Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Just a Billion Years After the Earth Formed, Life had Already Figured out Plenty of T

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    27,285

    Just a Billion Years After the Earth Formed, Life had Already Figured out Plenty of T

    According to a recent study, multi-celled lifeforms lived on Earth as early as 3.5 billion years ago - a good indication that life exists elsewhere in the Universe.
    The post Just a Billion Years After the Earth Formed, Life had Already Figured out Plenty of Tricks appeared first on Universe Today.


    More...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,349
    The claim is that "the team determined that [the rocks] contained the fossilized remains of diverse organisms that are 3.465 billion years old".

    They claim "diverse organisms," but not multi-celled organisms, the emergence of which is apparently not very well pinned down: "By the Archean Eon (4 to 2.5 billion years ago), multi-celled lifeforms are believed to have emerged." That's a pretty big gap (1.5 billion years) of uncertainty.

    I saw nothing in this article to contradict Kauffman's claim that "...single-celled life-forms persisted alone in the biosphere for perhaps 3 billion years."
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    251
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    The claim is that "the team determined that [the rocks] contained the fossilized remains of diverse organisms that are 3.465 billion years old".

    They claim "diverse organisms," but not multi-celled organisms, the emergence of which is apparently not very well pinned down: "By the Archean Eon (4 to 2.5 billion years ago), multi-celled lifeforms are believed to have emerged." That's a pretty big gap (1.5 billion years) of uncertainty.

    I saw nothing in this article to contradict Kauffman's claim that "...single-celled life-forms persisted alone in the biosphere for perhaps 3 billion years."
    Moreover, the journal article specifically identifies the organisms as prokaryotes, thereby eliminating the possibility that they are multi-cellular.

    The popular report on the research appears to be a simple example of poor (very poor) science journalism. The writer should have been emphasising that "this discovery of Archaea in the Archean is consistent with the rRNA “tree of life,” confirms the earlier disputed biogenicity of the Apex fossils, and suggests that methane-cycling methanogen−methanotroph communities were a significant component of Earth’s early biosphere."

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Eclogite View Post
    Moreover, the journal article specifically identifies the organisms as prokaryotes, thereby eliminating the possibility that they are multi-cellular.

    The popular report on the research appears to be a simple example of poor (very poor) science journalism. The writer should have been emphasising that "this discovery of Archaea in the Archean is consistent with the rRNA “tree of life,” confirms the earlier disputed biogenicity of the Apex fossils, and suggests that methane-cycling methanogen−methanotroph communities were a significant component of Earth’s early biosphere."
    That's what I meant to say.
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •