Slashdot Mirror


World's Oldest Fossils Found On Australian Beach

sciencehabit writes "Researchers say they have discovered the fossils of 3.4-billion-year-old cells in between the cemented sand grains of an ancient beach in Western Australia, possibly the oldest fossils ever found (abstract). Chemical analyses of the minerals near the cells suggest the microorganisms depended on sulfur for fuel. Such a beach might have been life's first breeding ground, one author says."

80 comments

  1. They just left it laying there? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2

    That was careless. You'd think people would pay more attention to their fossils.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:They just left it laying there? by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Funny

      If they were Australian fossils, that's probably just where they happened to pass out.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  2. It all makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Those "Life's a Beach" bumper stickers at least

  3. She was only 58 by ciderbrew · · Score: 0

    That's what years in the Sun does to your skin!

  4. Re:Life's first breeding ground? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    No. This is science, not mythology.

  5. Sulfur? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the work of the devil I tell you!

  6. Well, not quite fossils by Lucas123 · · Score: 1

    Just some old retirees who've pruned up with too much sun.

  7. Closer and closer to the earliest chance by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    TFA notes that this work was done by Martin Brasier's team and that Brasier has generally been a strong critic of a lot of the claims about early fossilized life. That may be strong evidence that this claim should be taken seriously. However, there have been times before where scientists have criticized claims coming from other groups even as they've made nearly identical claims. It looks like Brasier et al. have done much more careful chemical work than some of the other early life claims which makes this look promising but this probably won't be completely clear until a bit more work by other groups is done. It is also important to note that it is extremely unlikely that we are finding the very first life. Most likely, life had to be pretty common already in order for it to have a decent chance to leave fossils. This means that one can tentatively guess that life arose at least a few million years before when these fossils were formed.

    We keep pushing farther and farther back in time when life arose on Earth. This is important since it helps us figure out just how likely life is to arise in general. The argument goes that if life is easy to start then we should expect to see life arise soon after heavy bombardment of Earth begins. And that's what we do seem to be seeing. This suggests that life may be plentiful. There's a substantial very recent argument against this line of reasoning by David Spiegel and Edwin Turner http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-astrophysicists-logic-downplay-probability-extraterrestrial.html. Spiegel and Turner argued that if it generally takes a lot of time to get intelligent life to develop then intelligent life will have an observer bias since it will only arise on the planets where life started very early. This means that seeing life early on in our history might be something which we should expect even if life arises really rarely.

    1. Re:Closer and closer to the earliest chance by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      And in a unrelated story, Leasiure World Celebrates "A Day At the Beach."

    2. Re:Closer and closer to the earliest chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Spiegel and Turner's argument based on observer bias leaves out other key necessary events leading to intelligence, most notably multicellularity and the emergence of large, complex (eukaryotic) cells. After the origin of life, it took at least 2 billion years to make this major leap in complexity to eukaryotes, and over 1 billion years after that until multicellular, developmentally complex (e.g., metazoan) organisms evolved. As these two necessary events are singular, unlikely, and highly contingent on specific existing physiologies and selective pressures (i.e., there was nothing stopping something like eukaryotes from emerging much, much earlier if the right endosymbioses happened), then the 4 billion years that have passed before the emergence of intelligence largely reflects the rarity of these events, and does nothing to inform us about the minimum necessary time for intelligence to emerge, or the abundance of life expected in the universe. Additionally, the role of mass extinctions in severely diminishing biodiversity and curtailing the largest, most successful groups of animals during each event also cause an over-estimation of necessary time to technological intelligence, with the observed time, even since multicellularity emerged, being largely a product of the frequency and intensity of these random events.

      Take home message: Evolution is both a mechanistic and historical science, and one has to take both kinds of processes into account to draw any general conclusions from the timing of events.

      IAAEBAPS (I am an evolutionary biologist and planetary scientist).

       

    3. Re:Closer and closer to the earliest chance by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "...life had to be pretty common already..."

      How are you talking about our forefathers?
      We were the best yellow slime on the beach!
      Not like that red or green one.

    4. Re:Closer and closer to the earliest chance by Latinhypercube · · Score: 0

      I think that they have reached THE WRONG CONCLUSION. If life arose immediately after the late heavy bombardment, and considering the discovery of similar evidence of cells on meteorites, isn't it just as likely that life was seeded to Earth ? It is astronomically UNLIKELY that the first cells evolved within a million years of the end of the bombardment. As stated, it then took billions of year for those cells to evolve into eukaryotes and multi-cellular organisms. It is FAR MORE PROBABLE that the first cells evolved out in the infinite expanses of the universe, carried to Earth by comets. Why ? Because statistically an extremely improbable event ie. the first cells, becomes far more possible when you situate it in a infinite expanse of hydrocarbons, energetic chemical reactions, near infinite resources, and comparatively static environments (compared to Earth when it was hell). If single cell life could have evolved on a volcanic Earth, without oxygen, within a few million years, then the entire universe would be teaming with life, multiple bio-genesis. Multiple bio-genesis would mean a near infinite number of intelligent species, which there obviously are not (no radio signals). My belief if that bio-genesis is extremely rare and has perhaps happened only once, at least in this galaxy. However, once it occurred it was able to spread via comets. This seems to be a solution to why single cell life arose so QUICKLY after the late heavy bombardment AND why there has been NO SECOND GENESIS ON EARTH.

    5. Re:Closer and closer to the earliest chance by euroq · · Score: 1

      What is a second genesis, and how would you observe that one has or hasn't happened?

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    6. Re:Closer and closer to the earliest chance by Latinhypercube · · Score: 0

      I'm not a biologist, but by using the term 'second genesis' I am referring to a separate start point for another tree of life on Earth, ie. one that is not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor . There is no evidence for it. Which is odd, because using the premise of this article and current thinking, that bio-genesis started on Earth, shouldn't there be more evidence of it happening ? If a genesis was possible on Earth within a million years of the late heavy bombardment, then why is there no evidence of multiple parallel trees of life ? I have heard arguments that highly evolved bacterial life would wipe out any other bio-genesis. But considering some of the extreme environments we have found bacteria thriving in, it is entirely plausible to expect a second bio-genesis to have happened in one of these environments at some point in the earths history, after the bombardment.

    7. Re:Closer and closer to the earliest chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This work was actually done by David Wacey at The University of Western Australia. If you look at the paper itself Martin Brasier was the LAST author of the work. While he may have contributed to this paper the work should be correctly sited as Wacey et al. and not Brasier et al.

    8. Re:Closer and closer to the earliest chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just in case we _are_ the only planet in the universe with life on it, isn't it about time we started seeding other planets with life in case our planet is destroyed? That way even if we don't survive, _something_ has a chance to survive.

    9. Re:Closer and closer to the earliest chance by symbolset · · Score: 2

      It did happen. It happens every year. Each year perfectly ordinary chemicals in saline solution create a precursor to life. Unfortunately as yet they all suffer from the same fatal flaw: they're delicious.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    10. Re:Closer and closer to the earliest chance by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Just a perfect example of your average IT mindset. Have to create those off-site backups of your DNA. Can't just reproduce here on Earth.

  8. probably wasn't a beach... by Sebastopol · · Score: 0

    4.5 billion years ago... just sayin'. Heck, I don't even think there was liquid water yet. I am not a geologist.

    --
    https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    1. Re:probably wasn't a beach... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I am not a geologist.

      Good thing.

    2. Re:probably wasn't a beach... by Tr3vin · · Score: 4, Informative

      The fossils were from a sedimentary formation that was most likely a beach. They date back to 3.4 billion years ago and there is evidence that large amounts of water existed as far back as 4.4 billion years.

    3. Re:probably wasn't a beach... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      4.5 billion years ago, probably not. At least not for long, any water probably getting vaporized by gigantic collisions on a regular basis. But by 4.4 billion years ago, there is evidence for detrital (i.e. eroded on the surface and redeposited) zircon mineral grains in what are now highly metamorphosed sedimentary rocks. The original rocks did not survive unaltered from that period, but the recycled zircons did, implying there had to be some process to erode them from the rock in which they initially crystallized and redeposit them, likely water. Refer to this web page and this paper. They're kind of technical, so good luck if you don't have some familiarity with geology and isotope geochemistry, but if you google "cool early Earth hypothesis", you'll find more general accounts from media reports too. It's fair to say that these interpretations are relatively new and thus tentative, but if they are correct it would mean the Earth wasn't the completely lava-covered hell that most geologists used to think it was when they named the pre-4-billion-year period of its history the Hadean Era. So, you have the right idea and it's a legitimate question to wonder whether there was water so early, but the science has changed in recent years.

      By 3.4 billion years (the estimated age of these new fossils), there's plenty of unambiguous evidence for oceans having been around for quite a while before.

    4. Re:probably wasn't a beach... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I may be wrong, but it was my impression that cool early earth theory today has a more substantial body of evidence than hot early earth (in particular, clear signs of plate tectonics during the period) - so shouldn't it be considered a default theory these days?

    5. Re:probably wasn't a beach... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a bit of a judgment call these days. I would still call it a hypothesis, although it is the current thinking. There is plenty of argument about the exact form that plate tectonics took in the Archean (2500 to 4000 million years ago), let alone the Hadean (4000-4600Ma), but, yes, there is increasing evidence for plate tectonics being in operation further back than traditionally thought.

      You have to realize: it is hard enough figuring things out way back in the Precambrian generally, but prior to ~3 billion years ago rocks get increasingly rare, and by the time you get to about 4 billion years or so you run out of rocks entirely (current record), and you are trying to infer what is going on from younger rocks that preserve a few mineral grains derived from even older rocks, like the zircons previously mentioned. The Earth was a very active place back then, and it's tough for rocks (or minerals) to get preserved from that time intact. Continents move around, mountain ranges get built and worn down, rocks get melted. It's kind of like you've mixed up all the ingredients for a cake, baked it, flattened it, rolled it up, baked it again, chopped it up and left it in the rain, scooped it up and baked it yet again. Then you're trying to figure out what kind of cake the first one was and the circumstances of its formation. It's not impossible (maybe you've managed to find bits of pineapple or something), but it's very challenging. So the earliest history of the Earth is always going to be a bit blurry compared to the later history where we have much more information. If the Earth settled down early in its history like the Moon did, or if tectonics waned away over time like on Mars, then we'd probably have plenty of rocks left in pristine condition from the first half billion years to look at. But the Earth is geologically a very active place compared to other terrestrial planets, so it eventually erases a lot of the earlier evidence.

      I guess the bottom line is, yes, it is the "current theory" these days, but given how hard it is to resolve what is going on in the 4000-4500Ma range it probably should be regarded as a hypothesis until additional evidence backs up the results. There are papers that question some of the assumptions of the original paper, such as this one, and that support it in other ways, both of which unfortunately aren't open-access and are very technical. Anyway, I'd say the jury is still out even if it seems increasingly likely to be correct.

  9. Obligatory Rupert Murdoch mention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Possibly Dame Edna..Paul Hogan..

  10. Errata by vtcodger · · Score: 3, Informative

    They are fossils OF a beach, not fossils ON a beach -- More specifically what appear to be fossil remains of microbes that lived in beach sand.

    --
    You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    1. Re:Errata by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      More specifically what appear to be fossil remains of microbes that lived in beach sand.

      Like Jersey Shore?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Errata by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      I'm possibly the only living entity in North America who doesn't have the slightest idea what Jersey Shore is (other than a town in central Pennsylvania a few kilometers South of Williamsport.) I hope to keep it that way.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
  11. Mars has lots of sulfur by mbone · · Score: 2

    If Mars has a biology, it may involve sulfur a lot more than the Earth's does, so this is very interesting from the standpoint of seeding life between the two planets.

    1. Re:Mars has lots of sulfur by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If Mars has a biology, it may involve sulfur a lot more than the Earth's does, so this is very interesting from the standpoint of seeding life between the two planets.

      Or it just might be that hot sulfur conditions might be a good way to start life rolling. Convergent evolution.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Mars has lots of sulfur by StripedCow · · Score: 1

      Or it just might be that hot sulfur conditions might be a good way to start life rolling

      Just like carbon compounds are good catalysts for silicon-based life.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
  12. Remnants of some Aliens' lunch by schwit1 · · Score: 1

    ET was here billions of years ago and didn't bother cleaning up after his picnic. Or it could be his athletes foot fungus.

    1. Re:Remnants of some Aliens' lunch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ET was here billions of years ago and didn't bother cleaning up after his picnic. Or it could be his athletes foot fungus.

      Could be, whitefood.

    2. Re:Remnants of some Aliens' lunch by laejoh · · Score: 1

      Any chance that ET were a cone-shaped cephalopod being?

    3. Re:Remnants of some Aliens' lunch by Pope · · Score: 1

      That would explain the large orange goo in Alaska recently!

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  13. Was it Rolf Harris? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well was it?

  14. Nitpicking by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    Maybe you meant they are fossils of an organism living IN a beach? I guess it was too small to be ON it anyhow.

  15. Rick Perry says... by The+Great+Pretender · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Yet another indication of the lying liberal media trying to desecrate our young childrens minds with scientific theory". He then went on to submit emergency legislation to designate Australia as imaginary, all fossils (now and to be discovered) as fake and scientists as the devil incarnate. After this his poll ratings climb 5 points in South Carolina.

    --
    A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    1. Re:Rick Perry says... by prefec2 · · Score: 3, Funny

      He cannot make Australia an imaginary island as his friend and propaganda minister Rupert Murdoch was born there. However, he could move to Mesopotamia and be closer to paradise. At least god made every thing just there 6000 years ago. Sulfur eating lifeforms are definitely from hell. Therefor the entrance to hell must be somewhere in Australia. Wouldn't that be a superb plot for a new Hollywood series?

    2. Re:Rick Perry says... by The+Great+Pretender · · Score: 1

      Sulfur eating lifeforms are definitely from hell. Therefor the entrance to hell must be somewhere in Australia.

      Love it!

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    3. Re:Rick Perry says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that makes Rupert Murdoch...

    4. Re:Rick Perry says... by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Perry is less scary than Bachmann? Uh-Huh... Kunstler aptly described him with his usual snark as "akin to George W. Bush without the burden of intellect". Maybe I missed something about Bachmann, who appears to be nothing more than a Palin clone with more focus to me, but, hell, that is scary enough for me.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    5. Re:Rick Perry says... by Pope · · Score: 1

      Sulfur eating lifeforms are definitely from hell. Therefor the entrance to hell must be somewhere in Australia. Wouldn't that be a superb plot for a new Hollywood series?

      Buffy, the barbie slayer?

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    6. Re:Rick Perry says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at least HE can balance a checkbook properly. Beats the current guy you got there.

    7. Re:Rick Perry says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why in the hell would South Carolina care about Rick Perry?

    8. Re:Rick Perry says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, less scary than Bachmann IMHO. For just one example, Bachmann asserted that she would not vote to increase the debt ceiling regardless of any other concern (and she kept that promise). Keep in mind that raising the debt ceiling allows us to keep commitments we've *already* made, so she was essentially saying that it's OK for us to skip out on our bills. And yes, she's been defending her position by pointing to a bill she had introduced that was supposed to avoid default, but I haven't seen an independent confirmation of it's efficacy (seems very unlikely), and it's irrelevant since it had no chance of passing and she was well aware of that.

      For another, Bachmann promised that as president she'd ensure $2/gallon gas. Regardless of Perry's lack of apparent intellect, he hasn't said anything that fundamentally stupid yet. Inflammatory, yes; completely stupid, no, not yet (but plenty of time left, sure). I'm not counting "evangelical stupidity" because there's a lot of that going around; we sort of expect it from Republicans these days. Her $2 gas promise is orthogonal to her religious convictions, so it stands out.

      So to my mind, Perry is slightly less scary, kind of like Loki being less scary than Satan and Sutekh. To be clear, I never said he wasn't scary; they all are, except possibly Huntsman. I haven't really examined Huntsman, but I haven't heard anything horrible from him yet. What a sad metric - level of horror.

      - T

    9. Re:Rick Perry says... by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      We can hope this is the end of the republican party. But I am not that optimistic. Even if it is, I doubt that it will result in a 1 party democrat system. There is division among the democrats between the conservatives and moderate progressives, that could form the basis of new and better parties.

    10. Re:Rick Perry says... by khallow · · Score: 1

      We now know who the current scary Republican contender of the week is. Maybe you should use some of that brainpower to understand why people like Perry get elected to high positions, say like President of the US. It's not just "the electorate is dumb and hidebound", but also "the opposition is worse". The Republicans offer Perry while the Democrats currently can only offer Obama.

    11. Re:Rick Perry says... by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      How is Obama worse? He is a really good republican president. I can see why the liberals hate him.

    12. Re:Rick Perry says... by khallow · · Score: 1

      How is Obama worse? He is a really good republican president. I can see why the liberals hate him.

      I don't get this. It's like you don't know who Obama is, what he's done, what his beliefs are, who he appoints, or the political obstacles that, thankfully, have pummeled him into submission. Don't get me wrong. I don't oppose him merely because he's incompetent, liberal, arrogant and rude to the point of idiocy, or destructive to US interests, present and future. But primarily, I oppose Obama because he is one of the most dishonest presidents the US has ever had. I'd put him above Nixon since Obama has hidden much of his past, lied in a blatant way, and routinely commits ethical lapses that should have him removed from office (my current beef is with the federal prosecutor that is trying Jamie Avila, he has a blatant conflict of interest, removal of conflicts of interest in the service of justice are part of a president's obligation).

      My concern however is that he will prove to be an undeserved gift to the incoming Republican president just as four years earlier G. W. Bush was an undeserved gift for Obama.

    13. Re:Rick Perry says... by hazydave · · Score: 1

      And I think Mr. Murdoch may have actually been that fossil in question...

      --
      -Dave Haynie
    14. Re:Rick Perry says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't hope that it would be the end of the Republican party, but rather that it would snap it back to some resemblance of sanity. It would be nice to disagree with them on issues of substance rather than intractable positions of folly.

      A couple of presidential cycles ago I though that there might be a good chance of one or both major parties splitting into 3 or 4 viable parties, but I no longer hold out hope for that. Republicans are slowly making themselves to be of little consequence, and Democrats will stick together at least long enough to see that happen. Well, that's how things look to me now.

      The minor parties, even the Libertarians, are making no real headway because IMHO they're going about it the wrong way. They give undue focus to the office of the President, while providing lackluster (or laughable) local and state candidates. They're trying to grow top-down instead of bottom up, and I believe that simply won't work.

      I think a viable third party is not in the cards for us any time soon. And FWIW, I think my original post didn't deserve the downmod either. Fortunately, ACs can't lose karma...

      - T

    15. Re:Rick Perry says... by hazydave · · Score: 1

      It does seem that stupid sells, in the Republican Primary anyway.

      I wonder how this all shakes out. There have got to be some old-timey behind-the-scenes guys, like Cheney and that crowd, who are looking at 2012 right now as a real chance to re-take the White House, and these nut jobbers as the only thing likely to keep them out.... other than an actual economic recovery in the next 14 months. Given all those jobs that simply don't exist here anymore, and the state of Congress, I wouldn't put money on that.

      On the other hand, anyone who does win in 2012 would have the same basic problem Obama had: things are so messed up, no one's got a clue how to fix them. Being screwed up, both fiscally and politically, is no longer a reaction to something (unfunded wars, the bank collapse, the auto industry collapse, etc) but simply the new norm. But boom times, at least, if you're in political comedy.

      The big difference: I think Obama had some idea he didn't know how to fix things, but naively believed he could work with Congress and advisers to get there, and was open to the challenge anyway. I think the vast majority of these Republican wing-nuts haven't the slightest clue how the US economy functions. It's the typical social conservative mode: what you don't know is fully explained by dogma. In this case, the dogma of St. Reagan ... tax cuts cure all. Even a Federal income problem. I'm not sure Obama and the Democrats have much of a clue either, and I'm pretty sure if they had THE ANSWER, and maybe the cures for Aids, Cancer, Heart Disease, and Aging, they'd still manage to conceed all relevant parts of those plans to the Republicans even before negotiations began. But this crop of Republicans (also not sure about Huntsman)... their child-like under-understanding of real world issues is not going to provide any help here.

      And I wouldn't count Perry out just yet in that race to idiocy. I think he's got a better political machine in place than Bachmann... and after the whole Palin debacle, any of these folks who doesn't have their candidate on a short leash deserves the public ridicule they'll inevitably face. Bush without intellect, indeed.

      --
      -Dave Haynie
    16. Re:Rick Perry says... by benhattman · · Score: 1

      oh for a mod point.

    17. Re:Rick Perry says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is, we call it Brisbane

    18. Re:Rick Perry says... by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      Yeah, figures in a ledger book are more important than ppl suffering. Except if you're at war!

    19. Re:Rick Perry says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Translation: Obama's a secret Muslim born in Kenya who never went to Harvard!

    20. Re:Rick Perry says... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Consider how many teeth had to be pulled just to prove the above statement was false. It's not Obama's place to selectively hide his history from the public, especially for records that legitimately demonstrate proof that he fills the qualifications for president (such as his birth certificate) or would be used in a job interview (such as academic records).

    21. Re:Rick Perry says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well he is clearly a convict and therefore a criminal, and all criminals are liars, but he'd know I'm thinking that and tell the truth to trick me, but really I know that he knows I knew he was a liar all along...

  16. Move them to the Athabasca oil fields by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    "Chemical analyses of the minerals near the cells suggest the microorganisms depended on sulfur for fuel"
    If we find them alive, move them to Athabasca oil fields in Canada - http://vimeo.com/6547387

  17. Jurassic Shore by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

    The fossils were from a sedimentary formation that was most likely a beach. They date back to 3.4 billion years ago and there is evidence that large amounts of water existed as far back as 4.4 billion years.

    Does this suggest that beaches existed at least that old, and therefore, Jersey Shore is therefore explainable by evolution with its muscle bound, reptilian inhabitants?

    --
    I8-D
    1. Re:Jurassic Shore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, these ancient creatures were already much more sophisticated, billions of years ago having the common sense to occupy an ancient beach in Australia rather than New Jersey.

    2. Re:Jurassic Shore by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      No Jersey Shore proves that evolution does not necessarily favor intelligence but rather traits that enhance survivability. In this case, tanning and alcohol drinking requirements of New Jersey has weeded out the pasty and the lightweights.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:Jurassic Shore by Tr3vin · · Score: 1

      ... has weeded out the pasty and the lightweights.

      Hey now, I resemble that remark!

  18. Beaches are common for breeding... by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

    ...especially in the presence of the ancient dried form of the life form Cannabis.

    --
    I8-D
  19. And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... he's trying to censor the web...

  20. And then... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    ...they got back on the cruise ship! Hey-oh!

  21. It was later identified as only... by DarthVain · · Score: 2

    Paul Hogan.

    G'day Mate!

  22. Sulfur was fuel or Death Bed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Chemical analyses of the minerals near the cells suggest the microorganisms depended on sulfur for fuel"

    I would suggest that the sulfur that killed them, for if the sulfur was fuel then why did they die?

    1. Re:Sulfur was fuel or Death Bed? by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      I would suggest that the sulfur that killed them, for if the sulfur was fuel then why did they die?

      Things die. It's how it goes. Sulfur is a pretty common fuel amongst anaerobes. Pretty good substitute for oxygen, if you need some chemical energy gradient to suck your energy from. I'd have to look it up, as palaeobiology is not my forte, but at the time this fossils originate from, we should have been under pretty heavy anaerobic conditions, so sulfur looks like food in that context.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  23. So THAT'S where.... by superdave80 · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...Bob Dole retired to. I was wondering why I hadn't seen him in a while.

  24. He was on vacation by Herkum01 · · Score: 1

    Rubert Murdoch was vacation AND he was from Australia, what is the big deal?

  25. Is this the same region by rossdee · · Score: 2

    That they found stromatolites ? Previously thought to be the oldest fossils.. I remember seeing them on various Discovery/NatGeo shows (and probably the original Cosmos, and Attenborough documentaries.

  26. Re:Life's first breeding ground? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

    So Eden, then?

    You have VERY clearly never been to Port Hedland.

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  27. Interesting geological find.... by Marble68 · · Score: 1

    I seem to remember that the tectonic plate in that region is about to begin a downward slope into the Pacific?

    Do we know if the plate where Australia resides moves any slower or faster than others?

    --
    /me sips his coffee and ponders a new sig...
  28. World's Oldest Fossil Found On Australian Beach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My first question would be, why was Joan Rivers on the beach in the first place?