Scientists revive 100-million-year old microbes from deep underground

Nature is violent, greedy, selfish, and unbalanced or it isn't, the same with humans. You are judging nature with the same "human constructs" as any other human, no more, no less. Your constructs are as worthless as any other "vile" human being's are.

I have already stated such thoughts that lower humanity and elevate "nature" and other mindless forces are self loathing. If what has been stated is true, then you and I are no better, maybe even worse, than a trash can writhing with maggots or a pile of stinking dung for that matter.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Of course, i am, i could do no less.

But that's not the point, the salient one being nature doesn't entertain any of our constructs.

Nature is a force that follows rules, rules like phi, pi, and a few other constants that dictate how reality transpires and unfolds from the micro to the macro scale.

What makes you think we are better than maggots considering the pile of stinking dung we have made a significant proportion of the planet?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Of course, i am, i could do no less.

But that's not the point, the salient one being nature doesn't entertain any of our constructs.

Nature is a force that follows rules, rules like phi, pi, and a few other constants that dictate how reality transpires and unfolds from the micro to the macro scale.

What makes you think we are better than maggots considering the pile of stinking dung we have made a significant proportion of the planet?

Yes, nature doesn't entertain any of OUR constructs, yours or mine, yet nature provided us with a brain wired to think that way. It must be part of that natural balance that was mentioned.

Nature used those same rules to bring us into being. That's the way reality unfolded, it had to happen eventually or we wouldn't exist.

Maggots are mindless lifeforms that merely react to instinct, humans can use their minds to reason. I'd say that puts us at a little higher level of existence.

Stinking dung, an important part of the natural cycle and a product of nature's intricate balance.

Ultimately, if humanity is so terrible, it is because it was the way nature made us, "yours is no disgrace".

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

We are a strange concoction through, somewhat unique, with the ability to bend and shape the world to our design and desire, no other product of nature, that we know about is quite like us semi-intelligent Monkeys.

As to mindless lifeforms that merely react to instinct i point you towards any large group of human beings.

Ultimately "terrible" is a human construct that nature does not comprehend im afraid.

As to my disgrace, how's that now?

No more than anybody else.

I'm not the one that thinks nature has tantrums unless we are the product of such. LoL

It's not that humanity is so terrible, we have the capacity to do great good as well as bad, again very human perspectives.

We can create and build big wonderous things and produce marvelous technology to tame and shape the world to our desire and needs.

But our capacity for evil is unrivaled in the animal kingdom, and some of the things we do to one another are indeed a disgrace.

a reply to: andy06shake

I actually agree with much of that last post. But all of what we have been discussing is not really adding to the topic. I feel compelled to add that pronouns like "evil" and "terrible" are value judgements made by man and not nature as are words like "beautiful" and "ugly".

I merely suggest that whatever humans are, we are most ceratainly a product of nature and had no choice about being born human. In that there is no disgrace (a reference to the song by the band Yes, if you didn't catch that).

Nice banter though, but I suggest that we leave our discussion off at this point, as it adds little to this thread.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

I don't necessarily disagree with any of the above nether.

I enjoy the banter as well MichiganSwampBuck.

Aye, i suppose we should get back on topic.

Have yourself a good day mate.

I finished reading Cold Storage by David Koepp (Jurassic Park) this week, involving a long dormant fungi retrieved from space - similar to the other thread (I can't find it) about using fungi to cover and protect the ISS from radiation. In the story it runs wild and learns to spread itself through hosts using different adaptations of chemicals.

Between these and the search for microbes on Mars and in Antarctica my mind is running wild with questions and ideas. Not sure that microbes on their own could spread so dangerously though.

a reply to: andy06shake

It was very cool to have what could have been a heated discussion, but didn't devolve into a silly argument that only leads to insults. I do appreciate that and your point of view as well.

I wish you well and hope we can all grow out of our selfish and violent tendencies and become a species we can be proud of instead of loathing ourselves for being human.

originally posted by: firesnake
I finished reading Cold Storage by David Koepp (Jurassic Park) this week, involving a long dormant fungi retrieved from space - similar to the other thread (I can't find it) about using fungi to cover and protect the ISS from radiation. In the story it runs wild and learns to spread itself through hosts using different adaptations of chemicals.

Between these and the search for microbes on Mars and in Antarctica my mind is running wild with questions and ideas. Not sure that microbes on their own could spread so dangerously though.

I suspect that the virologists are itching to get their hands on it for some gain of function studies to make it infect humans and then patient it so they can make money on vaccines and other expensive cures once it threatens us with extinction.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

It would not surprise me in the slightest.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Self-loathing is probably part and parcel of the human condition to some extent.

There is a bit of the narcissist in everyone really.

We all wear masks mate if you ken what i mean.

Points of view are down to perspective, which is a very personal experience.

Aye, i hope we get our act together as well because as a race its the only way we will ever be able to address the real problems and larger questions that remain to be answered regarding our place in the universe and the grand scheme of things to come.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

I don't know about that, but i suspect people will always try to make monies and profit of the back of others, by any and all means "they" deem necessary, until humanity chooses to change, or is forced to refine the current paradigm we follow and have followed throughout all of recorded history.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: 727Sky

Should be titled "Scientists revive microbes older we guess than 50,000 years from deep underground"

Lately I can't seem to get an straight answer how any can guess the age of things older than 50,000 years



www.abovetopsecret.com...


wiki radiocarbon dating

Carbon dating is unreliable for objects older than about 30,000 years, but uranium-thorium dating may be possible for objects up to half a million years old, Dr. Zindler said.

I don't know how they can date, semi-accurately, anything older than a few hundred years unless there's a date stamped on it.

Radio carbon dating is fairly accurate, there are other methods for dating geology, they can't radio carbon date these microbes, they must be using geological methods/timeframe.

How is a good question on the microbes, but Radio Carbon is well established for shorter timeframes.

I'm not trying to argue about it. I just don't see how, without the use of a time machine for verification, a 1,000,000 year old rock can be dated accurately and known without the shadow of a doubt that the date is accurate. Who's there to say "Yep, the carbon date is correct and I know without a doubt that this rock right here is 1,003,466 years old."? Nobody, that's who. It's all just a guess.

Well you wouldn't use 14C dating on anything that old or anything that's not organic. So nonrocks are ever dated with 14C. There are a number of radiometric dating methods. I haven't seen the paper yet but I would assume. K Ar dating was used as a primary source. No dates are provided withput another corroborating method. Its also important to nots that jist because the article gives a specific date, there is always a margin of error involved. There is no super exact precise dating method for most things. The one exception is 14C and that's only recently now that it can accurately date organic material up to 100Ka using mass spectrometry to individually count the ratio of 14C to 12C atoms to arrive at a pretty close date. There is still a margin of error involved but its much smaller when using mass spectrometry.