Bacteria thrive on land 100 million years earlier than thought? Oxydizing minerals, just like today?

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 22, 2011

Intelligent Design, News, stasis}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Modern mine waste water supports bacteria like those from 2.48 billion years ago/University of Alberta

From “New Evidence for the Oldest Oxygen-Breathing Life On Land”
(ScienceDaily, Oct. 19, 2011), we learn:

New University of Alberta research shows the first evidence that the first oxygen-breathing bacteria occupied and thrived on land 100 million years earlier than previously thought. The researchers show that the most primitive form of aerobic-respiring life on land came into existence 2.48 billion years ago.

“We suggest that the jump in chromium levels was triggered by the oxidation of the mineral pyrite (fool’s gold) on land,” said Konhauser.

The researchers say the modern analogue for that first primitive oxygen-dependent life form on Earth is still with us.

“The same bacterial life forms are alive and well today, living off pyrite and settling in the highly acidic waste waters of mining sites the world over,” said Konhauser.

Comments

Eocene, this reminds me of Axe's April 1st retort to Lincoln and Joyce;
Biologic Institute Announces First Self-Replicating Motor Vehicle — April 1st, 2009 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: Researchers at Biologic Institute have stunned the scientific community with the announcement today of a fully functioning automobile capable of replicating itself. Although simple autocatalytic versions of self-replication have previously been demonstrated, the complexity of the system described today—complete with GPS navigation, DVD player, and onboard WiFi—has taken everyone by surprise. In the minds of many, this discovery has forever altered the once fundamental distinction between life and non-life. Reactions from the automotive industry have, understandably, been less philosophical. One executive, who wished to remain unnamed, characterized the development as “altogether unhelpful.” An assembly plant worker was less restrained: “This is unreal… I just hope they quarantine the [expletive] things before this gets out of hand.” According to lead scientist Otto Cloner, “In the right kind of environment the process of self-replication just takes off. I still get goose bumps watching it.” The prototype self-replicator is a slightly modified version of the popular Jeep Wrangler—unmanned. When just one of these self-propelled prototypes is placed in an appropriate environment (one lacking any other self-propelled vehicles) magic happens. Or so it seems. Dr. Cloner himself takes the more modest view that “the replicative mechanism is really quite simple when properly understood”. Describing the process as being “sensitive to environmental conditions”, Cloner explained that the most critical requirement seems to be a generous supply of the right kind of precursors. “We’ve done a lot of fiddling with the conditions, and one very consistent pattern is that the precursors need to be pretty much fully loaded Wranglers perched on narrow wooden blocks, with engines running in low gear. We looked at more stripped-down precursors, but the DVD and GPS were lost very early in the replication process under those conditions. [We are] still trying to pinpoint exactly what’s going on there.”,,, http://biologicinstitute.org/2009/04/01/biologic-institute-announces-first-self-replicating-motor-vehicle/
bornagain77_{October 23, 2011
October
10
Oct
23
23
2011
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

ChasD: "You seem to be suggesting that “neo-Darwinists” have trouble explaining how ecosystems can arise." ==== They can't even explain or show us just how to save the ones presently going extinct as a result of their own misuse and abuse of science. How do you expect Neo-Dariwnism to explain their arise in the first place ???Eocene_{October 23, 2011
October
10
Oct
23
23
2011
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

Chas ,,, you state a very bold statement here, ‘NO ONE has established that this is feasible.‘ Really Chas, Not even feasible for intelligence???? Self-replicating Robots
You will note that I said CHEMICAL. A self-replicating CHEMICAL system. There are issues with molecules that are not issues for materials. Try again.Chas D_{October 23, 2011
October
10
Oct
23
23
2011
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

BA77: "As well Chas, As to man trying to intelligently design a single functional protein we learn something very interesting:" ==== For that matter, you may add any Evolutionist working on any type of OOL/RNA-World fable from Miller/Urey onwards. When asked what the intelligent fingerprints of the scientists conducting these experiments represent, (1) blind undirected forces without purpose, goals or intent, or (2) Intelligent Design ??? These people incredibly will deny their own intelligences every single time. They're clearly incapable of denying their own faith even when presented with the fraud it truly is.Eocene_{October 23, 2011
October
10
Oct
23
23
2011
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

ChasD: "Show me just one example of intelligence creating a replicating chemical system from inorganic components." ===== Gerald Joyce's multiple Intelligent Designing experiments are prime examples what just how it takes an intelligent mind/s to accomplish anything. He apparently knows better than to offer some failed dirt watching experiment and get himself laughed at by the scientific world. Besides, hijacking I.D. concepts and attaching evolutionary lables to them and finally loading up a fable with massive amounts of personification fallacies into a mythical fantasy world will bring in more future research money than being honest and coming clean with what he actually proved.Eocene_{October 23, 2011
October
10
Oct
23
23
2011
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

As well Chas, As to man trying to intelligently design a single functional protein we learn something very interesting:
Creating Life in the Lab: How New Discoveries in Synthetic Biology Make a Case for the Creator - Fazale Rana Excerpt of Review: ‘Another interesting section of Creating Life in the Lab is one on artificial enzymes. Biological enzymes catalyze chemical reactions, often increasing the spontaneous reaction rate by a billion times or more. Scientists have set out to produce artificial enzymes that catalyze chemical reactions not used in biological organisms. Comparing the structure of biological enzymes, scientists used super-computers to calculate the sequences of amino acids in their enzymes that might catalyze the reaction they were interested in. After testing dozens of candidates,, the best ones were chosen and subjected to “in vitro evolution,” which increased the reaction rate up to 200-fold. Despite all this “intelligent design,” the artificial enzymes were 10,000 to 1,000,000,000 times less efficient than their biological counterparts. Dr. Rana asks the question, “is it reasonable to think that undirected evolutionary processes routinely accomplished this task?” http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801072093
bornagain77_{October 23, 2011
October
10
Oct
23
23
2011
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

Chas ,,, you state a very bold statement here, 'NO ONE has established that this is feasible.' Really Chas, Not even feasible for intelligence???? Self-replicating Robots http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2338968448169667271bornagain77_{October 23, 2011
October
10
Oct
23
23
2011
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

Whatever, bornag!!! Show me just one example of intelligence creating a replicating chemical system from inorganic components. NO ONE has established that this is feasible. I'm sure that challenge does nothing to defuse your viewpoint, so I'm not sure why you think its equivalent (admittedly in the rather different milieu of evolution) might slay the material-causes one.Chas D_{October 23, 2011
October
10
Oct
23
23
2011
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

Whatever Chas!!! Chas, let's make this a lot more clear for you so as to eliminate half of your conjectures above! Please show just one example of neo-Darwinian processes generating even 1 functional protein; Venema, who is a lot more knowledgeable on the subject than you are, was challenged on this specific point, and here was what his 'prize' literature citation had to say about the subject:
Excerpt: However, these experiments do not really model the evolution that occurs through gradual, step-by-step changes, with all intermediates being fully foldable proteins (Blanco et al., 1999). To create such an evolutionarily relevant path from all-a to all-b domains would be the next challenge for protein designers. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/responding_to_venemas_response052061.html
Now Chas, honestly, do you think anyone has any scientific right whatsoever to presuppose that neo-Darwinian evolution can happen when NO ONE has even established that it can be done for a single 'simple protein'??? Even a 14 or 15 year old can see that neo-Darwinists are stark raving mad for presupposing that all life arose by accidental processes with no foundation, at all, for such conjecture.bornagain77_{October 23, 2011
October
10
Oct
23
23
2011
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

Whatever!
From which we can conclude that you are - what - 14, 15? At least it is succinct, which is more than I can say for its predecessors. Consider: 1) Abiogenesis vs intelligent-first-cell-ism 2) Natural vs directed evolution of individual lineages 3) Natural vs directed construction/maintenance of ecological communities These are legitimate distinctions, because there are different processes, different levels of interaction, and different opportunities for natural or guided processes to operate. You don't think it important to look at one thing at a time? Just ... all of it? It's all tosh?Chas D_{October 23, 2011
October
10
Oct
23
23
2011
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

Whatever!bornagain77_{October 23, 2011
October
10
Oct
23
23
2011
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

bornagain77, you seem determined to leap between the origin of life and the origin of ecosystems. I am not, as you say, compelled to join you in your gymnastics. If you find comfort in your intellectual approach to science, good luck.Chas D_{October 23, 2011
October
10
Oct
23
23
2011
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

Perhaps you would care to demonstrate that a protein can spontaneously arise??? at least you would be in a land reality instead of a land of pure fantasy!!!
Evolution vs. Functional Proteins - Doug Axe - Video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4018222 The Theist holds the Intellectual High-Ground - March 2011 Excerpt: To get a range on the enormous challenges involved in bridging the gaping chasm between non-life and life, consider the following: “The difference between a mixture of simple chemicals and a bacterium, is much more profound than the gulf between a bacterium and an elephant.” (Dr. Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, NYU) http://www.faithfulnews.com/contents/view_content2/49631/rabbi-moshe-averick-the-theist-holds-the-intellectual-high-ground-apologetics-christian-apologetics-defending-gospel Scientists Prove Again that Life is the Result of Intelligent Design - Rabbi Moshe Averick - August 2011 Excerpt: “To go from bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium.” - Dr. Lynn Margulis http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/08/17/scientists-prove-again-that-life-is-the-result-of-intelligent-design/
Dr. Don Johnson lays out some of the probabilities for life in this following video:
Probabilities Of Life - Don Johnson PhD. - 38 minute mark of video a typical functional protein - 1 part in 10^175 the required enzymes for life - 1 part in 10^40,000 a living self replicating cell - 1 part in 10^340,000,000 http://www.vimeo.com/11706014 Programming of Life - Probability of a Cell Evolving - video http://www.youtube.com/user/Programmingoflife#p/c/AFDF33F11E2FB840/9/nyTUSe99z6o
Dr. Morowitz did another probability calculation working from the thermodynamic perspective with a already existing cell and came up with this number:
DID LIFE START BY CHANCE? Excerpt: Molecular biophysicist, Horold Morowitz (Yale University), calculated the odds of life beginning under natural conditions (spontaneous generation). He calculated, if one were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond within it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal natural conditions (the best possible chemical environment) would be one chance in 10^100,000,000,000. You will have probably have trouble imagining a number so large, so Hugh Ross provides us with the following example. If all the matter in the Universe was converted into building blocks of life, and if assembly of these building blocks were attempted once a microsecond for the entire age of the universe. Then instead of the odds being 1 in 10^100,000,000,000, they would be 1 in 10^99,999,999,916 (also of note: 1 with 100 billion zeros following would fill approx. 20,000 encyclopedias) http://members.tripod.com/~Black_J/chance.html
Further note:
Materialistic argument Premise One: No materialistic cause of specified complex information is known. Conclusion: Therefore, it must arise from some unknown materialistic cause On the other hand, Stephen Meyer describes the intelligent design argument as follows: “Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information. “Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information. “Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information in the cell.” There remains one and only one type of cause that has shown itself able to create functional information like we find in cells, books and software programs -- intelligent design. We know this from our uniform experience and from the design filter -- a mathematically rigorous method of detecting design. Both yield the same answer. (William Dembski and Jonathan Witt, Intelligent Design Uncensored: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to the Controversy, p. 90 (InterVarsity Press, 2010).) Stephen C. Meyer - The Scientific Basis For the Intelligent Design Inference - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4104651
bornagain77_{October 23, 2011
October
10
Oct
23
23
2011
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

Chas find comfort in whatever excuse you may make up. I personally don't care what you believe. The point is that the evidence certainly does not fit materialistically expectations for life accidentally evolving from a 'warm little pond': In fact everything we know gives clear indication that a materialistic origin of life is impossible;
Refutation Of Hyperthermophile Origin Of Life scenario Excerpt: While life, if appropriately designed, can survive under extreme physical and chemical conditions, it cannot originate under those conditions. High temperatures are especially catastrophic for evolutionary models. The higher the temperature climbs, the shorter the half-life for all the crucial building block molecules, http://www.reasons.org/LateHeavyBombardmentIntensityandtheOriginofLife The origin of life--did it occur at high temperatures? Excerpt: Prebiotic chemistry points to a low-temperature origin because most biochemicals decompose rather rapidly at temperatures of 100 degrees C (e.g., half-lives are 73 min for ribose, 21 days for cytosine, and 204 days for adenine). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11539558 Chemist explores the membranous origins of the first living cell: Excerpt: Conditions in geothermal springs and similar extreme environments just do not favor membrane formation, which is inhibited or disrupted by acidity, dissolved salts, high temperatures, and calcium, iron, and magnesium ions. Furthermore, mineral surfaces in these clay-lined pools tend to remove phosphates and organic chemicals from the solution. "We have to face up to the biophysical facts of life," Deamer said. "Hot, acidic hydrothermal systems are not conducive to self-assembly processes." http://currents.ucsc.edu/05-06/04-03/deamer.asp Nick Lane Takes on the Origin of Life and DNA - Jonathan McLatchie - July 2010 Excerpt: numerous problems abound for the hydrothermal vent hypothesis for the origin of life,,,, For example, as Stanley Miller has pointed out, the polymers are "too unstable to exist in a hot prebiotic environment." Miller has also noted that the RNA bases are destroyed very quickly in water when the water boils. Intense heating also has the tendency to degrade amino acids such as serine and threonine. A more damning problem lies in the fact that the homochirality of the amino acids is destroyed by heating. Of course, accounting for the required building blocks is an interesting problem, but from the vantage of ID proponents, it is only one of many problems facing materialistic accounts of the origin of life. After all, it is the sequential arrangement of the chemical constituents -- whether that happens to be amino acids in proteins, or nucleotides in DNA or RNA -- to form complex specified information (a process which requires the production of specified irregularity), which compellingly points toward the activity of rational deliberation (Intelligence). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/07/nick_lane_and_the_ten_great_in036101.html
Besides hydrothermal vents, it is also commonly, and erroneously, presumed in many grade school textbooks that life slowly arose in a primordial ocean of pre-biotic soup. Yet there are no chemical signatures in the geologic record indicating that a ocean of this pre-biotic soup ever existed. In fact, as stated earlier, the evidence indicates that complex photosynthetic life appeared on earth as soon as water appeared on earth with no chemical signature whatsoever of prebiotic activity.
The Primordial Soup Myth: Excerpt: "Accordingly, Abelson(1966), Hull(1960), Sillen(1965), and many others have criticized the hypothesis that the primitive ocean, unlike the contemporary ocean, was a "thick soup" containing all of the micromolecules required for the next stage of molecular evolution. The concept of a primitive "thick soup" or "primordial broth" is one of the most persistent ideas at the same time that is most strongly contraindicated by thermodynamic reasoning and by lack of experimental support." - Sidney Fox, Klaus Dose on page 37 in Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life. http://theory-of-evolution.net/chap11/primordial-soup-myth.php New Research Rejects 80-Year Theory of 'Primordial Soup' as the Origin of Life - Feb. 2010 "Despite bioenergetic and thermodynamic failings the 80-year-old concept of primordial soup remains central to mainstream thinking on the origin of life, But soup has no capacity for producing the energy vital for life." William Martin - an evolutionary biologist http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100202101245.htm
Moreover, water is considered a 'universal solvent' which is a very thermodynamic obeying and thus origin of life defying fact.
Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis - Arthur V. Chadwick, Ph.D. Excerpt: The synthesis of proteins and nucleic acids from small molecule precursors represents one of the most difficult challenges to the model of prebiological evolution. There are many different problems confronted by any proposal. Polymerization is a reaction in which water is a product. Thus it will only be favored in the absence of water. The presence of precursors in an ocean of water favors depolymerization of any molecules that might be formed. Careful experiments done in an aqueous solution with very high concentrations of amino acids demonstrate the impossibility of significant polymerization in this environment. A thermodynamic analysis of a mixture of protein and amino acids in an ocean containing a 1 molar solution of each amino acid (100,000,000 times higher concentration than we inferred to be present in the prebiological ocean) indicates the concentration of a protein containing just 100 peptide bonds (101 amino acids) at equilibrium would be 10^-338 molar. Just to make this number meaningful, our universe may have a volume somewhere in the neighborhood of 10^85 liters. At 10^-338 molar, we would need an ocean with a volume equal to 10^229 universes (100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000) just to find a single molecule of any protein with 100 peptide bonds. So we must look elsewhere for a mechanism to produce polymers. It will not happen in the ocean. http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/chadwick/default.html Professor Arthur E. Wilder-Smith "Any amounts of polypeptide which might be formed will be broken down into their initial components (amino acids) by the excess of water. The ocean is thus practically the last place on this or any other planet where the proteins of life could be formed spontaneously from amino acids. Yet nearly all text-books of biology teach this nonsense to support evolutionary theory and spontaneous biogenesis ... Has materialistic Neo-Darwinian philosophy overwhelmed us to such an extent that we forget or overlook the well-known facts of science and of chemistry in order to support this philosophy? ... Without exception all Miller's amino acids are completely unsuitable for any type of spontaneous biogenesis. And the same applies to all and any randomly formed substances and amino acids which form racemates. This statement is categorical and absolute and cannot be affected by special conditions." http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony3.php A Substantial Conundrum Confronting The Chemical Origin Of Life - August 2011 Excerpt: 1. Peptide bond formation is an endothermic reaction. This means that the reaction requires the absorption of energy: It does not take place spontaneously. 2. Peptide bond formation is a condensation reaction. It hence involves the net removal of a water molecule. So not only can this reaction not happen spontaneously in an aqueous medium, but, in fact, the presence of water inhibits the reaction. https://uncommondescent.com/origin-of-life/a-substantial-conundrum-confronting-the-chemical-origin-of-life/
Sea Salt only adds to this thermodynamic problem:
...even at concentrations seven times weaker than in today’s oceans. The ingredients of sea salt are very effective at dismembering membranes and preventing RNA units (monomers) from forming polymers any longer than two links (dimers). Creation Evolution News - Sept. 2002
etc.. etc.. etc..bornagain77_{October 23, 2011
October
10
Oct
23
23
2011
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

Actually I just look at Darwinian presuppositions and find them ludicrous as to what the actual evidence says. If you find comfort in the many extremely forced ‘just so’ stories (excuses), so be it.
This is a specific matter, not the panoply of "Darwinian" presuppositions. If you think that you can look at a community and simply reject all materialistic notions as to how that community may have arisen, and its modern interdependencies become more tightly coupled ... well, I am somewhat flabbergasted. I hesitated before posting in reply to you, and perhaps I should have stuck with my first instinct.
But a spade is a spade and these findings are contrary to materialistic expectations, to put it mildly.
They are entirely in accord with materialistic expectations. You appear to reject material causes, or circumscribe by nothing more than guesswork the realm of their applicability, but they certainly are in accord with them.Chas D_{October 23, 2011
October
10
Oct
23
23
2011
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

Actually I just look at Darwinian presuppositions and find them ludicrous as to what the actual evidence says. If you find comfort in the many extremely forced 'just so' stories (excuses), so be it. But a spade is a spade and these findings are contrary to materialistic expectations, to put it mildly.bornagain77_{October 23, 2011
October
10
Oct
23
23
2011
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

This essential biogeochemical interdependence, of the most primitive different types of bacteria that we have evidence of on ancient earth, makes the origin of life ‘problem’ for neo-Darwinists that much worse.
Someone must have pointed out at some time in the past that "neo-Darwinism" has absolutely nothing to say on the origin of life? No? Allow me to be the first. neo-Darwinism (an increasingly archaic term) is the study of interacting replicators, however caused, and their broader consequences. There must be more than one, and they must be replicators, before any kind of evolutionary (or ecological) process can commence.
For now not only do neo-Darwinists have to explain how the ‘miracle of life’ happened once with the origin of photosynthetic bacteria
No. If it happened deep in the oceans - or even if it didn't - photosynthesis had absolutely nothing to do with it. The likeliest precedent state is chemotrophy - harvesting the redox potential in inorganic molecules.
but they must now also explain how all these different types bacteria, that photosynthetic bacteria are dependent on, in this complex biogeochemical web, miraculously arose just in time to supply the necessary nutrients, in their biogeochemical link in the chain, for photosynthetic bacteria to continue to survive.
Is it miraculous that the internet arose just in time to allow Google to have something to run on? Do roofs exist in order that pigeons may roost upon them? Pre-existing states create opportunities, and interdependence can be tuned to the point where the modern system cannot be disentangled. You seem to be suggesting that "neo-Darwinists" have trouble explaining how ecosystems can arise. That would be news to the neo-Darwinist. Or maybe you think that the age of these fossils telescopes the time-frame to an impossibly short one? We may have over a billion years to play with, between OOL and 2.48bya.Chas D_{October 23, 2011
October
10
Oct
23
23
2011
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

further notes:
The Microbial Engines That Drive Earth’s Biogeochemical Cycles Excerpt: Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides.- Paul G. Falkowski - Professor Geological Sciences - Rutgers http://www.genetics.iastate.edu/delong1.pdf Biologically mediated cycles for hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur, and iron - graph image of interdependent 'biogeochemical' web http://www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5879/1034/F2.large.jpg
Moreover stunningly, as if that was not surprising enough, a complex 'biogeochemical balance' is also found to extend all the into how the metabolism of higher lifeforms operate:
Michael Denton – We Are Stardust – Uncanny Balance Of The Elements – Fred Hoyle Atheist to Deist/Theist – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003877
Further note: On the third page of this following site there is a bit easier to understand illustration that shows some of the interdependent, ‘life-enabling’, biogeochemical complexity of different types of bacterial life on Earth.,,,
Microbial Mat Ecology – Image on page 92 (third page down) http://www.dsls.usra.edu/biologycourse/workbook/Unit2.2.pdf
,,,Please note, that if even one type of bacteria group did not exist in this complex cycle of biogeochemical interdependence, that was illustrated on the preceding sites, then all of the different bacteria would soon die out. This essential biogeochemical interdependence, of the most primitive different types of bacteria that we have evidence of on ancient earth, makes the origin of life ‘problem’ for neo-Darwinists that much worse. For now not only do neo-Darwinists have to explain how the ‘miracle of life’ happened once with the origin of photosynthetic bacteria, but they must now also explain how all these different types bacteria, that photosynthetic bacteria are dependent on, in this complex biogeochemical web, miraculously arose just in time to supply the necessary nutrients, in their biogeochemical link in the chain, for photosynthetic bacteria to continue to survive. As well, though not clearly illustrated in the illustration on the preceding site, please note that a long term tectonic cycle, of the turnover the Earth’s crustal rocks, must also be fine-tuned to a certain degree with the bacteria and thus plays a important ‘foundational’ role in the overall ecology of the biogeochemical system that must be accounted for as well.bornagain77_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

As to:
“The same bacterial life forms are alive and well today, living off pyrite and settling in the highly acidic waste waters of mining sites the world over,” said Konhauser.
notes:
AMBER: THE LOOKING GLASS INTO THE PAST: Excerpt: These (fossilized bacteria) cells are actually very similar to present day cyanobacteria. This is not only true for an isolated case but many living genera of cyanobacteria can be linked to fossil cyanobacteria. The detail noted in the fossils of this group gives indication of extreme conservation of morphology, more extreme than in other organisms. http://bcb705.blogspot.com/2007/03/amber-looking-glass-into-past_23.html Static evolution: is pond scum the same now as billions of years ago? Excerpt: But what intrigues (paleo-biologist) J. William Schopf most is lack of change. Schopf was struck 30 years ago by the apparent similarities between some 1-billion-year-old fossils of blue-green bacteria and their modern microbial microbial. "They surprisingly looked exactly like modern species," Schopf recalls. Now, after comparing data from throughout the world, Schopf and others have concluded that modern pond scum differs little from the ancient blue-greens. "This similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times," says Schopf. As evidence, he cites the 3,000 such fossils found; http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Static+evolution%3A+is+pond+scum+the+same+now+as+billions+of+years+ago%3F-a014909330 Odd Geometry of Bacteria May Provide New Way to Study Earth's Oldest Fossils - May 2010 Excerpt: Known as stromatolites, the layered rock formations are considered to be the oldest fossils on Earth.,,,That the spacing pattern corresponds to the mats' metabolic period -- and is also seen in ancient rocks -- shows that the same basic physical processes of diffusion and competition seen today were happening billions of years ago,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100517152520.htm Bacterial Heavy Metal Detoxification and Resistance Systems: Excerpt: Bacterial plasmids contain genetic determinants for resistance systems for Hg2+ (and organomercurials), Cd2+, AsO2, AsO43-, CrO4 2-, TeO3 2-, Cu2+, Ag+, Co2+, Pb2+, and other metals of environmental concern.,, Recombinant DNA analysis has been applied to mercury, cadmium, zinc, cobalt, arsenic, chromate, tellurium and copper resistance systems. http://www.springerlink.com/content/u1t281704577v8t3/ The role of bacteria in hydrogeochemistry, metal cycling and ore deposit formation: Textures of sulfide minerals formed by SRB (sulfate-reducing bacteria) during bioremediation (most notably pyrite and sphalerite) have textures reminiscent of those in certain sediment-hosted ores, supporting the concept that SRB may have been directly involved in forming ore minerals. http://www.goldschmidt2009.org/abstracts/finalPDFs/A1161.pdf Planet's Nitrogen Cycle Overturned - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: "Ammonia is a waste product that can be toxic to animals.,,, archaea can scavenge nitrogen-containing ammonia in the most barren environments of the deep sea, solving a long-running mystery of how the microorganisms can survive in that environment. Archaea therefore not only play a role, but are central to the planetary nitrogen cycles on which all life depends.,,,the organism can survive on a mere whiff of ammonia – 10 nanomolar concentration, equivalent to a teaspoon of ammonia salt in 10 million gallons of water." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930132656.htm
As well, in conjunction with bacteria, geological processes helped detoxify the earth of dangerous levels of metal:
The Concentration of Metals for Humanity's Benefit: Excerpt: They demonstrated that hydrothermal fluid flow could enrich the concentration of metals like zinc, lead, and copper by at least a factor of a thousand. They also showed that ore deposits formed by hydrothermal fluid flows at or above these concentration levels exist throughout Earth's crust. The necessary just-right precipitation conditions needed to yield such high concentrations demand extraordinary fine-tuning. That such ore deposits are common in Earth's crust strongly suggests supernatural design. http://www.reasons.org/TheConcentrationofMetalsforHumanitysBenefit The Creation of Minerals: Excerpt: Thanks to the way life was introduced on Earth, the early 250 mineral species have exploded to the present 4,300 known mineral species. And because of this abundance, humans possessed all the necessary mineral resources to easily launch and sustain global, high-technology civilization. http://www.reasons.org/The-Creation-of-Minerals "Today there are about 4,400 known minerals - more than two-thirds of which came into being only because of the way life changed the planet. Some of them were created exclusively by living organisms" - Bob Hazen - Smithsonian Magazine - Oct. 2010, pg. 54
Coincidence, I think NOT! Or as Frank Turek would say, 'I ain't got enough faith to be an atheist!' verse and music:
Isaiah 45:18 For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): “I am the LORD, and there is no other. Walk By Faith - Jeremy Camp http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgWOcYpHm0o
bornagain77_{October 22, 2011
October
10
Oct
22
22
2011
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply