It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ancient rocks show life could have flourished on Earth 3.2 billion years ago

page: 1
19
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 07:39 AM
link   
I think I'm opening this thread in the right forum.


A spark from a lightning bolt, interstellar dust, or a subsea volcano could have triggered the very first life on Earth. But what happened next? Life can exist without oxygen, but without plentiful nitrogen to build genes — essential to viruses, bacteria and all other organisms — life on the early Earth would have been scarce.

The ability to use atmospheric nitrogen to support more widespread life was thought to have appeared roughly 2 billion years ago. Now research from the University of Washington looking at some of the planet’s oldest rocks finds evidence that 3.2 billion years ago, life was already pulling nitrogen out of the air and converting it into a form that could support larger communities.

“People always had the idea that the really ancient biosphere was just tenuously clinging on to this inhospitable planet, and it wasn’t until the emergence of nitrogen fixation that suddenly the biosphere become large and robust and diverse,” said co-author Roger Buick, a UW professor of Earth and space sciences. “Our work shows that there was no nitrogen crisis on the early Earth, and therefore it could have supported a fairly large and diverse biosphere.

The results were published Feb. 16 in Nature.



wnitu.com...-347

Now as interesting as I find this news, I don't quiet understand the whole fuss about it. Its says there that this was first published on feb 16 in Journal Nature. However such news with actually even older number on the age of life on Earth has been around for some times now.


The earliest evidence for life found so far is in a 3.8 billion-year-old rock, the Isua sediments, found in western Greenland. The evidence for life in these rocks does not come from fossilized remains, but from a peculiar chemical signature of living organisms. These rocks were deposited on the surface of an oceanic crust on what was thought to be a deep ocean. So the Isua sediments are actually an ancient sea-floor.


garvandwane.com...


According to some scientists Earth, with a 4.5 billion years old age, actually could have became habitable even at an earlier age, just 200 million years after its creation


"We have no evidence that life existed then. We have no evidence that it didn't,” Wisconsin geoscience professor and report lead, Professor John Valley, told Reuters. “But there is no reason why life could not have existed on Earth 4.3 billion years ago," he added.


4.4 bn year old zircon reveals life on Earth appeared earlier than believed


So we have a planet with almost 4 billion years of ability to support life. Who's to say (other than our arrogance) that there were no other intelligent life forms long long long ago who inhabited Earth. When watching Life After Earth we came to understand few concepts on the traces that civilizations leave behind. And we saw that after thousands of years, all traces disappear. Maybe it takes 100 or 200 thousands years but at the end they're gone. And here we're talking about 4 billion years. Enough time for thousands of civilizations to rise and fall and leave not the slightest trace behind.




posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Telos

Awesome post! I completely agree with you, I've said this many times, we homo sapiens are very arrogant to think that in that amount of time, which science calls deep time, we would be the only smart ones to have trodden on this beautiful planet. We think we're so special don't we. The fact of the matter, as you so well mentioned, is that in that amount of time, there would be absolutely nothing left of those once mighty ones, the heroes of old. S&f



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 08:15 AM
link   

"We have no evidence that life existed then. We have no evidence that it didn't,” Wisconsin geoscience professor and report lead, Professor John Valley, told Reuters. “But there is no reason why life could not have existed on Earth 4.3 billion years ago," he added.

What a mind meld.

"We don't know really, but given why or why not, we choose why not."

Its easier that way.

The 'science' of evolution is as presumptive as religion.


A spark from a lightning bolt, interstellar dust, or a subsea volcano could have triggered the very first life on Earth.

And the scientists saw that it was good…



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr


"We have no evidence that life existed then. We have no evidence that it didn't,” Wisconsin geoscience professor and report lead, Professor John Valley, told Reuters. “But there is no reason why life could not have existed on Earth 4.3 billion years ago," he added.

What a mind meld.

"We don't know really, but given why or why not, we choose why not."

Its easier that way.

The 'science' of evolution is as presumptive as religion.


A spark from a lightning bolt, interstellar dust, or a subsea volcano could have triggered the very first life on Earth.

And the scientists saw that it was good…


You quote that one but strangely you forget to quote this one:


The oldest fossil records of life are stromatolites produced by an archaic form of bacteria from about 3.4 billion years ago.

Scientists believe that thanks to low enough temperatures, Earth had a hydrosphere and possibly early life even before 4.3 billion years ago. In fact, there is even a theory of a "cool early Earth.”

Professor Valley says their discovery really strengthens this notion.

“The study reinforces our conclusion that Earth had a hydrosphere before 4.3 billion years ago, and possibly life not long after,” John Valley is quoted as saying in the press-release.


Which means, Earth had the condition that could support life. One more thing, do me a favor and don't hijack the thread with evolution versus religion and vice versa bs.
edit on 17-2-2015 by Telos because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Telos


Which means, Earth had an atmosphere and the condition that could support life.

Thats different than how life started, which is the first sentence in the thread.


One more thing, do me a favor and don't hijack the thread with evolution versus religion and vice versa bs.

Just shared my opinion about both "churches". Can't put me in one or the other box, I think both are misguided. So what?



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Telos

This makes me think of the Matrix, and how its the 7th time Neo he has saved zion.

Or

the many times "God" destroyed the earth and re-built it.

or

the Multiple types of humanoids that were created and destroyed.

...Agenda 21...lol. We know nothing of Our Planet. We find mechanical objects that baffle our minds. We have a turrible understanding of Time, Our Time, the General Time-Line, the Concept of Time.

Regards,



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr


"We have no evidence that life existed then. We have no evidence that it didn't,” Wisconsin geoscience professor and report lead, Professor John Valley, told Reuters. “But there is no reason why life could not have existed on Earth 4.3 billion years ago," he added.

What a mind meld.

"We don't know really, but given why or why not, we choose why not."

Its easier that way.

The 'science' of evolution is as presumptive as religion.


but if your gripe is with timelines or explanations for the origin of life on earth whether it be abiogenesis, panspermia or an as yet unknown process then evolutionary theory isn't being presumptive. It's a chemical process you have an issue with and completely separate area of study from evolutionary biology, anthropology etc... Chemical processes and Biological processes are not the same thing. How life started and how it adapted, changed and evolved over time, again...two separate areas of study.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: intrptr


"We have no evidence that life existed then. We have no evidence that it didn't,” Wisconsin geoscience professor and report lead, Professor John Valley, told Reuters. “But there is no reason why life could not have existed on Earth 4.3 billion years ago," he added.

What a mind meld.

"We don't know really, but given why or why not, we choose why not."

Its easier that way.

The 'science' of evolution is as presumptive as religion.


but if your gripe is with timelines or explanations for the origin of life on earth whether it be abiogenesis, panspermia or an as yet unknown process then evolutionary theory isn't being presumptive. It's a chemical process you have an issue with and completely separate area of study from evolutionary biology, anthropology etc... Chemical processes and Biological processes are not the same thing. How life started and how it adapted, changed and evolved over time, again…two separate areas of study.

Personally, I think life was brought here, but I have as much proof for that as any other religion or science.

DNA, cell division, seeds, eggs and wombs are the oft dismissed evidence I cite.

Watch…



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   
It appears more and more that if the conditions exist for life to exist then it will more likely than not, do so.



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

Personally, I think life was brought here, but I have as much proof for that as any other religion or science.


I often see this two concepts intermingled together in a very confusing mishmash. People who don't identify themselves with any of the above tent to use the same denomination for religion as they use for science. If the first is based on faith, the second is based on facts which makes it as real as it can get. So despite the fact that thinking is a right and a free choice, denying what is logical doesn't really deny per say that which stands for as a scientific fact. At the end reduces just to the so called inference to the best explanation or a twin concept of Occam's Razor. You my friend just need to take a look at the 35 scientific concepts that help to understand the world.

www.dailygood.org...



posted on Feb, 17 2015 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Life could have existed before the earth became the earth as we know it to be as well.

Just think if the earth could be the remains of other planets that once existed before the earth.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Telos


I often see this two concepts intermingled together in a very confusing mishmash.

To you, maybe. I have no problem accepting how life seems to have magically appeared.

I will never get bored of the answer to the chicken or egg question.

Have you dismissed it as too simplistic in favor of more acceptable, complex and unprovable theories?



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Telos


I often see this two concepts intermingled together in a very confusing mishmash.

To you, maybe. I have no problem accepting how life seems to have magically appeared.

I will never get bored of the answer to the chicken or egg question.

Have you dismissed it as too simplistic in favor of more acceptable, complex and unprovable theories?


My concepts about science are very clear. And In my comment I was referring to people like you. Did you even bother to read the link I suggested?



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Telos

Ok, so according to the infallible Science, which came first, the chicken or the egg? I didn't see it in the list of 35.
edit on 18-2-2015 by Eunuchorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eunuchorn
a reply to: Telos

Ok, so according to the infallible Science, which came first, the chicken or the egg? I didn't see it in the list of 35.


Why don't you ask some imaginary friend?



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Well, maybe life could have existed on Earth earlier than it was previous thought, but so far there is no actual evidence or proof that it did. Which makes sense.

A lot of people will hear news about how such and such newly discovered planet has liquid water or some other conditions friendly to life, and immediately see it as more evidence that life is common throughout the universe. Yet here we have Earth, where the environment even billions of years ago could have supported life -- but didn't.

If anything, this would seem to add support to the notion that life is extremely rare, and possibly even be unique, and you can have perfectly fine planets sitting around with plenty of sunshine and water and chemicals and they are simply sterile and dead.



posted on Feb, 18 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Well, maybe life could have existed on Earth earlier than it was previous thought, but so far there is no actual evidence or proof that it did. Which makes sense.

A lot of people will hear news about how such and such newly discovered planet has liquid water or some other conditions friendly to life, and immediately see it as more evidence that life is common throughout the universe. Yet here we have Earth, where the environment even billions of years ago could have supported life -- but didn't.

If anything, this would seem to add support to the notion that life is extremely rare, and possibly even be unique, and you can have perfectly fine planets sitting around with plenty of sunshine and water and chemicals and they are simply sterile and dead.


If by life you mean living organisms then you're wrong on your statement. It did support life and it did have life at that stage. If you mean intelligent life, that's another story.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr
'Life' might have just arrived from a comet after all as per this link www.garvandwane.com...
And Philae phoned home 14 June 2015, so the Rosetta mission is now
back on track and hopefully Philae will be awake enough to do some drilling
and maybe we will have some awe inspiring discoveries in the next few months
confirming or at least suggesting that life on Earth is a result of comet seeding!



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: DCANDGD


'Life' might have just arrived from a comet after all as per this link

Maybe, and maybe it was brought here by other means.

Choosing between the enormous g loading of a random comet and its fiery impact, and the intentional soft landing of retros or whatever energy source interstellar gardeners utilize…

Lets suppose that life only spreads by random objects zinging around. Since the Universe is really old, how come we can't suppose that at some point a developed civilization hasn't started seeding life on its own? How come panspermia is still considered to be an option after all this time?

Considering how many Galaxies and stars there are, surely some beings have learned to do this by now.

Thats like looking at all life on Islands in the ocean and stating that the only way it got there was to float from Island to Island.

I can only presume somewhere along the way men built ships and spread life, too.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr
You might be correct, or not... Impact survival on Earth, including the incredibly long transit time, is
more than likely survivable by bacteria embedded in a comet according to reputable sources
(apologies I can't find links just now). So that allows Panspermia to rightly still be an option!

But I totally agree with you, our universe is 13.7 Billion years old, our Milky Way galaxy is 5 billion years old,
Intelligent Life could easily have developed millions of years ago within easy reach of planet Earth.
They may have for some reason or another decided to 'seed' a goldilocks zone planet 3.8 billion years ago
or so and 'see what happens' (Even though 3.8 billion years ago we weren't an ideal planet for seeding).




top topics



 
19
<<   2 >>

log in

join