3.46-Billion-Year-Old 'Fossils' Were Not Created By Life Forms

sciencehabit writes: What are the oldest fossils on Earth? For a long time, a 3.46-billion-year-old rock from Western Australia seemed to hold the record. A 1993 Science paper (abstract) suggested that the Apex chert contained tiny, wormy structures that could have been fossilized cell walls of some of the world's first cyanobacteria. But now there is more evidence that these structures have nothing to do with life. The elongated filaments were instead created by minerals forming in hydrothermal systems, researchers report (abstract). After the minerals were formed, carbon glommed on to the edges, leaving behind an organic signature that looked suspiciously like cell walls.

Comments

Re:Baptists are already writing this week's sermon

[garyisabusyguy]

More like the Church of Robotology now that there is conclusive evidence that machines were first and created all life

Suck it meatbags!

Re:Baptists are already writing this week's sermon

[quenda]

Nothing has been overturned here. Just a question settled, perhaps.

Full disclosure: the lead author is Martin Brasier, who just happens to be the guy who discovered slightly younger 3.4 billion year old fossils just 20km away.

http://news.sciencemag.org/201...

Re:Baptists are already writing this week's sermon

[Dutch Gun]

Ah, so no possibility of any confirmation bias there, of course.

I really hate it when headlines declare something like this as a fact, when clearly everyone involved is just promoting competing theories. The headline should really read 3.46-Billion-Year-Old 'Fossils' May Not Have Been Created By Life Forms. Just because someone published a paper disputing one theory and promoting another doesn't mean we can automatically assume it to be factual.

Re:FIrst post for fossils

[pitchpipe]

And to think, you're the successful product of 3.5 billion years of evolution. I guess this is proof that not every branch or individual is viable.