The fossils were discovered in Western Australia, they are of creatures whose metabolism was based on sulfur instead of oxygen, like those living today in underwater geothermal springs
The oldest fossil of life on Earth was discovered in Australia by a joint team of researchers from the University of Western Australia and the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom. The microscopic fossils show convincing evidence of the existence of cells and bacteria that lived in an oxygen-free atmosphere over 3.4 billion years ago.
The team, headed by Dr. David Wacey from the University of Western Australia and including Prof. Martin Braiser from the Department of Earth Sciences in Oxford, reported the discovery in the journal Nature Geoscience.
"We have good evidence for life over 3.4 billion years ago. They confirm that bacteria lived at the same time and they lived without oxygen," says Prof. Braiser.
"The earth was a hot and violent place in those days, when volcanic activity was very strong. The sky was cloudy and gray, which made it possible to maintain the heat, despite the fact that the sun was weaker than today. The temperature of the ocean water was much higher than today - about 40-50 degrees Celsius or the degree of heat in a hot bath - and the ocean currents were very strong. All the pieces of land were small, maybe the size of the Caribbean islands and the tide range was huge.
The amount of oxygen was very small because plants or algae had not yet developed to carry out the photosynthesis process and produce oxygen. The new evidence leads to the fact that early life was sulfur-based, and they lived and metabolized sulfur rather than oxygen for energy and growth.
The microfossils were found in a remote area in Western Australia known as Strelley Pool. They are well preserved between grains of quartz at what used to be the oldest known seashore on Earth, in some of the oldest sedimentary rocks to be found anywhere on Earth.
"We can be fairly certain about the age of the fossils because the rocks were formed between two successive eruptions of volcanoes, which reduces the possible age to a few tens of millions of years," says Prof. Braiser. "This allows us to know that the age of the rocks is indeed about 3.4 billion years."
The researchers conducted three different tests to verify the findings and make sure that they are indeed fossils of biological origin and not from any chemical mineralization process.
The fossils are well preserved and show cell-like structures - all of a similar size. They look like more familiar fossils, but more recent - only 2 billion years old and not as open-textured as older fossils were thought to appear.
"Cells have biological properties. They are arranged in clusters, present only in suitable habitats and attached to the grains of sand. Oddly enough they also demonstrate metabolism. The chemical composition of the fossilized structures is correct, and the pyrite (fool's gold - iron disulfide) crystals associated with microfossils are likely a byproduct of sulfur-based metabolism that occurred in these cells and bacteria.
The study of the early fossils of life on Earth is a controversial field. In the last decade, the barriers that scientists must overcome before they can claim such evidence have been raised significantly, due to new techniques for mapping the chemistry of rocks at fine scales.
20 תגובות
I can create it when I spill coffee on the map
After 24 hours, my response was only published as a response to several people, including yours, Michael - so forgive me for the jump:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/oldest-fossils-on-earth-discovered-2208119/#comment-304694
Why is my first comment still waiting for approval? Because it is long? Combine English and Hebrew?
From time to time I see that my messages like this are delayed...
And of course - I forgot to add - thanks for the interesting article! 🙂
Michael and Tam,
You forgot to add Michael that the basic requirement is liquid and stable water - and this does not require living without suitable materials and chemicals that must be present. It turns out that this "small" requirement is very rare in our universe. The article only notes the existence of life in the form we know today as bacteria on our planet 3.4 billion years ago.
And to all the skeptics of all kinds who question the "testing methods" (Derg Research, Dror Israel, Yehuda, Max and others) - all that is required of you is to find the original article. As someone who reads research every day for his job, I know that there is a difference between the research itself and the publication of articles in various monthly magazines that are only intended to spread the word about the existence of the research and to urge people to refer to the original research itself in the original "magazine" in which it was published to know more details - including the testing methods.
"Hidan" does not claim to be a newspaper that publishes original articles, which require, as noted by Mr. H. Criticism by a committee of experts and editing and requirements for corrections (also from experience) - but as a magazine that publishes studies that have already been published from various sources (that have already passed the difficult critical sectioning procedure). If you really want to witness and learn beyond the concise article here - please refer to the source (often it is required to pay or access through universities - I personally download from the Technion network when I need to).
And in addition - those who really read the original article in the link, can clearly see that the same research group dismissed previous evidence from a site close to being fossils of bacteria. In other words, the self-criticism of that research group is also high enough - and they are not looking to publish anything.
A small note: the link to which the article refers is also not the place of publication of the original study and therefore does not include the test methods. The link is to a website that is similar to "Yaden" in that it is a magazine that publishes studies published in magazines dedicated to this. The original study was published in (for those who really care):
David Wacey, Matt R. Kilburn, Martin Saunders, John Cliff, Martin D. Brasier. Microfossils of sulfur-metabolizing cells in 3.4-billion-year-old rocks of Western Australia. Nature Geoscience, 2011; DOI: 10.1038/ngeo1238
sparrow:
Thank you for sharing your concerns with us.
By the way, is your health okay?
I question several calculations and the first one is the age of the fossil
Research rank:
If the researchers did not publish the tests then how did the author of the article know how to describe them?
It's a shame that the researchers didn't publish what tests they did to reach the conclusion that these are archaic bacteria
I'm also skeptical about the pictures! I'm really not sure that these are really organisms!
Yehuda,
As one more expert who didn't read the article, where does this arrogance come from? Yes, we will see you please tell us hundreds of possible possibilities for the formation of the spots. You know what? Even 7 will be enough. Then please explain to me how the authors convinced the editors of the paper and 3-4 experts (a little less than you I guess, but experts nonetheless) that their results are acceptable and worthy of publication?
What is everyone stupid? Fortunately, the honorable Mr. Svardamish finds it hard to believe and he attaches importance -r-k- to the quality of the article. What would the world of science do without healthy skeptics like you?
Is that gentle enough for you?
Eliahu,
As an expert you should know how to look at the original article in Nature Geosciences in the methods chapter and get all the answers to your questions.
I can think of hundreds of possibilities for the formation of a collection of spots as above. To come to the conclusion that it was a bacterium from 3400 million years ago? I find it hard to believe despite the great confidence of the researcher who wrote the article, and our friend Mikal
I attach the greatest importance only to the quality of the article:
"The study of the early fossils of life on Earth is a controversial field." End quote.
Please respond gently
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I don't understand anything from the picture.
And I work on a daily basis with bacteria.
With which microscope was it taken?
What is the scale?
enlargement?
to me.
Now I read the article, and it really describes tests conducted to determine that these are bacteria and not something else.
Maybe I should have read first 🙂
Max:
Can you explain your strange conclusion?
1. The finding does not indicate that all stars should be lively.
2. Certainly not indicative of intelligent life
3. Even if there is life in other stars (and I allow myself to interpret your words as if you really meant stars - that is - solar systems - and not planets, because otherwise they would be really stupid) what, in your opinion, are NASA lying about? They said no?
The question is over:
We don't know anything for sure, but they were more serious than you and did not rely on something like "to me it looks like this and that" but on tests that are described in the article.
How can one know for sure that these are really living organisms and not just ancient minerals? After all, we are not talking about complex animals whose bodies can be identified by legs, fingers, wings, bones, vertebrae, etc., the truth is that they look like just dirt on the surface, or like cloudy remnants of dried water drops.
I remember that even in the famous case of the meteorite that came from Mars, shapes were found that closely resembled worms (which are much more complex than bacteria) and everyone was excited and happy, until finally (at least that's how I understood it) they came to the conclusion that these were minerals that crystallized into this shape and not ancient life forms.
So how is it possible that these are really living beings and not something else that misleads us?
The required provision is of course:
So all the planets should be teeming with life.
A. Or this finding is problematic.
B. The space agencies are lying to us (for fear of social shocks)
Oh and what will the creationists say?? Apparently every year in the Bible is really, really, really long...
What day does it come out in terms of creation?