UCLA researchers: Life got started shortly after planet cooled
| October 20, 2015 | Posted by News under News, Origin Of Life |
Mark Harrison at UCLA/Reed Hutchinson, UCLA
Life on Earth likely started 4.1 billion years ago—much earlier than scientists thought
UCLA geochemists have found evidence that life likely existed on Earth at least 4.1 billion years ago—300 million years earlier than previous research suggested. The discovery indicates that life may have begun shortly after the planet formed 4.54 billion years ago.
“Twenty years ago, this would have been heretical; finding evidence of life 3.8 billion years ago was shocking,” said Mark Harrison, co-author of the research and a professor of geochemistry at UCLA.
…
“The early Earth certainly wasn’t a hellish, dry, boiling planet; we see absolutely no evidence for that,” Harrison said. “The planet was probably much more like it is today than previously thought.”
Analyzing 10,000 zircons,
The scientists identified 656 zircons containing dark specks that could be revealing and closely analyzed 79 of them with Raman spectroscopy, a technique that shows the molecular and chemical structure of ancient microorganisms in three dimensions. More.
Obviously, if this find holds up—given the information load even “simple life forms require—we can rule out a strict Darwinian explanation. After all, if such an explanation were correct, rocks would be evolving into life all around us. To say nothing of Boltzmann brains. 😉
That said, sometimes these finds fall apart. Consider the case of the Australian chert find: World’s oldest “microfossils” [3.46 bya] are not life forms after all. Researchers working in the abyss of time are working with fragments. So stay tuned.
See also:
Does nature just “naturally” produce life?
and
Can we solve the mystery of the origin of life by creating life in the lab? (It may come to that.)
With Enceladus the toast of the solar system, here’s a wrap-up of the origin-of-life problem
Anyway, significance and abstract:
Significance:
Evidence for carbon cycling or biologic activity can be derived from carbon isotopes, because a high 12C/13C ratio is characteristic of biogenic carbon due to the large isotopic fractionation associated with enzymatic carbon fixation. The earliest materials measured for carbon isotopes at 3.8 Ga are isotopically light, and thus potentially biogenic. Because Earth’s known rock record extends only to ~4 Ga, earlier periods of history are accessible only through mineral grains deposited in later sediments. We report 12C/13C of graphite preserved in 4.1-Ga zircon. Its complete encasement in crack-free, undisturbed zircon demonstrates that it is not contamination from more recent geologic processes. Its 12C-rich isotopic signature may be evidence for the origin of life on Earth by 4.1 Ga.
Abstract: Evidence of life on Earth is manifestly preserved in the rock record. However, the microfossil record only extends to ~3.5 billion years (Ga), the chemofossil record arguably to ~3.8 Ga, and the rock record to 4.0 Ga. Detrital zircons from Jack Hills, Western Australia range in age up to nearly 4.4 Ga. From a population of over 10,000 Jack Hills zircons, we identified one >3.8-Ga zircon that contains primary graphite inclusions. Here, we report carbon isotopic measurements on these inclusions in a concordant, 4.10 ± 0.01-Ga zircon. We interpret these inclusions as primary due to their enclosure in a crack-free host as shown by transmission X-ray microscopy and their crystal habit. Their d13CPDB of -24 ± 5‰ is consistent with a biogenic origin and may be evidence that a terrestrial biosphere had emerged by 4.1 Ga, or ~300 My earlier than has been previously proposed. (Public access .pdf) – Elizabeth A. Bella, Patrick Boehnke, T. Mark Harrison, and Wendy L. Mao
Follow UD News at Twitter!
12 Responses to UCLA researchers: Life got started shortly after planet cooled
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
as to:
Although this finding pushes the OOL back even earlier than thought, making what was already a bad situation even worse for naturalists, the extremely early origin of life on earth was already confirmed by several different lines of evidence other than the discredited 3.46 bya chert microfossils.
The origin of photosynthesis so early on earth is certainly not a minor problem for naturalists:
Of note: anoxygenic (without oxygen) photosynthesis is even more of a complex chemical pathway than oxygenic photosynthesis is:
Moreover, entire ‘microbial ecosystems’ are now found to go back at least 3.5 billion years
,,,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 third page of the preceding site, 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 irreducibly 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 an important ‘foundational’ role in the overall ecology of the biogeochemical system that must be accounted for as well.
This following study gives strong indication that the long term tectonic cycle of the entire earth and early bacterial life indeed worked in conjunction with each other:
Dr. Ross points out that the extremely long amount of time it took to prepare a suitable place for humans to exist in this universe, for the relatively short period of time that we can exist on this planet, is actually a point of evidence that argues strongly for Theism:
Verse:
Oh, bornagain77, lots of lines of evidence confirm a very early origin of life. But due to the problem of abyssal depths of time, some may get discredited, so one oughtn’t to lean too hard on one, rather on the pattern – much thanks to you for setting it out!
Another domino falls:
Surprising source for ancient life biomarker found
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_.....101915.php
Over on next big future, http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/.....fe-41.html
they are discussing this same article. They, of course, have less inherent spin than this site does, as their site is not focused on origins issues. The commenters over there seem to believe that life originating unguided on this planet has become significantly harder to believe. They seem left with panspermia or ID. Hmmm.
So instead of “primordial soup” we have “instant soup”, Yes, science has a lot of “rethinking” to do.
ppolish: So instead of “primordial soup” we have “instant soup”
The Earth’s crust formed about 4.4 billion years ago, shortly followed by an atmosphere and oceans. If the results are correct, life is about 4.1 billion years old. That means “instant soup” only took about 300 million years. You know what they say, a watched pot never boils!
Who was “watching the pot” Zachriel?
And 300 million (probably less than that) is undeniable fast per scientific consensus – “instant soup” is a better description sorry,
Zachriel, “That means “instant soup” only took about 300 million years.”
Hmmm, a week ago it was 600 million years. The time available has been cut in half. However, we still have to fit the cooling of the “just formed earth”, presumably an unimaginably hot place, into the mix. Not many millennia left. Don’t worry, your theory is in good hands. Denial is a powerful force.
As briefly pointed out in post 2, although the origin of photosynthesis so early on earth is certainly not a ‘minor’ problem for naturalists:
Although the origin of photosynthesis so early on earth is certainly not a ‘minor’ problem for naturalists/materialists, I would like to point out another ‘minor’ problem for naturalists.
Recently it has been found that photosynthesis uses quantum coherence in order to achieve such amazing energy efficiency as is displayed in photosynthesis:
The problem that quantum coherence presents for naturalists/materialists is that coherence is a ‘non-local’ effect:
The ‘minor’ problem that quantum non-locality presents to materialistic explanations is that one cannot appeal to a within space-time materialistic cause in order to explain the effect of quantum non-locality, but one is forced to appeal to a beyond space and time cause in order to explain quantum non-locality.
Moreover, the ‘minor’, non-local, problem for materialists/naturalists goes much deeper than merely photosynthesis.
In fact, it is now found that quantum non-locality is in every DNA and protein molecule.
In learning this, first it is important to learn that ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, quantum entanglement (A. Aspect, A. Zeilinger, etc..) can be used as a ‘quantum information channel’,,,
And this beyond space and time, ‘non-local’, quantum entanglement/information is now found in every DNA and protein molecule:
To say that quantum non-locality being found on such a massive scale in molecular biology is merely a ‘minor’ problem for Darwinism, as I have been doing in this post, is a gross understatement on my part. The fact of the matter is that, as far as empirical science is concerned, neo-Darwinism, as far as it is reliant on materialistic/naturalistic, i.e. atheistic, assumptions, is unquestionably falsified as a theory of science.
Whereas the Theist is doing quite well as far as the scientific evidence is concerned since the Theist has, in fact, posited a beyond space and time cause for life all along.
Verse and Music:
Lol!
You evodelusionists are amazing! A few months ago, when I told one other like you that there’s evidence that bacteria existed more than 4 billion Darwin years ago, he couldn’t tell me “you don’t understand evolution” fast enough, that and rambling about how the inferred ages of the microbes were wrong. It was quite the experience! I wonder what tune he’ll be singing now, hmm.
As for … life is about 4.1 billion years old. That means “instant soup” only took about 300 million years, says who?
This says:
Which might seem all nice and good for the typical Darwinist (missing the “began to cool” not “had already cooled. Anyways, according to this:
Which shows that you have life flourishing at >4.1 billion Darwin years ago, making me wonder whether anyone has stopped by to check on the health of the (mythical) first-cell. When did it spontaneously generate? How long did it take to “evolve” into whatever “evolved” into … “evolved” into these newly discovered microbes ( assuming they did exist) and iron oxidizing bacteria??? :-/
Are you sure <300 million years (which puts it within the time where the water would be more steam than water) is enough for the poison in the soup bowl to vanish,and the spontaneously generated molecules to spontaneously form the mythical first-cell (without, of course, the help of natural selection as prebiotic NS is contradictory) for no reason whatsoever? The story is starting to look more really absurd. Kidding! It was never not absurd, it always comes down to "older/faster/younger/slower than previously thought".
I bet this is all because "you don't understand evolution", right? 😀