Sci/Tech Fossil Older Than Oxygen on Earth Found in Australia

[tom_mai78101]

Researchers have found fossils of bacteria that are nearly 3.5 billion years old, believed to be the oldest visible fossils ever uncovered.

The fossils, found in northwest Australia's Pilbara region, are from a time before oxygen existed on Earth and are from just one billion years after Earth's formation, according to Old Dominion University's Nora Noffke, one of the researchers who worked on the project.

The fossils are imprints found on sandstone that was formed when microbes interacted with rock sediment. Scientists have discovered older rocks, but Noffke says those rocks have eroded to the point where traces of life are all but impossible to find.

"I can confidently say the structures we're working on cannot be found on older rocks—until now, there has been nothing that is this well preserved," Noffke says. "There are some that are much older, but they experience metamorphosis—anything that's on them has been overprinted and it's difficult to reconstruct what was there."

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/02/fossil-older-than-oxygen-on-earth-found-in-australia

 

[iPeez]

Dont you put that shit in austrich eggs.

 

[KaerfNomekop]

Life before oxygen? This would be useful in far-space colonisation projects.

 

[Dan]

I'm skeptical whenever scientists date things that far back.

 

[camelCase]

Because the Earth is 10,000 years old, right?

 

[FireCat]

Hmm no oxygen on earth "3,5 billion" years ago?

Because the Earth is 10,000 years old, right?

NO. Age of the earth about 4.5 billion ++ years old

 

[camelCase]

Because sarcasm is lost on you, right?

 

[FireCat]

Well, It might have been lost in space.

 

[Varine]

Probably somewhere between Neptune and Uranus. Firecat lost his marbles there, too. Remember, Cheshire?

 

[Hatebreeder]

I am confused. What do Bakteria leave behind that can be carbonized?

 

[Varine]

Some kind of carbon probably.

 

[Nyph]

Diamonds...

 

[Dan]

Because the Earth is 10,000 years old, right?

Your sarcasm is unnecessary and unwarranted.

 

[tom_mai78101]

I am confused. What do Bakteria leave behind that can be carbonized?

Buckyballs. Much cooler than diamonds.

 

[FireCat]

Buckyballs. Much cooler than diamonds.

What's so cool about "Buckyballs"?

Oops! What If Cheshire didn't Remember? @Varine

 

[Accname]

I am confused. What do Bakteria leave behind that can be carbonized?

The same thing as you and I, their bodies.

 

[Varine]

Your sarcasm is unnecessary and unwarranted.

Still funny.

 

[Zakyath]

I'm skeptical whenever scientists date things that far back.

how come?

 

[iPeez]

Old bacteria. Before life on earth as we know it. Make it alive again... Uhhh ooh..

 

[Dan]

how come?

Because I am skeptical about the accuracy of carbon dating, especially when we are talking about ridiculous numbers like "billions" of years back. In Theory, carbon decays at a reliable rate, but in practice--over millions of years--how can anyone be so bold as to say that it continues to decay at the same rate? Carbon is also sucked up at times, and I figure that when we are talking about "billions of years," we should probably start considering the fact that the earth's atmospheric and temperature changes could skew such results.

One billion years is an unfathomable number. 3.5 billion is beyond unfathomable. It is absurd to me to think that we can accurately date carbon decay rates during times when the earth itself was still forming.

Besides, who knows, maybe the earth IS only 10,000 years old. Wouldn't you feel stupid then! heh.