Researchers find evidence of cavity-dwelling microbial life from 3 billion years ago

Phys.org ^ | December 28, 2015 | Bob Yirka

[BroJoeK]

Hebrews 11:6: "The Late Heavy Bombardment subsided c. 3.85 billion years ago and scientists have evidence of life at 3.84 b.y.a.
Interplanetary travel ("astrobiology") is practically impossible, and the very short time interval above, just 10 million years, rules out evolution..."

Evolution's time-line is much longer than 10 million years.

The moon impact is put at 4.5 billion years ago, and that Late Heavy Bombardment (LHB) is said to last from 4.1 to 3.8 billion years ago (bya) -- coinciding with the first possibly biotic material found in Western Australia from 4.1 bya.
The first certain evidence of life dates from 3.8 bya in Greenland, and the first microbial mat fossils date from 3.5 billion years ago in Western Australia.

Therefore, these new finds in South Africa are among the oldest, and correspond to times set for the last common ancestor of bacteria and archaea, circa 3.5 bya.

So, it appears to me that God wasted no time creating life on Earth, as soon as He was satisfied conditions here were suited for it.

[WhiskeyX]

“The first certain evidence of life dates from 3.8 bya in Greenland, and the first microbial mat fossils date from 3.5 billion years ago in Western Australia.”

Scientists just discovered life began 300 million years earlier than anyone knew
Fiona MacDonald, Science Alert

Oct. 20, 2015, 12:47 PM

Researchers have found evidence of ancient microorganisms that lived in what is now Western Australia at least 4.1 billion years ago. If confirmed, the discovery suggests that life originated on Earth 300 million years earlier than previously thought.

This would mean that life originated not that long after the formation of our planet - just over 4 million years to be precise - which might sound like a really long time, but it’s a proverbial blink of an eye in the history of Earth. It would also change our understanding of what it takes for life to form here, and, excitingly, elsewhere in the Universe.

“Life on Earth may have started almost instantaneously,” said one of the lead researchers, Mark Harrison, a geochemist from the University of California, Los Angeles. “With the right ingredients, life seems to form very quickly.”

The new research also suggests that life existed on Earth prior to the massive bombardment of the inner Solar System - a period of intense asteroid activity which formed the Moon’s large craters around 3.9 billion years ago.

[....]

http://www.techinsider.io/oldest-fossils-ever-discovered-2015-10

---

An extraterrestrial origin for the fundamental organic precursors and/or preexisting Life cannot be excluded as the source or sources of Life on the Earth.

[MeshugeMikey]

what a great concept for a bizarre parody web site>

Carbon_Dating.com

[BroJoeK]

quoting article: "Researchers have found evidence of ancient microorganisms that lived in what is now Western Australia at least 4.1 billion years ago.
If confirmed, the discovery suggests that life originated on Earth 300 million years earlier than previously thought."

I don't think that's reported accurately because, as the link I posted above shows:

1. 4.6 billion years ago (bya): Earth first formed.
   
2. 4.5 bya: Earth collides with Theia forming the moon.
   
3. 4.1 to 3.8 bya: Late Heavy Bombardment (LHB)
   
4. 4.1 bya: first evidence of possible life found in Western Australia.
   
5. 3.7 bya: first confirmed evidence of life found in Greenland rocks.
   
6. 3.5 bya: first microbial mat (stromatolite) fossils found in Western Australia.

Point is, we are not talking about just four million years from Earth's formation to first suggestions of life here, rather, we are talking about four hundred million years -- from 4.5 to 4.1 bya.

Yes, that is still an astonishingly short time for such a miraculous event -- life!
But it's a bit more than "instantaneous."

Stromatolite fossils:

[SunkenCiv]

I thin kremember hearing of some carbon dating that found that a rake sold by sears in 1942... was found by :scientists to be over 2 million years old...

and it was still under warranty.

But seriously, RC dating has a 50-60K year time limit. Other radiological dating methods have different and/or higher ranges.

[SunkenCiv]

related topic:

Small Comets and Our Origins
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1250694/posts

[SunkenCiv]

regarding lunar origin:

When the Days Were Shorter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1234919/posts

[WhiskeyX]

“1. 4.6 billion years ago (bya): Earth first formed.”

Before the “Earth first formed” and the Sun first formed, other stars and planets were formed and subsequently obliterated into nebular clouds of gas, dust, ice, metals, rocks, and asteroids. These materials were subsequently incorporated into the accretion of the Earth and the Moon/Luna. Life had the opportunity of many billions of years to form in the nebulae of interstellar space and/or on prior planetary bodies before the Earth ever came into existence. Until we can compare samples of the earliest forms of Life found on the Earth to samples of even earlier forms of Life found in extraterrestrial locations, there will be no certain means of fixing the place and time of the origin of Life on the Earth.

[MeshugeMikey]

yes indeed.That Sears Warranty is still far more reliable that the carbon dating

[SunkenCiv]

Radiocarbon dating is reliable, and well understood.

[Cementjungle]

I’ll have to mention this to my dentist.

[BroJoeK]

WhiskeyX: "...Until we can compare samples of the earliest forms of Life found on the Earth to samples of even earlier forms of Life found in extraterrestrial locations, there will be no certain means of fixing the place and time of the origin of Life on the Earth."

I doubt if we will ever know how much of life's chemistry originated on Earth, and how much, if any, was "seeded" from somewhere else.
Today we only know evidence suggesting 400 million years from Earth's formation to first possible life.
That's a long time -- for example: 400 million years ago was still Early Devonian epoch, a good time for sharks, but no land animals or birds yet.
A lot can happen in 400 million years.

So, were extraterrestrial "seeds" planted here?
Maybe, but maybe not.
I'd go with "maybe not" until somebody proves otherwise.

Deep sea vents:

[WhiskeyX]

“I doubt if we will ever know how much of life’s chemistry originated on Earth, and how much, if any, was “seeded” from somewhere else.”

The evidence would appear in the form of critical differences versus similarities in the etiology of their structures and functions, ranging from energy usage and chemical pathways to homochirality for just two of innumerable examples.

“Today we only know evidence suggesting 400 million years from Earth’s formation to first possible life.
That’s a long time — for example: 400 million years ago was still Early Devonian epoch, a good time for sharks, but no land animals or birds yet.
A lot can happen in 400 million years.”

That is not entirely true, insofar as there are competing lines of evidence that allow the origin of the organic precursors of Life and Life itself to have occurred billions of years before the Sun and Earth came into existence. There is no reason why Life could not have originated on another planet 8 billion years ago orbiting around a star which subsequently which obliterated itself and the planet in a supernova. Life may have survived in the silicate fragments of the planet and become incorporated into the nebulae from which the Sun, Solar System, and the Earth were formed. Life also may have originated inside the nebulae of interstellar space just as some organic precursors to Life have already been discovered in these nebulae. So, the origin of the Earth can in no way be regarded as the only potential for the origin of Life on the Earth.

“So, were extraterrestrial “seeds” planted here?
Maybe, but maybe not.”
“I’d go with “maybe not” until somebody proves otherwise.”

I have to go with the laws of physics, chemistry, and biochemistry which leave the door open to the origin of Life being anywhere and anytime the necessary chemical and biochemical reactions can take place; which at this time appears to be anytime after the nucleogensis of the chemical elements necessary for Life; including Carbon, Silicon, Nitrogen, and Oxygen, among others. More than 55 years ago I argued that exoplanets must exist in numbers far greater than the stars by implication of the laws of physics, despite the fact no exoplanets had yet to be discovered. I predicted it was only a matter of time and better technology before we would discover those exoplanets implied by the laws of physics. Half a century later I have been proven to be correct about the existence of exoplanets. I’m confident the exobiology research will do likewise for the discovery of extraterrestrial Life and the origins of Life on the Earth, because the evidence appears to imply the organization of Life from the building blocks of the Universe is inherent in the natural characteristics.

[xp38]

[WhiskeyX]

In the White House???!!!

[BroJoeK]

WhiskeyX: "The evidence would appear in the form of critical differences versus similarities in the etiology of their structures and functions, ranging from energy usage and chemical pathways to homochirality for just two of innumerable examples."

There's no reason to presume (or assume) that if we discover evidence of life on, let's say Mars, that such life didn't originate on Earth and travel to Mars via some rock from a meteor impact.
There's no particular reason to presume the reverse.

What we know for certain today is that whatever precursors of life, if any, arrived on Earth 4+ billion years ago found a happy-home here and evolved continuously ever since.

WhiskeyX: "There is no reason why Life could not have originated on another planet 8 billion years ago orbiting around a star which subsequently which obliterated itself and the planet in a supernova."

Of course, no dispute: all that is possible, I'm only saying, until there is convincing evidence, it cannot be presumed, or assumed.

WhiskeyX: "More than 55 years ago I argued that exoplanets must exist in numbers far greater than the stars by implication of the laws of physics, despite the fact no exoplanets had yet to be discovered.
I predicted it was only a matter of time and better technology before we would discover those exoplanets implied by the laws of physics."

Fifty-five years ago I was an avid reader of many sci-fi books, all of which assumed there were numerous distant stars with earth-like planets.
Such predictions took no great genius, FRiend.

[WhiskeyX]

“There’s no reason to presume (or assume) that if we discover evidence of life on, let’s say Mars, that such life didn’t originate on Earth and travel to Mars via some rock from a meteor impact. There’s no particular reason to presume the reverse.”

That’s correct.

“What we know for certain today is that whatever precursors of life, if any, arrived on Earth 4+ billion years ago found a happy-home here and evolved continuously ever since.”

Yes, precursors to Life or Life itself.

“Of course, no dispute: all that is possible, I’m only saying, until there is convincing evidence, it cannot be presumed, or assumed.”

Yes, but the more important aspect of the issue are the many implied evidentiary reasons why extraterrestrial origin/s of Life on the Earth older than the Sun and Earth “cannot be presumed, or assumed” in the present absence of conclusive evidence for or against such conclusions. Just because we have not yet been able to explore the evidence and discover it does not mean the evidence implied by what little we do know won’t be there when we do finally obtain the means to discover it. Too many commentators adopt the logical fallacy that the absence of evidence due to limited observational capabilities is conclusive evidence the evidence does not exist.

“Fifty-five years ago I was an avid reader of many sci-fi books, all of which assumed there were numerous distant stars with earth-like planets. Such predictions took no great genius, FRiend.”

Agreed, you would have thought it “took no great genius....” It was a concept older than all of us today, yet it was still a much ridiculed prediction 55 years ago. A teacher invited I and another student to travel to a special evening university lecture by a noted professor in chemistry and organic chemistry regarding human interstellar travel to the exoplanets in other star systems. What was especially remarkable about the event was the way in which he trashed the ideas of human interstellar travel and any assumption that exoplanets must exist. The teacher, a WWII Army Air Forces combat veteran, was amused by my visible frustration listening to the professor carry on. Thanks to the 1950s era science fact and science fiction books I had been reading, I knew full well the professor was spouting nonsense. Interstellar travel was theoretically possible using asteroids as generational interstellar transports and exoplanets were and still are inherently implicit alongside the physics forming any star from a nebula. Despite the obvious evidence and logic, the concept of exoplanets remained controversial even among the professors of acaddemic science who should have known better 55 years ago. The teacher who invited us to attend the lecture was pleased to see us young students challenge the university professor’s conclusions.

[BroJoeK]

WhiskeyX: "Too many commentators adopt the logical fallacy that the absence of evidence due to limited observational capabilities is conclusive evidence the evidence does not exist."

To my knowledge, nobody had concluded anything yet.
This particular site lists seven different theories of abiogenisis, including panspermia.
And this site provides a lengthy discussion on the whole subject.

The real fallacy, imho, is in calling any of these ideas scientific "theories" -- in fact none of them are real theories, all are at best hypotheses of which only some can be actually tested.

Of course, nothing wrong with scientists taking their best SWAG at what is currently unknowable, but we should not give such notions more credit than they deserve.

WhiskeyX: "...yet it was still a much ridiculed prediction 55 years ago.
A teacher invited I and another student to travel..."

Hmmmmmm... I was also invited on such a field trip, but not in science, in student government.
It was a session of the "model UN" in San Francisco, a very long drive for what turned out to be a disappointing experience.
Left me with a lasting impression of how much I dislike the United Nations.
Funny how these things work.

Have a great day, FRiend.

[WhiskeyX]

“To my knowledge, nobody had concluded anything yet.”

I had in mind the people who make comments on FR and the Fundamentalist sources they rely upon for citations.

“This particular site lists seven different theories of abiogenisis, including panspermia.”

That site is simplistic, out of date, has an incorrect timeline, and omits major pieces of the puzzle.

“And this site provides a lengthy discussion on the whole subject.”

The Wikipedia article on Abiogenesis is a fair introduction to the subject. It is lacking in some of the recent details.

“The real fallacy, imho, is in calling any of these ideas scientific “theories” — in fact none of them are real theories, all are at best hypotheses of which only some can be actually tested.”

The author/s of the article abuse the language by using the word, theory, where they should have used hypothesis and/or conjecture. Such abuse of the language and terminology provides a clue to the limitations of the article’s reliability on the subject.

“Of course, nothing wrong with scientists taking their best SWAG at what is currently unknowable, but we should not give such notions more credit than they deserve.”

Or less credit than they deserve. It is now well demonstrated that the fundamental elements and the fundamental amino acids are present throughout interstellar space and the Universe. The means by which they are created in space is now understood. The next step up in complexity of the molecules from the amino acids to the peptide chains has now been established. Amino acids in meteorites are converted to peptides upon impact with the Earth. The remaining steps upwards in complexity to RNA, DNA, and cellular structures are under intensive research and show many encouraging signs of being solved in the not too distant future.

[BroJoeK]

WhiskeyX: "The remaining steps upwards in complexity to RNA, DNA, and cellular structures are under intensive research and show many encouraging signs of being solved in the not too distant future."

On a geological time scale, of course, meaning anytime now in the next few million years. ;-)