always say, science can be wrong for decades, but the Bible is wrong forever.

Your bias is showing.

The bible is always right. Which is not to say that all interpretations of what is in it are correct.

[AndrewC]

The fact that you immediately hurl insults would suggest that

He worships anti-god. I suppose he is angry at God for not answering his every whim. Whatever the reason, he is sure to attack God and the Bible. He uses "liars for Christ, I tells ya" frequently. In any case, characteristically science will always be wrong or cease to be science.

[ThinkPlease]

Doubtless, all public high school biology text books will be immediately rewritten to correct this boo boo.

Depends. My old high school bio text wasn't all that new when I was in high school...ten years old, if I remember correctly. These results are only a few years old at most. They probably never made it into one.

[jlogajan]

The bible is always right. Which is not to say that all interpretations of what is in it are correct.

Given the second, how can you assert the first?

[jlogajan]

He uses "liars for Christ, I tells ya" frequently.

Well, I'd like to use it frequently, but I've been informed from above that only non-Christian bashing is allowed on this forum. So I have to be more circumspect.

[jlogajan]

Don't creationists usually attribute the existence of dinosaur fossils and the like to "The Devil" (in his neverending desire to deceive us)?

I imagine some do. I've also heard them claim it was a test by God -- he plants all this convincing evidence around and then sees if you fall for it, or for a story handed down by goat herders. He's such a kidder.

I do get a kick out of fundies' claims about who is going to everlasting hell -- Jews, Hindus, Islamics, pagans, atheists, CATHOLICS -- just about everyone -- except them. More of that Godly test stuff. Here's the deal though -- lots of these other religion believers have never even seen the alternative, so they just get to go to hell in a fatalistic manner. No possibility on their part to elect an alternative. What a great God they believe in.

[far sider]

Don't creationists usually attribute the existence of dinosaur fossils and the like to "The Devil" (in his neverending desire to deceive us)?

Surely, you're kidding! I have never heard a Creationist say anything like that. They all say say that dinosaur fossils are from Noah's flood. Surely, you are not that uninformed.

[jlogajan]

He worships anti-god.

No more than I worship anti-Spider-Man, or anti-Athena, or anti-Thor, or anti-Santa Claus. Mythical creatures all.

[jlogajan]

Are you familiar with the geological "law of superposition?" It states that strata as originally deposited are successively younger upward.

As I understand it, the creationists say that when the flood happened, the animals that could, ran for the hills -- so you'd see a Tyrannosaurus higher up the sediments than a Cyrtospirifer (sea shell like critter.)

[far sider]

Noah's flood? ..LOL. That's even funnier! The idea that T-Rex and his buddies were walking the earth during the time of Noah and were drowned in "The Flood" is nothing short of hilarious! The Flood happened - if it indeed happened at all - a few thousand years ago. Dinosaurs were destroyed by a large asteroid (which hit in an area near the Yucatan Peninsula) 66 MILLION years ago.

Yes, one of several theories on the extinction of dinosaurs. That still doesn't answer my question. Do you really think Creationists say that the devil put the dinosaur fossils in the ground, or are you just setting up a straw man?

Are you familiar with the geological "law of superposition?" It states that strata as originally deposited are successively younger upward. Anyway, age determinations of fossils and rocks can be made by locating their positions with the earth's strata. It just so happens that very, very large deposits of the element iridium are deposited at the 66 million year level in the earth's strata. Iridium is found in only trace amounts on earth, but in large amounts in asteroids.

a. Don't you see that this is a tautology (circular reasoning)? The dinosaurs died out millions of years ago because they are found in old layers of rock. And we know the layers of rock are because they have dinosaurs in them.
b. Iridium is also found in high amounts in volcanic deposits, not just asteroids, and Creationists believe that high rates of volcanism were also associated with the Flood.

Your arguments are shallow and will not convince anyone who is knowledgeable of the subject.

[Bat_Chemist]

Perhaps you should let the Creationists speak for themselves rather than show your lack of knowledge of their position.

It is obvious to me that a debate with you on this subject is moot, and any attempt to "help" you understand more clearly would lead to burns on the fingertips from the flaming which would follow.

[jlogajan]

Perhaps you should let the Creationists speak for themselves

Creationism like Christianity, comes in many flavors. You have your young earth creationists and your old earth creationists -- each one of them shouting about the certainty of the Bible. It truly is a hoot to watch.

[AndrewC]

No more than I worship anti-Spider-Man

How many times have you attacked Spidey?

[jlogajan]

How many times have you attacked Spidey?

Every time his believers claim he condemns non-believers to eternal hell fires.

[Dimensio]

What do they make of radiometric dating methods?

Flawed, of course. This is "proven" by pointing to C-14 tests that report dates of "millions of years" for a five-year old bone (nevermind that C-14 dating can not be used to get a reliable date from something that is either five of millions of years old).

[jlogajan]

How many times have you attacked Spidey?

Every time his believers claim his words tell us to kill homosexuals.

[Dimensio]

Every time his believers claim he condemns non-believers to eternal hell fires.

To be fair, you do seem to have a bit of an antagonistic approach in this thread toward Christianity. Of course the accusations of bias from Christians against you is based on questionable evidence, since there aren't many Muslims, Hindus or followers of other religions frequently touting the "Truth" of their religious beliefs on FR so they can't observe you being just as hostile toward anything else.

[jlogajan]

How many times have you attacked Spidey?

Every time his believers claim he told them to burn non-believers at the stake for not believing them, every time his believers gouge out the eyes and flay the flesh of non-believers.

[AndrewC]

Every time his believers claim he condemns non-believers to eternal hell fires.

And how many times is that?

[sayfer bullets]

What? I thought you creationists said scientist just make up facts and will never accept new evidence. Here it looks like scientists always seem willing to follow where the evidence leads. It sure isn't creationists doing the researh.

It's not scientists that are a problem. It's ideologues that wish to freely associate themselve WITH scientists and science.

You're projecting a faith position that all "scientists" march in lockstep, AND that 100% of them reject any possibility that something other than chaos created the universe. Amazing.

[sayfer bullets]

I have better things to do than follow the absurd conjectures of Creationists.

So your finding a few extra moments today becaaaaaaause?

[jlogajan]

since there aren't many Muslims, Hindus or followers of other religions frequently touting the "Truth" of their religious beliefs on FR so they can't observe you being just as hostile toward anything else.

Frankly I think Islam is out to kill us all. Hindus I don't know much about -- they don't seem as blood thirsty as some religions. Neo-pagans are kind of goofy -- but seem toothless enough.

I think Christianity is as goofy as any religion, and there is huge variation in belief really. Fundamentalists are particularly scary, not because their beliefs are any more goofy than neo-pagans, but because of the motivational hatred in their hearts. They are capable of justifying very aggressive and deadly acts against non-believers. You can follow the writings of advocates on here like Cultural Jihad who want to establish the equivalent of the American Taliban.

Fundamentalists aren't currently a high probability threat -- but we must be ever vigilant. Worldwide, it is Islam that is going to be killing non-believers in droves. But there doesn't seem to be much disagreement about that on these forums. :-)

[jlogajan]

And how many times is that?

Every time a copy of the Bible is published.

[sayfer bullets]

I see Dimensio made a point I wanted to ask (not suggesting he agrees with me, just that his point made is valid) concerning your focus on Christianity. Your bias is evident and detracts from your message(s).

Your claims of a threat from Christians or from Christianity are unfounded. You cannot substantiate the claim that Christians want to kill homosexuals, but then that's not a concern of yours.

Your credibility is suspect, IMO.

[AndrewC]

Every time a copy of the Bible is published

You have now demonstrated conclusively that you are a liar.

[jlogajan]

You cannot substantiate the claim that Christians want to kill homosexuals

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Some Christians accept this, some reject it. But even if they reject it, the Old Testament DID call for the murder of homosexuals -- whether you care to admit it or not.

Christians pretty universally do accept that the Old Testament was at one time the rule of God -- hence God at one time favored the murder of homosexuals. I guess he's gotten more enlightened since then. Guess even your God can make mistakes.

[jlogajan]

You have now demonstrated conclusively that you are a liar.

Don't kill the messenger. It is a common assertion of Christians, as documented in the Bible, that Jesus said the only way to Heaven is "through him." Your fellow Christians say this means that to get to heaven you have to accept that Christ died for our eternal salvation. Hence non-believers in Christ fail to "get in" thorough a belief in Jesus -- hence they suffer eternally in a lake of fire (also claimed in the Bible.)

I'm not sure why you get mad at me for simply echoing what your own Christian brothers and sisters preach from the hilltops.

I never make this stuff up. I don't have to. Christians come up with this goofy stuff on their own.

[far sider]

Don't you see that this is a tautology (circular reasoning)? -- The dinosaurs died out millions of years ago because they are found in old layers of rock. And we know the layers of rock are [old] because they have dinosaurs in them.

No.... We know the layers of rock are old because we've tested them using radiometric dating methods..Read on, you might learn something.

No.... The geologic column was devised over one hundred years ago and has not changed. Radioactivity was only discovered about 50 or 60 years ago. Dating techniques chosen are very selective using elements with long half-lives (U-Pb-Rb-Sr), purposely to support the already chosen dates. Another tautology.

[jlogajan]

The geologic column was devised over one hundred years ago and has not changed.

Which gave the sequence, but not the age. Radiometric dating provides the age, something geologists otherwise could only guess at.

[jlogajan]

Dating techniques chosen are very selective using elements with long half-lives (U-Pb-Rb-Sr), purposely to support the already chosen dates.

Not so deeply buried in here is an allegation that there are radiometric elements that are known to give contrary results. Could you name those elements and the alternative ages they've signalled? Or are you just pulling that out of your backside?

[far sider]

Not so deeply buried in here is an allegation that there are radiometric elements that are known to give contrary results. Could you name those elements and the alternative ages they've signalled? Or are you just pulling that out of your backside?

Not to be rude, but do you really want to know? I can dig it up. At this point I can say that 5-10 years ago, the main elements used for dating were Uranium-Lead, Potassium-Argon, and Rubidium-Strontium (I forget which isotopes). When different methods are used, it is rare to get even two to agree, much less all three. It's all very complicated and expensive and involves a lot of assumptions about migration of atoms into and out of the sample, contamination, initial concentrations, etc. The elements used are all very soluble in water and if the sample really is millions of years old, how can you be sure the sample has been unaffected by temperature and erosion in that time period? You can't.

They have some more exotic methods now with other elements (after all, you won't find uranium or radioactive potassium, etc. in every sample). In fact, to date such a fossil you have to find a "tuff" which is a volcanic deposit, that may be miles away for the actual fossil, but is presumed to be in the same stratum/age. It's almost impossible to predict the initial concentrations of mother/daughter isotopes in a modern volcanic deposit. Ancient volcanos, pure guesswork.

To top it all off, any time you send a lab a sample to be tested the first thing they want to know is what stratum (rock layer) was the sample taken from, i.e., how old do you think it is?

[sayfer bullets]

You cannot substantiate the claim that Christians want to kill homosexuals - sb

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Some Christians accept this, some reject it. But even if they reject it, the Old Testament DID call for the murder of homosexuals -- whether you care to admit it or not.

I do not. And neither would he. The Old Testament scripture is clearly stating that the act is criminal. The punishment is harsh, as is much in the Old Testament. It does not specify an executioner or method. The death of one's soul is "to surely die" as well. This does not make God a murderer...then or now.

Christians pretty universally do accept that the Old Testament was at one time the rule of God -- hence God at one time favored the murder of homosexuals.

I am not seeing evidence that "everytime they call for the killing of homosexuals" is applicable to this day and time. The statement appears as it initially did....as inflamatory rhetoric.

I guess he's gotten more enlightened since then. Guess even your God can make mistakes.

Backing off, I see. In the overall post alone you demonstrate either an increase in understanding of Christianity (Old vs New testament, etc.) or an acceptance that the claims made were innacurate. Grudgingly, based upon the remarks that follow, but evidence of God's work nonetheless. One cannot deny the truth when reading directly from it. It is a waste of time to project the expectations of mortals onto the psyche of a higher power.

I do not expect you to agree with me or with Christians, but I do expect a fairness in debate. Given that exists,you should expect the same.

Thank you for taking time to go to the source.

[Dimensio]

To top it all off, any time you send a lab a sample to be tested the first thing they want to know is what stratum (rock layer) was the sample taken from, i.e., how old do you think it is?

There's a good reason for that. Some dating methods are only good for specific age ranges and if they get wildly off figures for a test they might be able to conclude that the test was inappropriate fror the sample tested.

[far sider]

Thanks for backing me up there, D.