Evidence of Earliest Life Disputed

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-earliest-life0524may24.story?coll=sns%2Dap%2Dpolitics%2Dheadlines ^ | PAUL RECER

[Dallas]

WASHINGTON --

A conclusion that a 3.85-billion-year-old rock contains evidence of life may be in error, according to a study that suggests the rock formed at temperatures too torrid to make life possible.

A study published in 1996 concluded a band of rocks on the Greenland offshore island of Akilia contained a high ratio of the isotope carbon-12, which was interpreted as evidence for the presence of microscopic life billions of years ago.

But the new study, by Christopher M. Fedo, a George Washington University geologist, and Martin J. Whitehouse of the Swedish Museum of Natural History, concludes the Akilia deposit was formed from superheated melted rock and that the enriched levels of carbon-12 could have been caused by chemical action, not by some life form.

"Our conclusion is that the rock came from a source that was molten, like a volcanic fountain," said Fedo, first author of the study released Friday in the journal Science. "The temperatures of molten rock would be far in excess of anything living. Therefore, any carbon in there got there by some other process."

The original study suggested that the rocks were sedimentary and therefore formed at temperatures cool enough to permit life. The interpretation that the rocks contained evidence of life was based on the ratio between carbon-12 and carbon-13. Living things, such as microbes, extract carbon from the environment and tend to concentrate carbon-12 instead of the heavier carbon-13. As a result, deposits that once contained life may be enriched with carbon-12.

But Fedo said geologists are now recognizing non-biological actions can enrich rocks with carbon-12, which means that, by itself, the isotope cannot be absolute proof for the evidence of life.

"These non-biological processes are consistent with the kinds of rocks exposed on this island," said Fedo. "The rocks are not sedimentary and were formed from a molten state. Any carbon trapped in there would have come from a later process. Also, we know that carbon-12 occurs in this type of rock."

Fedo said that if his interpretation is accepted, it will mean that a sedimentary rock formation on the mainland of Greenland may contain the oldest known evidence of life on Earth.

That formation, located at Isua, has been dated at 3.7 to 3.8 billion years old, only slightly younger than the formation on the island.

"The sedimentary origin (of the rocks at Isua) is important because that is consistent with the temperature range of liquid water, and liquid water and life are closely linked," said Fedo.

Gustaf Arrhenius of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at University of California, San Diego, a co-author of the 1996 study, said his team is doing a new examination of the Akilia rock formation and "believe there is much basis for a careful reconsideration."

"If it is true, as Fedo interpreted it, then it is a mystery still how the isotopic ratio was achieved," said Arrhenius. He conceded, however: "It is not impossible that there are non-biologic mechanisms."

* __

On the Net:

Science: www.sciencemag.org

Copyright © 2002, The Associated Press

[nimdoc]

placemark

[Mr. Lucky]

Doubtless, all public high school biology text books will be immediately rewritten to correct this boo boo.

[jlogajan]

What? I thought you creationists said scientist just make up facts and will never accept new evidence. Here it looks like scientists always seem willing to follow where the evidence leads. It sure isn't creationists doing the researh.

As I always say, science can be wrong for decades, but the Bible is wrong forever.

[Mr. Lucky]

What does any of this have to do with the Bible? In this instance, convention has been shown to be in error and should be corrected.

The fact that you immediately hurl insults would suggest that, perhaps, you should cut back by a couple of cups of coffee a day.

[MeekOneGOP]

But the new study, by Christopher M. Fedo, a George Washington University geologist, and Martin J. Whitehouse of the Swedish Museum of Natural History, concludes the Akilia deposit was formed from superheated melted rock and that the enriched levels of carbon-12 could have been caused by chemical action, not by some life form.

"Our conclusion is that the rock came from a source that was molten, like a volcanic fountain," said Fedo, first author of the study released Friday in the journal Science. "The temperatures of molten rock would be far in excess of anything living. Therefore, any carbon in there got there by some other process."

Let's build a Time Machine and find out for SURE !

How'd He Build That?
Click Here !

[parsifal]

This guy must have a lot of time on his hands. parsy.

[AndrewC]

Fine tuning ping.(up to 150 million years worth)

[Gumlegs]

Oh come on. What's 150 million years among friends?

[Protagoras]

As I always say, science can be wrong for decades, but the Bible is wrong forever.

Your bias is showing.

The bible is always right. Which is not to say that all interpretations of what is in it are correct.

[AndrewC]

The fact that you immediately hurl insults would suggest that

He worships anti-god. I suppose he is angry at God for not answering his every whim. Whatever the reason, he is sure to attack God and the Bible. He uses "liars for Christ, I tells ya" frequently. In any case, characteristically science will always be wrong or cease to be science.

[ThinkPlease]

Doubtless, all public high school biology text books will be immediately rewritten to correct this boo boo.

Depends. My old high school bio text wasn't all that new when I was in high school...ten years old, if I remember correctly. These results are only a few years old at most. They probably never made it into one.

[jlogajan]

The bible is always right. Which is not to say that all interpretations of what is in it are correct.

Given the second, how can you assert the first?

[jlogajan]

He uses "liars for Christ, I tells ya" frequently.

Well, I'd like to use it frequently, but I've been informed from above that only non-Christian bashing is allowed on this forum. So I have to be more circumspect.

[jlogajan]

Don't creationists usually attribute the existence of dinosaur fossils and the like to "The Devil" (in his neverending desire to deceive us)?

I imagine some do. I've also heard them claim it was a test by God -- he plants all this convincing evidence around and then sees if you fall for it, or for a story handed down by goat herders. He's such a kidder.

I do get a kick out of fundies' claims about who is going to everlasting hell -- Jews, Hindus, Islamics, pagans, atheists, CATHOLICS -- just about everyone -- except them. More of that Godly test stuff. Here's the deal though -- lots of these other religion believers have never even seen the alternative, so they just get to go to hell in a fatalistic manner. No possibility on their part to elect an alternative. What a great God they believe in.

[far sider]

Don't creationists usually attribute the existence of dinosaur fossils and the like to "The Devil" (in his neverending desire to deceive us)?

Surely, you're kidding! I have never heard a Creationist say anything like that. They all say say that dinosaur fossils are from Noah's flood. Surely, you are not that uninformed.

[jlogajan]

He worships anti-god.

No more than I worship anti-Spider-Man, or anti-Athena, or anti-Thor, or anti-Santa Claus. Mythical creatures all.