Fossil Older Than Oxygen on Earth Found in Australia

page: 2
82
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   
ngchunter and YouAreLiedTo both covered the point that I was trying to make.

Oxygen is an element. It , as stated by the other posters, existed when the Earth was formed. I think the article would have been more accurate if it said that the bacteria existed before the Earth's atmosphere contained oxygen.




posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   
They've been teaching in school for a while now that the first bacteria didn't use oxygen, and that life began before Earth's atmosphere had a significant amount of Oxygen (Which is what the article is obviously saying, not sure why people are making such a big deal out of how it's worded). Life, still in the single celled organism phase, began to spread and evolve, eventually a bacteria capable of photosynthesis evolved. This bacteria released oxygen and was a major contributor to our oxygen rich atmosphere.

Not sure the point of the article. All of this has been known for some time, and there's already quite a lot of evidence for it.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   
This proves one of two things. Either life doesn't need oxygen. Or oxygen has been on earth longer than previously believed.

Just stating the obvious conclusions.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb
This proves one of two things. Either life doesn't need oxygen. Or oxygen has been on earth longer than previously believed.

Just stating the obvious conclusions.


If oxygen is the 3rd most abundant element in space, and space was here before the Earth...

Then how was the Earth here without oxygen?

Just stating the obvious...

And as I covered before: Scientists discovered the first life that requires zero oxygen over 2 years ago.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   
It's a pity the mining companies are decimating the Pilbara region, who knows what else they might have found in all that crushed rock. Its a really beautiful place, one of the oldest on earth.








posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by YouAreLiedTo

Originally posted by smithjustinb
This proves one of two things. Either life doesn't need oxygen. Or oxygen has been on earth longer than previously believed.

Just stating the obvious conclusions.


If oxygen is the 3rd most abundant element in space, and space was here before the Earth...

Then how was the Earth here without oxygen?

Just stating the obvious...

And as I covered before: Scientists discovered the first life that requires zero oxygen over 2 years ago.


We only need oxygen as the "energy giver"... it reacts with carbohydrates in an exothermic reaction giving energy. There's only 20% oxygen in the air we breathe and 100% oxygen is not really good for our little bodies.

But since oxygen is our electron acceptor we say we "breathe oxygen" when in reality we breathe more nitrogen (about 80% or something) but nitrogen doesnt "give energy".

There are however organisms that have different electron acceptors like sulfate (hmmm SO4?) or nitrate (NO2) or even ferric iron. Thus they dont "breathe" oxygen if their electron acceptor is not oxygen.

I'm saying this and I have no idea why we evolved using oxygen as our electron acceptor since its not stable as nitrogen for instance and has to be constantly regenerated... flawed design? If we could get "energy" from nitrogen (its still reactive but not as much as oxygen) we'd breathe a more stable and abundant source of energy that doesnt really need to be renewed by biological processes. Its like a blackmail for humans (well yes and for animals but we're the big guys on the block and its my species so for me its more important lol there)... Like You want to keep living? Keep the photosynthesis or else you're gone. This was a rather weird choice making our existence dependent and never fully grown out of the "blackmail bubble". Its like a parent that says "you want to move? Ok, so I'll stop giving you money. You want money, stay here and behave" - of course on this particular case you do have a choice, its harder but you have a choice - in life you do not. You are doomed to need other species to assure your own existence. That makes us fairly fragile... and although oxygen is a very high energy chemical, our bodies could have adapted to require less energy to depend on a more inert (but that still reacts) chemical that was stable and could secure our independence as a species... like nitrogen.

Anyway... saying oxygen is the third most abundant element is a weird paradox to our existence. One, how do they know its the third...? Well and why dont we depend on the MOST abundant element in the universe (hydrogen?) and if it is the third most abundant element why do we have more nitrogen (actually 4 times more) than oxygen in the air we breathe? We should either breathe the most abundant on the universe or at least the most abundant in our "air"... and if the first most abundant element is hydrogen and the second is helium I think, the thid is oxygen and the others they say their "RARE", why the hell we have 80% of it in our atmosphere? making it actually the most abundant element to breathe on earth which is where WE LIVE...?

Ok so Im an historian not a chemist but... try to help a fellow layman here


Wow... rambling... sorry guys.
edit on 3-1-2013 by FraternitasSaturni because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni

I'm saying this and I have no idea why we evolved using oxygen as our electron acceptor since its not stable as nitrogen for instance and has to be constantly regenerated... flawed design? If we could get "energy" from nitrogen (its still reactive but not as much as oxygen) we'd breathe a more stable and abundant source of energy that doesnt really need to be renewed by biological processes. Its like a blackmail for humans (well yes and for animals but we're the big guys on the block and its my species so for me its more important lol there)...

Wow... rambling... sorry guys.
edit on 3-1-2013 by FraternitasSaturni because: (no reason given)


Few responses to ponder over:

a) if we all used nitrogen instead of oxygen, we may very well grow out of control and not have resources available to sustain us (kind of like the oxygen rich environment that bred the mega creatures of yore...)

It might be a built-in safety mechanism.

b) maybe oxygen once *was* the most abundant, and the planet has depleted it to its current level?

Just offering food for thought.
edit on 3-1-2013 by YouAreLiedTo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
The article even mentions the possibility of these bacteria to survive on Mars, but this is purely speculation but interesting nonetheless.

www.usnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 1/3/2013 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)


No, it doesn't. It says it's possible billions of years ago there wass bacteria on Mars, which we can find evidence of today. As of now, our understanding supports even the most well adapted extremophile could not survive on Mars, not on the surface.


Originally posted by HawkeyeNation
Man just crazy to think about. I always wonder how the hell they are able to carbon date and all that jazz. I mean were talking about 3.5 billion years ago. Anyways...it just amazes me about what our Earth was at one point and what it will be one day.


It's not Carbon dated. Carbon dating does not work past 50,000 years. Argon dating can be used past that point. I would imagine these are geologically dated, meaning based on our understanding of how old the Earth is and how it formed, these must be that old.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by YouAreLiedTo
 


Ok so... the depletion was a concern, so we turned to a cycle that is "supposed" to be infinite - man gives to plant, plant gives to man... but intelligent design should have predicted that Man would dominate and overcome the plant, thus making plant a candidate for extinction. But it isnt since we depend on it... I'm leveling myself with a plant now... we're equal in the scheme of things. Man = Cabbage.

Makes sense... but still... if we needed less energy, and used nitrogen, then there would be even more nitrogen than there is today since nitrogen has its cycle also...

I'm really ignorant when it comes to chemistry it hurts...



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


This is one of the globes most important and oldest archeological sites.

Did you know the Australian Government looks like it is going to permit the worlds largest gas processing hub to be build right on top of it? This will destroy millenia of aborigional art, as well as the natural feqatures of the land.

All for profit.

Stand up for the Burrup!!!

standupfortheburrup.com...



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by nothingwrong
 


The WA Government is no different than any other State Government always looking for ways to raise finances even at the expense of Ancient Aboriginal Art. It staggers me that the natural trust would look at a house in say Northcote , built in the 1880's and heritage list it yet have no problem demolishing a site with Ancient art that is 30,000 years old. Very Strange double standard.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Yeah, and by Natural trust I mean National Trust. Sometimes its hard to think and spell at the same time.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by kudegras
 


Totally - especially when it is as hot as it is today!!! it's 33 Deg C in my living room under my fan, approaching 40 outside!

Back to the topic though - you are right, it is a terrible double standard.

There is so much up in the North Western corner of Australia which makes up some of the oldest land mass on the planet. It needs saving for so many reasons.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni
Anyway... saying oxygen is the third most abundant element is a weird paradox to our existence. One, how do they know its the third...? Well and why dont we depend on the MOST abundant element in the universe (hydrogen?) and if it is the third most abundant element why do we have more nitrogen (actually 4 times more) than oxygen in the air we breathe? We should either breathe the most abundant on the universe or at least the most abundant in our "air"... and if the first most abundant element is hydrogen and the second is helium I think, the thid is oxygen and the others they say their "RARE", why the hell we have 80% of it in our atmosphere? making it actually the most abundant element to breathe on earth which is where WE LIVE...?

Ok so Im an historian not a chemist but... try to help a fellow layman here


Wow... rambling... sorry guys.

Well, it seems the early life forms didn't care about liberty as much as we do today and took what appeared to be the easiest way out


Oxygen is abundant here on earth too, although not in a free form. Nitrogen is available in free form precisely because it is much less chemically reactive than oxygen.

Life, of all types, accumulates low-entropy energy available. Some have chosen to look for this energy in the radiation (geo-thermal radiation in the case of extremaphiles and photosynthetic as is the most commonly known) and accumulate it in chemical form. Others have chosen to accumulate the low-energy entrpoy accumulated by the preceding type of forms by consuming them. Yet others have chosen to feed on the preceding forms. I suppose the earliest consumers of photosynthetic life forms chose oxygen to break down the food because that was being released into the atmosphere during photosynthesis, meaning guaranteed to exist as long as their food was avalable. If the food was no longer available (all the photosynthetic forms died off), it doesn't really matter whether the reactant to break them down was available or not. I suppose this policy went unquestioned, that is, until now



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Shows what we know about evolving and what conditions we need for life to exist. This bacteria didn't need to oxygen to survive. Very interesting read though really makes me wonder.

Great story star and flag!

-SAP-
edit on 3-1-2013 by SloAnPainful because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 11:47 PM
link   
(674.1) 59:1.15

370,000,000 years ago the great and almost total submergence of North and South America occurred, >>followed by the sinking of Africa and Australia.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 11:53 PM
link   
wait.. a time before oxygen existed on earth?

They should probably re-word that


Wait... poster above me... HOLY BAZOONGAS ... Oh this is going to be an entertaining read
edit on 3-1-2013 by cartesia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 12:35 AM
link   
S&F

Nice find. Hopefully more people will start to believe life doesn't just flourish in the environment we currently have.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by HawkeyeNation
 


They don't only use carbon.

You can use any molecule. You pick a molecule that matches the geological age of the rock.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Old news, the first life on Earth wasn't oxygen based.
io9.com...






top topics



 
82
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join