Oldest land-based fossils ever discovered suggest Charles Darwin was right about the origin of life

'The discovery of potential biological signatures in these ancient hot springs in Western Australia ... may lend weight to a land-based origin of life'

Ian Johnston Science Correspondent
@montaukian
Tuesday 9 May 2017 16:00 BST

Spherical bubbles preserved in 3.48-billion-year-old rocks in the Dresser Formation in the Pilbara in Western Australia UNSW

Life on Earth could have begun on land, not in the sea, according to scientists who discovered a 3.48 billion-year-old fossil.

The fossilized bubbles and layered rock are evidence of microbes that would be the oldest known life-forms on land – beating the previous record holder by 580 million years.

Their existence supports the idea that what could have been the ultimate ancestor of all life first emerged from something akin to what Charles Darwin famously described as a “warm little pond” on land.

The fossils were found in the Dresser Formation, a series of mostly volcanic rocks in the Pilbara in Western Australia, in what would have been a hot spring when the microbes were alive.

What is believed to be the oldest known evidence of life anywhere on Earth consisted of tiny tubes that were created by bacteria some 3.77 billion years ago. The area was then a deep sea hydro-thermal vent, but is now a layer of rock in Quebec, Canada.

At this time, the Earth, which is about 4.5 billion years old, was a decidedly hostile environment, having just emerged from the ‘Late Heavy Bombardment’ by asteroids.

Tara Djokic, currently studying for a PhD at the University of New South Wales and the first author of a paper about the new fossil in the journal Nature Communications, said finding life on land nearly as old as life in the ocean was significant.

“The discovery of potential biological signatures in these ancient hot springs in Western Australia provides a geological perspective that may lend weight to a land-based origin of life,” she said.

In an 1871 letter to his friend, the botanist Joseph Hooker, Darwin wrote of how life could have started “in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia & phosphoric salts — light, heat, electricity etc present”.

But Ms Djokic said the discovery could also help pinpoint the right kind of places to look for evidence of ancient life on Mars.

“The red planet has ancient hot spring deposits of a similar age to the Dresser Formation in the Pilbara,” she said.

"Of the top three potential landing sites for the Mars 2020 rover, Columbia Hills is indicated as a hot spring environment.

“If life can be preserved in hot springs so far back in Earth's history, then there is a good chance it could be preserved in Martian hot springs too.”

The findings also moved back the known presence of life in hot springs on land by three billion years and even the existence of land itself by about 130 million years.

The fossils included layered rock structures called stromatolites, which are created by microbes, and well-preserved bubbles that appear to have been trapped in a sticky, microbial substance.

The researchers were able to tell the microbes had lived on land by the presence of geyserite, a mineral which is formed in near-boiling fluids which are rich in silica. These conditions are only known to be found in hot springs on land.

Professor Martin Van Kranendonk, also of the University of New South Wales, said: “This shows a diverse variety of life existed in fresh water, on land, very early in Earth’s history.”

He was also part of an international team that found another contender for the oldest ever life on Earth, fossil stromatolites in Greenland that were dated to 3.7 billion years ago.

An non-explanation to a never-ending debate between evolutionists and creationists, Bombastic. Somehow, I suspected you would be the first, or among the first, to respond. I much admire and prefer the following thoughts of Albert Einstein on the matter:

(For)"Science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.

For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute t***hfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors. (Albert Einstein, 1941)

But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward t***h and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. (Albert Einstein, 1941)"

Bombastic, our posts exhibit our capacity for mistakes...yours quite often. As to your question...neither you nor I, nor anyone knows for sure. It is, quite simply, a matter of/for one's Faith. I close your questioning with these two quotes:

So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it, but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code.

"The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is (or may be*) folly teaches me to suspect that mine is (or may be*) also.

*My additions to the original quote.

Oldest land-based fossils ever discovered suggest Charles Darwin was right about the origin of life

'The discovery of potential biological signatures in these ancient hot springs in Western Australia ... may lend weight to a land-based origin of life'

Ian Johnston Science Correspondent
@montaukian
Tuesday 9 May 2017 16:00 BST

Spherical bubbles preserved in 3.48-billion-year-old rocks in the Dresser Formation in the Pilbara in Western Australia UNSW

Life on Earth could have begun on land, not in the sea, according to scientists who discovered a 3.48 billion-year-old fossil.

The fossilized bubbles and layered rock are evidence of microbes that would be the oldest known life-forms on land – beating the previous record holder by 580 million years.

Their existence supports the idea that what could have been the ultimate ancestor of all life first emerged from something akin to what Charles Darwin famously described as a “warm little pond” on land.

The fossils were found in the Dresser Formation, a series of mostly volcanic rocks in the Pilbara in Western Australia, in what would have been a hot spring when the microbes were alive.

What is believed to be the oldest known evidence of life anywhere on Earth consisted of tiny tubes that were created by bacteria some 3.77 billion years ago. The area was then a deep sea hydro-thermal vent, but is now a layer of rock in Quebec, Canada.

At this time, the Earth, which is about 4.5 billion years old, was a decidedly hostile environment, having just emerged from the ‘Late Heavy Bombardment’ by asteroids.

Tara Djokic, currently studying for a PhD at the University of New South Wales and the first author of a paper about the new fossil in the journal Nature Communications, said finding life on land nearly as old as life in the ocean was significant.

“The discovery of potential biological signatures in these ancient hot springs in Western Australia provides a geological perspective that may lend weight to a land-based origin of life,” she said.

In an 1871 letter to his friend, the botanist Joseph Hooker, Darwin wrote of how life could have started “in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia & phosphoric salts — light, heat, electricity etc present”.

But Ms Djokic said the discovery could also help pinpoint the right kind of places to look for evidence of ancient life on Mars.

“The red planet has ancient hot spring deposits of a similar age to the Dresser Formation in the Pilbara,” she said.

"Of the top three potential landing sites for the Mars 2020 rover, Columbia Hills is indicated as a hot spring environment.

“If life can be preserved in hot springs so far back in Earth's history, then there is a good chance it could be preserved in Martian hot springs too.”

The findings also moved back the known presence of life in hot springs on land by three billion years and even the existence of land itself by about 130 million years.

The fossils included layered rock structures called stromatolites, which are created by microbes, and well-preserved bubbles that appear to have been trapped in a sticky, microbial substance.

The researchers were able to tell the microbes had lived on land by the presence of geyserite, a mineral which is formed in near-boiling fluids which are rich in silica. These conditions are only known to be found in hot springs on land.

Professor Martin Van Kranendonk, also of the University of New South Wales, said: “This shows a diverse variety of life existed in fresh water, on land, very early in Earth’s history.”

He was also part of an international team that found another contender for the oldest ever life on Earth, fossil stromatolites in Greenland that were dated to 3.7 billion years ago.

Science does have a staggering effect in bringing about more to consider.. I suspect it is why nothing can be taken for granted or accepted as fact.. Always challenging to learn and discover more, fascinating it is...

The intrigue also begs the question~~ Why Mars??!Why don't we concentrate on our world before measuring it against Mars ...I understand Mars is believed to be closest to Earth in atmosphere etc..But I'd still like to know what ours was?? And its impact to the Universe etc..

Do you believe these bubbles contained represent life 4 billion years ago??

This is also interesting..
"The rocks contain tantalising signs of activity such as “ancient ripple marks and piles of rock fragments deposited during an ancient storm”, Dr Allwood said.

She cautioned that structures which look similar to stromatolites can form without any living organisms, saying it had been “notoriously difficult” to establish signs of life in the few rocks that remain from the Earth’s “infancy”.

“The discovery … will no doubt also spark controversy,” Dr Allwood wrote.

“There are no organic or cellular remains … [but there] are fairly credible hallmarks of microbial activity.”

She said the discovery could have significant implications for the search for extraterrestrial life.

“If these are really the figurative tombstones of our earliest ancestors, the implications are staggering,” Dr Allwood wrote.

“Earth’s surface 3.7 billion years ago was a tumultuous place, bombarded by asteroids and still in its formative stages.

“If life could find a foothold here, and leave such an imprint that vestiges exist even though only a minuscule sliver of metamorphic rock is all that remains from that time, then life is not a fussy, reluctant and unlikely thing.

“Give life half an opportunity and it’ll run with it. Our understanding of the nature of life in the Universe is shaped by how long it took for Earth to establish the planetary conditions for life.

“Suddenly, Mars may look even more promising than before as a potential abode for past life.”

Your Welcome, slatts...

Science is amazing no doubt....Without it where we would be?? Candidly I know I look to Science for many things but also must say when I read something in research I always get the feeling it will likely change when another group studies that of the first...lolol They are trained to question, right.....

I never dismiss their studies but I do question them..Not so much in being true or not, just knowing they will ...

Do I believe what they found is life of 4 billion years, I'm not not sure but it could be..If it is, then all these theoretical dates that predate the world and life changes yet again...And since I believe God created us and from it we evolved along with the planet etc it really confounds the mind.....lolol

Science does have a staggering effect in bringing about more to consider.. I suspect it is why nothing can be taken for granted or accepted as fact.. Always challenging to learn and discover more, fascinating it is...

The intrigue also begs the question~~ Why Mars??!Why don't we concentrate on our world before measuring it against Mars ...I understand Mars is believed to be closest to Earth in atmosphere etc..But I'd still like to know what ours was?? And its impact to the Universe etc..

Do you believe these bubbles contained represent life 4 billion years ago??

This is also interesting..
"The rocks contain tantalising signs of activity such as “ancient ripple marks and piles of rock fragments deposited during an ancient storm”, Dr Allwood said.

She cautioned that structures which look similar to stromatolites can form without any living organisms, saying it had been “notoriously difficult” to establish signs of life in the few rocks that remain from the Earth’s “infancy”.

“The discovery … will no doubt also spark controversy,” Dr Allwood wrote.

“There are no organic or cellular remains … [but there] are fairly credible hallmarks of microbial activity.”

She said the discovery could have significant implications for the search for extraterrestrial life.

“If these are really the figurative tombstones of our earliest ancestors, the implications are staggering,” Dr Allwood wrote.

“Earth’s surface 3.7 billion years ago was a tumultuous place, bombarded by asteroids and still in its formative stages.

“If life could find a foothold here, and leave such an imprint that vestiges exist even though only a minuscule sliver of metamorphic rock is all that remains from that time, then life is not a fussy, reluctant and unlikely thing.

“Give life half an opportunity and it’ll run with it. Our understanding of the nature of life in the Universe is shaped by how long it took for Earth to establish the planetary conditions for life.

“Suddenly, Mars may look even more promising than before as a potential abode for past life.”

Yeah,,,, what I see in this is a reporter, making more of something than what the scientist actually said


"The fossilised bubbles and layered rock are evidence of microbes that would be the oldest known life-forms on land – beating the previous record holder by 580 million years.

Their existence supports the idea that what could have been the ultimate ancestor of all life first emerged from something akin to what Charles Darwin famously described as a “warm little pond” on land."



What the abstract said was:
"However, missing from the caldera model were surface manifestations of the volcanic-hydrothermal system (hot springs, geysers) and their unequivocal link with life......These findings extend the known geological record of inhabited terrestrial hot springs on Earth by ∼3 billion years and offer an analogue in the search for potential fossil life in ancient Martian hot springs."

What I believe they are talking about,,, (the scientists) is a couple things,,,, first,,, It is unlikely that life began in an oxygen rich environment,, oxygen is chemical that breaks down things,, not creates them,,,, (long story short),,,, however Oxygen MUST be present for life to continue (at least as we now know and understand life today) everything breathes air, and needs oxygen ,,,, even bacteria,,,,

So,,, there are now in existence,,, volcanic pools,, geyers, salt baths and even acid pools,,, that we have found now that do support life, which is different that what we would have thought,, ie "darwins warm pool",,,, in fact the pool may have been an acidic, oxygen free pool,,,, like you find on Mars,, now,,, so mars an earth have some similarities...

However, in organic chem, "similar" means nothing,,, for instance take an organic hexagonal "benzene" ring,,, it "bends a certain way due to electric forces of electrons,, and "phenyl" carbon molecules in positions around the ring.. there are 6 positions on the ring, the positions are calle iso, ortho, and meta,, Iso is right next to each other and is least stable,, ortho has a carbon between them and meta are at either ends of the molecule,,,,

In a certain chemical "polymer" if the hydrocarbons attached to the ring are together you have the fibers in your tires, "Polyarimid fibers",,,,,,, if you put them in ortho position they are now Nomex cloth, and are fireproof,,, in the meta position they are bulletproof,, and you know that substance as Kevlar...

The interesting thing,, and what my chemical point is,,, each of those substances,, contains the exact same chemicals, in the same amounts and weights,,, empirically,, they are the same chemical,,,,,,,,,very very similar..

It is the "shape" or the "arrangement,,, lattice as they say in the abstract" ie their position,,,, that makes them completely different,,,, same goes with monkey and human DNA,,,, empirically exactly the same,,, arrange them different and you get a chimp,, not a human,,,, there is no "thing" called "similar".....

Hope that kind of explains it, without putting you to sleep,,,, this is why I didnt stay in chem,, its really cool,,, but chicks DO NOT dig it.......