A renewed study of ancient crystals discovered in Australia in 1983 suggested that life is 4.2 billion years old, not the previously thought 3.5 billion
According to the currently accepted theories, life on Earth began about 3.5 billion years ago. But scientists from Curtin University of Technology now claim in an article in Nature that life may have existed as early as 4.2 billion years ago. That is, 700 million years before the date accepted today.
In the Jack Hills area, located in Western Australia, zircon crystals were discovered as early as 1983, whose age was estimated at 4.2 billion years. Twenty years later, some of the original researchers discovered that ancient diamonds were buried within those crystals. The assumption of the researchers, supported by the analyzes carried out on the diamonds, is that their age must be at least that of the zircon, and hence they can provide us with first-person evidence about the conditions that prevailed on Earth 4.2 billion years ago.
The carbon of which the diamonds are composed underwent a careful examination, during which the researchers discovered extremely high concentrations of carbon-12 within the crystals. There are two relatively stable forms of the carbon atom: C13 and C12. C13 has an extra neutron and is therefore heavier. Living things are more likely to absorb light carbon molecules than heavy ones. Therefore, in organic carbon of animal origin, you get a relatively larger amount of C12 than C13 compared to inorganic carbon. Because high concentrations of carbon-12 were discovered inside the ancient crystals, the researchers suggest that already 4.2 billion years ago there were living things on the earth that could metabolize carbon.
Dr. Alexander Namkhin from the Department of Applied Geology at Curtin University and head of the project, believes that the latest research will lead to renewed discussions on the issue of the origin of life. "The range of light carbon values discovered in diamonds is, according to our interpretation, a unique chemical marker, which raises the possibility that there was biological activity at that time, shortly after the formation of the Earth," said Dr. Namkhin.
The researchers rule out the possibility that the source of the carbon is in a meteorite that crashed on the surface of the Earth, because the ratio of light and heavy carbon is very different in such meteorites. Also, no signs of a meteorite impact, or a flux of intergalactic dust that might have assimilated the carbon in that area were discovered in the Jack Hills area.
"The discovery challenges our basic understanding of the processes that took place in the early history of the Earth. It implies that life might have appeared on earth long before the great meteorite bombardment period occurred, which some believe started life on earth," said Dr. Namkhin.
Another possibility for deciphering the surprising results is that the ancient Earth had a large source of light carbon, which may undermine the reliability of other long-term dates. This would mean that the differences in the ratio between light and heavy carbon cannot be regarded as an unequivocal signal for the existence of life. "A different process may be required to create the light carbon values, and this process will undermine the common assumption today that light carbon means life." said Doctor Namkhin.
Other researchers who participated in the study are Martin Whitehouse from the Swedish Museum of Natural History, Martina Menken and Dr. Thurston Geysier from Münster Institute of Mineralogy and Professor Pidgeon Wild from Curtin University, who first identified the ancient zircon crystals.
For information on the Curtin University website in Australia
63 תגובות
Yanon Shrab with any sensible person:
When things are written explicitly, only those who do not agree with him decide that an interpretation is necessary.
This distortion of the facts is the way of the religious but not of the people of logic.
Yinon,
I don't know these four letters were changed in the Torah. One Avrach told me that the Torah has not changed except for four letters. Another says that when comparing all the books of the Torah from all the manifests, only two letters changed ('Pazou Dacha' to 'Pazou Dakha', 'And there was a life of Noah' to 'And there was a life of Noah').
Either way, there are different books from those periods. Homer's Iliad and Odyssey date back to 850 BC. The Gilgamesh plots document the mystical journey of a Sumerian warrior-king who apparently lived 2,700 years BC (more than 2,000 years before the Bible was signed!).
By the way, note that the Bible you are reading is not the Bible they read 2,000 years ago. At the time of the signing of the Bible, various books were assigned, and did not enter the final list of the Bible. why? Because one faction in Judaism (the rabbis) was strong enough to impose its opinion on all the other factions. If not for this, we would be witness today to the Bible which contains, for example, the book of Ben-Sirah, which describes, among other things, the relationship between Adam, Eve and Lilith.
So what assures you that the Bible you read today is nothing but a legend (well preserved), while the events of Gilgamesh are the real history?
Linon, your opinions regarding the Torah are binding only on you. You have no idea how many omissions of letters, additions of letters, duplication of sections and other things happened to your holy Torah since it was signed until the invention of printing?
Roy,
Umm answer not out of faith..
The Torah is the oldest source [old.. 2000 years ago] and the most reliable [not a single word in it has changed..]
And I noticed in one of your comments that you said that 4 letters were replaced, I'd love to know which ones =]
Two articles on the topic of the biblical cipher, which reveal its nakedness in the plural, and reveal that everything that can be found using it in the Bible, can also be found in books of sand:
http://www.hofesh.org.il/religion_merchants/diloogim2.html
http://www.hofesh.org.il/religion_merchants/diloogim/skips.html
And I am still waiting for your answer to understand why we should consider the Torah as more sacred than the Indian book of Vedas.
and Roy,
I haven't heard about it yet, I would appreciate it if you could give me a link regarding the 'secrets' in "War and Peace" and "Mein Kampf"
Peshesh Michael, I see you also explain the Torah and interpret it..
Michael became my Rashi.. Forgive my cynicism but you will never reach such a rank and I think you confused between my Torah and the New Testament..
Yanon:
It turns out that even reading comprehension is not gifted.
The things are written there very clearly.
Not only was the book of the Torah that they found in the temple was a book that no one knew, but also no one lived according to the mitzvot written in it and not with any bad intention but simply because they did not know the mitzvot. That's why Josiah - when he saw the book and what was written in it he tore his clothes and begged God to forgive him and his people because they didn't know that these were the laws they had to live by.
And see it's a miracle: God - even though we don't exist - forgave him.
Yinon,
The biblical code is a statistical method, with the help of which you can find every word and every sentence, if you only look hard enough and the right sentences.
Do you know that the same 'secrets' were found both in the book War and Peace, and in Hitler's book 'Mein Kampf'? And all with the help of the biblical code.
Is it written that in the days of Josiah no one knew about the Torah? They didn't know it by heart!!!!!! But write it on a page!! You don't read.. it kills me that you don't read to the depth. You look at the simplicity of the words. Read and you will understand. These words are too high for you and there is no Torah university here. If you want to understand it is only if you persevere and study and study and study only then God will give you understanding In the matter... and it is not written by flesh and blood hidden there secrets you saw the biblical code you saw what things they found there and it cannot be alive by human hands!!! On the same page what secrets about the twin towers on the Eidsel the collision of the planes and many other things..
Yanon:
You have never taken and never will take anything seriously.
My response only lists facts but you are unable to deal with them so you say you will not comment
Yinon,
The Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Bamadbar, Deuteronomy)
It was written in a late period by flesh and blood people. This is the reason why there are two contradictory descriptions of creation at the beginning of the book of Genesis, and this is the reason why in the book of Deuteronomy it is already written about the temple that was built thousands of years after the exodus from Egypt.
And Roy, I will respond to you another day, I need to think about an answer.
Shabbat Shalom..
Haha, I'm eating, if you didn't understand, I'm no longer referring to your sick comments..
You're just sick, go to sleep.
Yinon,
What book do you have?
Rabbi Mordechai Neugerschel's 'journey to the summit of Mount Sinai'?
Zamir Cohen's 'transformation'?
Another book intended for conversion and written by rabbis who specialize in demagoguery and persuasion?
Do you know that such books exist in every religion, and justify and validate it with a similar degree of certainty? Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism also publish such books, and they are equally convincing.
So who is right? If every religion makes equally convincing arguments for its truth, and claims to be the only religion, how can one choose?
As soon as you answer this question, I will be happy to continue the discussion.
Yanon:
You're on the wrong site.
Go back to the ultra-Orthodox rooms and let other people live according to reason.
Tell me:
How is it that the creator of the world wrote in the Torah that the hare and the rabbit rummage when they don't. what? Is he such a jerk?
How did he say to build the copper sea in the temple as an idol whose circumference is three times its diameter? what? Is he such a jerk?
How did sages come to the conclusion that lice and mice are created from inanimate matter? What" are they such fools?
How is it that all believers believe that the Torah came to us without any disturbance from the moment it was given by God at Mount Sinai when in the Bible itself (XNUMX Kings chapter XNUMX) it is written that in the days of Josiah no one knew about the Torah? what? Are they that stupid? Do they not understand that their claim is ridiculous and that in fact, according to the Bible itself, there is no evidence that the Torah even existed before the days of Josiah?
How is it that the benevolent and merciful God commanded Abraham to banish his wife and son to the desert? What" is such a shit?
How come he later told Abraham to slaughter his remaining son? what? is he such a shit?
How is it that Abraham became a symbol of the religion and represents a "good man" in it? what? Is this such an evil religion?
How is it that God told the Israelites to commit the first genocide in history? what? is he such a shit?
How is it that he collaborated with the Nazis in the destruction of six million innocent people from the "chosen people"? what? is he such a shit?
All this, of course, is only on the edge of your belief that I would not approach it even with a pitchfork.
Roy,
And I want to ask you and you don't have to answer... a question about faith and it is really related to everything that is going on in science today.
Do you think there is a creator?
I have a question, Roy.. If I show you solid proof of the Torah, will you believe everything that is written in it? Leave a proof.. I want to bring you a book of proofs. I am willing to invest in it.. I have a new book.
Well, I really liked your response. I'm a 16-year-old boy. It's hard for me to remember what I learned, but I promise you that I will bring conclusive evidence here that will satisfy you.
Yinon,
There are hundreds of thousands of testimonies and evidence that the age of the earth is over a billion years - not even 6,000 years. There is even more evidence for the existence of gradual evolution throughout these periods.
Meteorites and comets constantly hit the Earth, and we see their marks to this day, for example in the Grand Canyon. Fortunately, the meteorite that resulted in the complete extinction of life on Earth has not yet hit.
I would love to receive conclusive evidence from you for the creation of the world, supported by facts on the ground and not religious books, however interesting and beautiful they may be.
Um, then like this..why did we tell you that there were humans 4.2 billion years ago, take a second to reason=] Our last millennium brought all [most of it] today's technology and discoveries..how is this millennium different? From the thousands of years of 4.2 billion years, why did a mind suddenly grow?! What was that part of evolution and we grew a lot of nerve fibers inside our head and then we got a brain and started to think? No! We have always been like this, we were created like this from the creation of the world..let's say it was every let's say a million years another discovery will be found..but no!!!!!! The whole section of technology in one thousand! Leave it another thought.. Do you believe in God? Do you believe there is a creator? If yes, there is the Torah that says how long ago was the creation of the world.. If you don't believe it, we will ask you a question that fails this article with all your philosophy.. What is the probability that this ball was created 4.2 billion years ago and not one ball hit it and blew it up?! Leave it..who created us and this world? Explosion? Burn everything today and see that no bullet came out. I promise they will detonate an atomic bomb in space and let's see what happens. Every day there are countless bullets that collide and explode and there is no life! They do not understand that we are special, there is a father from above who created us and this ball of ours with the perfection of this planet in which only there is life and fact! That not even one small plant and one bacterium exists outside this planet! I'm not preaching to you =] I'm showing facts..look at the food chain, animals, humans with intelligence, plants, trees, seas..show me another ball that has this in it..
Have a nice day everyone =]
Don't see any hostility in my response, I came to express my opinion regarding the comments and the article only.
Is this a forum? Did you notice that there are more comments from her letter?
To all the debaters:
It is not written in the article that they proved that there was life 4.2 billion years ago, but this is the most likely possibility because there are no other possibilities that include all the evidence they found. They may find something new tomorrow to contradict it, but I don't see why not accept it. Are you not ready to accept that there might have been life sooner than we thought?
Sometimes you find new things and contradict old things, many things we thought can change, you don't have to say "wrong" straight up about every new thing.
In addition, I was very annoyed by the reaction in which Ami Bachar called Michael "the defender of the articles", because Michael does not say "wrong" about every second article.
For Ami Bachar:
Have you ever read an article before responding "untrue" or "unlikely"?
Strengthen and embrace…
It seems to me... that the burden of proof... is required... on the face of it...
that a brilliant playwright...at this moment..literally..got all the material..he needed..to put
A play..or..a movie..the text of..the sages of a dream...for example..
The find could be... Fossil poop of a mammoth.
In short..any unidentified object..or the devil knows what...
One will do a master's on it..one..will do a..doctorate on it..and there will be someone who will be the number 1 professor...the research..must continue...they will all stop
And don't forget..there is a test for it...c12.c13/DNA and all that is required...
Don't forget..the duty of proof..wait..don't forget
the number of their days.
To the cool commenter:
The study of DNA is not enough because it is almost certain that life began before the first DNA molecule was created. Apart from the study of fossils, I don't know what tools we have at our disposal to study life in the period before DNA.
As mentioned, there is no reasonable reason for the change in the carbon ratio other than a giant asteroid with a high carbon content in a different ratio.
There is also no reason for an uneven distribution of the carbon types.
Surely they found diamonds with a carbon ratio that does not indicate life. The problem is (in terms of my knowledge - not necessarily in terms of that of the drafters of the theory) that it is not written if such diamonds were found that can be dated.
On the other hand, I assume that it is very likely that some of the diamonds (and the other carbon deposits) that have been located to this day and that the phenomenon was not discovered in them were created in an earlier period.
You should also look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond#Formation
Nice idea, but still a grandiose conclusion.
Found a diamond nearby with a low C12 ratio?
In my opinion, all knowledge about the origin of life and its beginning will not come from chemically diagnosed findings because many years have already passed and you will know what happened to them, to this day there is no complete certainty about what is under the earth's crust. Maybe inside the earth there is a different ratio of the isotopes?)
Too many doubts for such a firm statement based on one finding..
I will continue what I came to say earlier:
In my opinion, all knowledge about the origin of life and its beginning will not come from chemically diagnosed findings, but rather from the study of DNA and evolution. Once there is a complete understanding of the hereditary material and its change over time, they will be able to create evolutionary algorithms and will be able to know a lot of important information about the tree of species, and the periods between them.
Hello and good day
To the cool commenter:
I must not have understood yet.
The ratio should not be lower than today's.
As a principle - if a giant asteroid with a different carbon ratio did not hit the earth, then the ratio then and today remains the same - this is simply a result of the law of conservation of matter.
Even today - when most likely 🙂 there is life - the attitude has not changed.
All that has changed is that the carbon is not uniformly distributed, but that there are concentrations with more (than normal) carbon 12 in places where living beings inflated their souls (therefore there is more (than normal) carbon 13 in others).
Naturally - without life - you would expect to find an even distribution of both types of carbon and the existence of non-uniformity is what the researchers interpreted as a sign of life.
Higher than usual then, but much lower than today? If so, the claim is accepted.
The question is how well the diamonds correspond to the model of carbon isotope sorting by animals.
To the cool commenter:
The things appear in the article.
It is not claimed that there was more C12 then.
In general - living beings do not create C12 but only use it.
In a place where there are remains of living creatures you will find a different ratio between C12 and C13 (more C12) than in places where there are no remains of living creatures.
The article talks about the fact that in certain diamonds from 4.2 billion years ago a C12 percentage was found which is higher than usual and the conclusion that seemed reasonable to the researchers is that these are the remains of living creatures.
Hello, I returned two days ago from Turkey, Antalya, so I didn't get to see this discussion.
There is one thing I don't understand and for some reason no one has mentioned it: how can it be that in the past there was a greater ratio in favor of C12? After all, during this period there are many more living creatures, and during this period there should be the most C12 in the carbon solids. Even if there were lives in the past, they certainly did not create a greater ratio than today.
This is a good enough reason in my opinion to prove that there is no connection between the carbon isotope ratio in crystals/diamonds (whatever it is) and the existence of living beings at that time, because it also changes exactly the opposite of what was expected.
Therefore it can be concluded that the reason that the ratio used to be higher in favor of C12 is different and different.
As usual in science and in every aspect of human knowledge in general and as every scientist knows
Well, so be it, but did the scientist know that relying on reasonable theories can only lead to reasonable conclusions, nothing is certain!
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
In case it wasn't clear yet, I (and the researchers of the article) have no certainty about what happened at that time. I'm simply cross-checking what we know today, and saying that unless another figure is discovered, this is the theory that seems the most likely at the moment.
New scientific studies should be based on certain theories, and if a doctor chooses to spend four years of his life on a certain subject, then he should know what the most probable theories are on which to base his research. Of course he can also go out and try to disprove the same theory by a targeted search for findings in the opposite direction (and this also happens).
The final point is that you need an existing theory - even if one that relies on few findings - to start investigating and verifying or disproving it. The theory presented in the article is indeed based on little data, but this is all the data we know, so it is currently the best - and now we can let the other scientists start looking for additional findings for or against.
good week,
Roy.
To Roy
As for "Mirabzem", someone should have commented on that, but I really don't attach any particular importance to it.
Regarding your response, I also believe that life began immediately with the formation of the earth and that it most likely came to us with comets and meteors.
Regarding your response, I think the problem lies in the great confidence you and others have in drawing conclusions from what we know today about a period 4.2 billion years ago.
My opinion on a "cosmological principle" that seems to allow this, is known.
As I wrote, a more decisive proof was when they discovered zircon "deposits" from an earlier period, for example 4.3 billion years in which the ratio 12/13 in the carbon fragments inside, was different. So it was necessary to explain why the difference, that is, what happened in the time difference, and life was a possible explanation.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
As far as I understand, 'deposits' of diamonds, for example, also indicate some fragments of carbon buried in the ground.
Is this the only problem with the logic I presented?
Roy.
Yehuda:
I am a fan of puns and I once asked my friends how to describe the act of a girl pressuring a friend to marry her while they spend time in bed.
In response to their embarrassed look I told them that she "takes him at his word".
Right now - this is what you are trying to do to Roy.
So he said deposits - so what?
What's new:
In my response to you, the following link (the one in which I directed you to a certain chapter) was omitted for some reason:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_atmosphere
To Roy Cezana
Where did you find the fact "B. We know that there are deposits with a higher carbon-12 concentration than 4.2 billion years ago."?
deposits??
S. discovered fragments inside a zircon crystal (precious stone).
Deposits of carbon (coal) began to form when the earth was covered with forests. It occurred to me during the Carboniferous period that it was about 300 million years ago in Israel, almost yesterday.
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Itzik:
I am also amused by the fact that there are people who think they know the meaning of those hundreds of millions of years and express reservations about the research conclusions based only on them.
What's new:
Below is an explanation of the composition of the atmosphere and its history (the chapter Evolution on earth).
As you will see, this is not free carbon but carbon dioxide.
Be that as it may, the question is also relevant to carbon dioxide where the carbon can be light or heavy.
The answer lies in the phenomenon of the diffusion of gases in the atmosphere, since apparently you could ask the same question regarding the components of the modern atmosphere - after all, it also contains gases of different molecular weights and they remain mixed and do not arrange themselves in layers.
I really had this feeling all these years that some 700 million years are missing. The more I went back and counted them, the more I missed them and now it turns out I was right.
Ami:
I think you are just confused.
No argument that goes beyond life will answer the question I said the article raises and that needs to be answered.
The question was, as mentioned, what explains the different carbon ratio.
This is not (I repeat: no!) a question about life.
Life was brought here only as a possible answer to the question.
What is not clear?
a question
About 4.2 billion years ago I guess most of the atmosphere was complex
Carbon free (correct me if I'm wrong)
And so the heavier C13 was in the lower atmosphere that touches the ground
The lighter C12 was almost entirely above C13.
Assuming life was on the ground or close to the ground before it would have absorbed more C13 is this true?
It is not clear to me what the debate is about here, actually. After all, in the news itself, several other possibilities for the origin of the light carbon are reviewed. In the original article, the researchers actually spend only a few paragraphs describing the results, and another three pages trying to explain them, while referring to other possible explanations for the origin of the light carbon. They rule out most of these possibilities (such as originating from interstellar dust), because they argue that proof of a serious influx of light carbon into the early Earth is needed, and such has not yet been discovered.
All this, by the way, is also written in the news itself.
Ami,
In the end, we can summarize the discussion so far in:
A. Every living creature known to us produces carbon 12 in high concentration.
B. We know that there are deposits with a high carbon-12 concentration from 4.2 billion years ago.
third. We know of no other process that is capable of creating such concentrations of carbon-12, and that will reach the earth in the required quantities.
The conclusion from all this is that life in the past also created high concentrations of carbon 12, therefore there are such carbon deposits.
Is it necessarily true? of course not. But it is the only one that takes into account all three of the aforementioned facts, and does not require the addition of an assumption. If we were to discover another fact (for example, that carbon-12 can be formed in inorganic processes on the surface of the earth, or that there were living beings that did not use carbon-12 in high concentrations in their metabolism), then the conclusion would change immediately. However, as long as we only know the above facts, I see no reason to avoid the current conclusion, as long as we continue to be open to other possibilities as well and do not prevent researchers from trying to prove them.
Greetings friends,
Roy.
Friends, please don't argue - Occam's Razor sums it up.
And those who don't know what it is - http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95_%D7%A9%D7%9C_%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%90%D7%9D
A. Ben Ner,
I'm afraid that on top of a talkback platform it would be a little troublesome to cover all of science, especially in a specific science in which I'm not an expert (for example, isotope ratios in nature). In my first response, I gave 2 basic reasons that could contradict the result presented in this article, based on a premise - which in my opinion is not reasonable.
I said in my first message that
1) It is impossible to speculate what the level of similarity was between the first life that may or may not have survived
2) It is impossible to speculate what their preference was for heavy or light carbon.
These are my reasons and they were already brought up in my first response that opened the above discussion. In addition to these reasons, as things progressed, various ideas were brought up here regarding the change of the isotopic ratio on the surface of the earth with the change of time (for unexplained reasons). I think that, for example, Another supporting argument that further weakens the basic assumptions of this article.
In this article it is assumed that there was life 4.2 billion years ago. that they had an affinity for carbon 12 and carbon 13 like modern animals. And that the ratio between the heavy and light carbon in the inorganic material is the same as it is today. Where exactly do we learn that these assumptions are taken into account in this article? or!!! Here is the problem. We do not see them directly. But in order to get from a point where a diamond has heavy and light carbon ratios such and such to the point where it is decided that the product is from animals - then these assumptions must be made and there is no escape. Implicit assumptions are problematic and there is a good reason why they should be hidden from view, because then it is easy to accept them without thinking, or to believe that colleagues have passed a critique that assumes the assumption - and therefore their critique is good enough for me.
As mentioned, I am not an expert in the field of isotopes. I know the method and may have used it once a long time ago. The problem is not methodological (although even there there is room for many questions about how the sample was produced and what clean grades they reached and/or whether it is really possible to assume that a 4.2 billion year old sample has been preserved all this time without any biological disturbance...). The problem is fundamentally regarding hidden assumptions that the burden of proof is on them and not on us, the critics.
Offhand remark:
I am simply thrilled every time again by the tendency of those who argue with me to make me the subject of the discussion.
If we connect two irrelevant issues that came up in this discussion, then let's connect a little between me and the meaning of the word "probability".
He is a professional in mathematics and computer science, and as one whose profession it is, I know very well what probability is (and by the way - one of the patents I sold is based on being open in this field).
I also know the theory of gangs and yet I will not demand an opposite existence in a street gang.
To Ami Bachar
You claimed your right to scientific criticism. However, your criticism, as long as it is not reasoned and explained, based on scientific considerations, what value does it have? The fact that you say "I don't think so", then with all due respect (and there is respect),
This is not scientific reasoning. As you know in science the majority does not necessarily decide. Therefore, even the enthusiastic joining of Yehuda and "Michael, Ami Becher is right", despite their considerable weight, does not contribute in the least to strengthening your position on a scientific issue, since they also did not strengthen your position with any reasoning. It is possible that in a retrospective historical view it will become clear (in such and such years) that you are right but, for now, your position remains unfounded.
In my previous response I got confused and wrote "the prisoner's dilemma" instead of "the principle of respect" but it is not really important.
Ami:
You are right but you are wrong.
I did not find any alternative explanation either in your words or in Yehuda's words. Just rejecting the only explanation offered.
You are also wrong in your analysis of my responses and their motives.
Among them there are several in which I disagreed with the author (at the moment I can "on the spot" recall Sobel's article on the sense of smell, Marius Cohen's article on the Paradox of the Gods, in some article (I don't remember the details) that talked about the prisoner's dilemma, in an article that analyzed car accidents of cyclists and I suppose there are more.
The difference between us is that my disqualification is always reasoned and the difference in statistics stems from a phenomenon that is clearly reasonable: studies published after peer review have a high chance of being logical and relying on more in-depth considerations than those raised by the respondents of this site.
To Mr. "Michael":
I have no intention of getting into an argument with you about dictionary definitions.
My intention was clear, you understood it, and you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.
It doesn't interest me.
If you have anything to say about my arguments feel free to do so. If you want to continue debating about word interpretations, I ask that you define it that way and then I will decide if I feel like convincing you that word A is better than word B or that the issue is not important enough to me.
Dear friends, I would like to offer another, alternative explanation for the discovery reported in the article. This explanation would contradict the assumption that life began 4.2 billion years ago. Well:
I assume, a reasonable assumption, that the concentration of carbon 12 in the young DHA was greater than is found today in the inorganic still nature. The living matter that began to form absorbed high concentrations of carbon 12.
This process caused a decrease in the concentration of carbon 12 in the inorganic material. The decrease in the concentration of carbon 12 in the inorganic material caused the level of carbon 12 in the organic material to balance. This process resulted in the situation as it is today, namely, a low concentration of carbon 12 in the inorganic material and a high concentration in the organic material. Therefore, if this explanation is correct, then the zircon-diamond crystals from the pre-life period will contain high concentrations of carbon-12 without this indicating anything about the date of the beginning of life about XNUMX years ago.
In general, it can be concluded that the answer to the problem depends on the initial conditions, that is, what was the concentration of carbon 12 before the existence of life? Is it as it is today in the inorganic matter or, closer to its concentration today in the organic matter?
A side note on second thought:
If at all there was such a state of "before there was life". It is possible that the development of life began at the same time as the crystallization of DNA, and this from extraterrestrial organic molecules. A very surprising thought and not completely impossible.
Probability is a branch of exact sciences.
There are agreed tools for determining probability.
Probability, on the other hand, is not an exact science and everyone determines a different probability for the same thing and according to their beliefs and perception of the environment.
There is no such thing as a more known probability and a less known probability.
Probability is either tested or not tested.
Probability, on the other hand, can be higher or lower depending on a person's personal interpretation, beliefs and life experience.
Michael, Ami Bachar was indeed right and will continue to be right until the end of generations. This is the law of life
Michael,
I believe that already in my first response and through the response of Sabdarmish Yehuda you get quite a few other options for deciphering the relationship problem. Both Sabdarmish and I (Ami Bachar, who is known to be right) dispute the only possibility presented in the article.
I must point out that Michael is one of the most persistent defenders of science articles that I have met here. Sometimes a person is for and sometimes against this or that article, but it seems that Michael is more for than against. It is possible that he was right, and it is possible that this is an acceptance of the merits of science as such, seen and sanctified with an unlawful lack of criticism.
Science is open to many possibilities and for each result several possibilities can be paired and indeed this is usually the case. One option is more acceptable and others less so. I suggest to all of us, and also to me - Ami Bachar Shatzed - to try with humility regarding our scientific determinations while understanding more deeply that the odds are actually against us, the scientists, from a historical point of view. Also, our beliefs must always be doubted - to the extent that it is really possible - and a scientific theory, or in this case a scientific hypothesis, is definitely at the level of belief and the interpretation of findings (whose reliability must also be doubted).
Greetings friends,
Ami Bachar, righteous
to "Michael"
I do not confuse belief with probability.
You are simply confusing a known probability with a lesser known probability.
I also refer to what was said in the article - that it is a hypothesis and try to bridge it with the phrase he used "Michael, Ami Becher is right" (is that you?) when referring to the same article.
He did use the word "reasonableness" but it is a word derived from the same root.
In other words - the response was written in a way that should allow him (and everyone who read his words) to understand it and was not intended to be an independent article at all.
"All our information is information in probability"
You seem to be confusing belief with probability.
Probability is expressed in numbers (average, standard deviation...) if you have information
Probabilistic means it has a mean and a standard deviation.
If you don't have numbers, then you have faith.
* Although it does not follow from this that the one who has numbers in his hand does not hold the faith.
I wish you continue to finish.
"Michael, Ami Bachar is right":
I will not harbor enormous anger or dark passions.
The problem is, however, that my phrasing sometimes sounds angry - simply because I'm trying to be concise.
In addition to this, I am not afraid to negate the words of others (there is sometimes an atmosphere here that supports the attack against the article but opposes the attack on the attack and this indeed angers me, but it is an anger that arises every time and is not stored) and the negation of the words of other commenters (as opposed to the negation of the words of the author of the article) is often caught Many as a result of anger.
To comment on the genius - of course I was happy to read it, but I won't say anything beyond that.
From what I understand, the researcher does not want to say that he knows the preference of life for this or that carbon, but is trying to say that there is a difference between what is expected and what is found, and therefore something or someone caused the difference - as a result of our knowledge in the field that bacteria and other organisms are able to change the ratio of substances in the world (carbon dioxide versus oxygen For example) the assumption is made that if there is a change then there is a high probability that it was caused by some organisms
Based on your responses, I assume that you harbor enormous anger and repressed dark urges.
My other hypothesis is that you are a genius.
To Mr. "Michael, Ami Bachar is right" and also to Yehuda:
It is written in the article - immediately below the title: "A renewed study of fossils discovered in Australia in 1983 raised the hypothesis that life is 4.2 billion years old, and not as previously believed 3.5 billion"
In other words - it is a hypothesis.
You suggest rejecting the hypothesis.
Why?
So!
All our information is information in probability and there is no need to state this every time something is said.
Whoever says that when it comes to probability and not certainty should say that they don't know - must say that they don't know anything.
so that's it. I'm not ready to stop using words just because people want to give them a different meaning than they have. That's why I also continue to "finish" eating and not "finish" eating.
"Knowledge" is always "hypothesis" and here we are not even talking about knowledge.
Whoever rejects a hypothesis must come up with a better hypothesis - otherwise he simply does not say anything because we already knew in advance that it was not a matter of certainty.
I agree with Ami Bachar's opinion (and this is not the first time).
What do we really know about the ratio 4.2 billion years ago between carbon 12 and carbon 13?, and in general what do we know about the superiority of the first creatures?
In addition, I was surprised to read that only in a period of hundreds of millions of years after the formation of the earth "the great meteorite bombardment period took place". As far as I know, the entire formation of the planets was made from a series of collisions of bodies and their joining into large bodies - the planets, otherwise, where did the iron and the other heavy metals come from? They waited outside for a billion years without participating in the formation of the solar system?
It is also "funny" to think that no meteors collided in Australia 4.2 billion years ago.
I believe that there was life even before the formation of the earth, but the concentrations of carbon 12 or 13 do not constitute any proof for me.
The proof could have been more "effective" if they had succeeded in proving a change in the 12/13 ratio 4.2 billion years ago, because then, the formation of life at that time could have been a possibility.
Have a good day
And besides, be careful with the service box of the banks (Banko-Hur), an operation in them today costs about 6.5 NIS instead of about 1.2 NIS a week ago. About 5 times!. A real steal!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
In the absence of a more convincing theory, you don't automatically get the first one in line.
You can say you don't know.
You can also change the title of the article to
"There is a probability that life began 700 million years earlier than previously thought"
And then discuss the height of the likelihood.
In my eyes, in any case, low.
Ami:
It's easy to say what you say but then you have to find another explanation for the fact that the carbon ratios in the diamonds found are different from their normal ratio.
In other words - there is a problem here, which is the carbon ratio, and the most likely solution that the team of researchers found is to change the ratio using living organisms.
The question, therefore, is not whether it convinces you of the existence of life at that time, but whether you have a better solution to the problem.
I take issue with the use based on carbon 12/13 ratios over such large time spans for the determination of biological activity. This can be reasonable evidence when it comes to life as we know it today. It is difficult to speculate what the level of similarity was between the first life that may or may not have survived and especially not specifically regarding their preference for heavy or light carbon. There may have been life earlier than we assume today. It is possible that there was life before our earth was formed. It may not be ruled out - but from a carbon ratio I have a hard time being convinced.
Greetings friends,
Ami Bachar