Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Friday October 23 2015, @06:24PM   Printer-friendly
from the primordial-ooze dept.

Living organisms may have existed on Earth as long as 4.1bn years ago – 300m years earlier than was previously thought, new research has shown.

If confirmed, the discovery means life emerged a remarkably short time after the Earth was formed from a primordial disc of dust and gas surrounding the sun 4.6bn years ago.

Researchers discovered the evidence in specks of graphite trapped within immensely old zircon crystals from Jack Hills, Western Australia.

Atoms in the graphite, a crystalline form of carbon, bore the hallmark of biological origin. They were enriched with 12C, a "light" carbon isotope, or atomic strain, normally associated with living things.

It suggests that a terrestrial biosphere had emerged on Earth as early as 4.1bn years ago, said the scientists writing in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday October 23 2015, @08:02PM

    by frojack (1554) on Friday October 23 2015, @08:02PM (#253733) Journal

    True, but that assumes no remelt occurred over the interval.

    One out of 10,000 seems pretty suspect to me. I'd be looking for later inclusion events, perhaps associated with eruptions or impacts.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday October 24 2015, @12:07AM

    by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 24 2015, @12:07AM (#253854) Journal

    I think that zircons are pretty resistant to remelts. Not that they couldn't if they went into a subduction zone, but then it's hardly the same stone afterwards.

    OTOH, I believe that zircons are generally dated by the rocks that they are embedded within, so if you want to argue that the stone is older than they think, that would be reasonable.

    IOW, they think the stone is 4.1 billion years old, but it could be older.

    FWIW, I tend to believe in Panspermia, so older wouldn't bother me. In fact older than 5 billion years wouldn't bother me, as I believe that proto-life evolved out in space. Nothing so sophisticated as a virus, however, but sharing some characteristics in common. (No cell wall, depending on the environment to build the energetic molecules that it depends on, often crystaline in form, etc.)

    --
    Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.