Jump to content
Unexplained Mysteries uses cookies. By using the site you consent to our use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy.
Close X
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
seeder

3.5 billion year fossil is oldest ever found

16 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

seeder
Quote

 

3.5 billion-year-old fossil is oldest ever sign of life identified by scientists

Critics had previously argued microfossils were just unusual shapes in the rock

In a nearly 3.5 billion-year-old piece of rock from Western Australia, scientists have identified the oldest life forms ever known.

The evidence consists of cylindrical and thread-like shapes thought to be fossilised microbes from the early days of life on Earth.

The “microfossils” have been known for over two decades, but they have been the subject of considerable controversy within the scientific community.

Critics have suggested the fossils, which are invisible to the naked eye, are just unusual shapes in the rock and not evidence of life at all.

Now, work led by Professor William Schopf, the palaeobiologist who first described the specimens in 1993, has put the matter to rest.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/oldest-sign-life-identified-fossil-3-billion-years-old-scientists-a8117011.html


 

 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Aquila King

I'm still skeptical. So sue me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orphalesion
18 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I'm still skeptical. So sue me.

Skeptical about this particular fossil or skeptical about life being that old?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
21 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I'm still skeptical. So sue me.

Skeptical about what?

If you read the article, you need to explain what bit you are skeptical about.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King

I'm not skeptical of fossils or Evolution, just scientist's supposed dating methods since there are numerous examples of discrepancies.

Plus the idea that it is a fossil and not just random rock lines. Could be, but it just as well couldn't be.

They say it's 3.5 billion years old. I'm skeptical that it really is. May be younger, may be older, who knows?

I just don't blindly accept what scientists say because they say it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
38 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

just scientist's supposed dating methods since there are numerous examples of discrepancies.

In this case there has been 10 years of research to get to these results.

Quote

The technique for analysing these tiny fossils took the scientists 10 years to develop

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/oldest-sign-life-identified-fossil-3-billion-years-old-scientists-a8117011.html

I do not understand how you are skeptical about this, you also do not accept these findings either:

Quote

You are questioning and disregarding scientific findings and yet fall for claims about telepathy etc which have not been proven. Seems odd.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
1 hour ago, Aquila King said:

I'm not skeptical of fossils or Evolution, just scientist's supposed dating methods since there are numerous examples of discrepancies.

Plus the idea that it is a fossil and not just random rock lines. Could be, but it just as well couldn't be.

They say it's 3.5 billion years old. I'm skeptical that it really is. May be younger, may be older, who knows?

I just don't blindly accept what scientists say because they say it.

They have been confirmed to be fossils of microorganisms through analysis by secondary ion mass spectometry (SIMS). Your "skepticism" would be lessened if you would read the actual paper. 

http://sci-hub.tw/http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/12/12/1718063115

Edited by Carnoferox
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
4 hours ago, freetoroam said:

In this case there has been 10 years of research to get to these results.

I do not understand how you are skeptical about this, you also do not accept these findings either:

You are questioning and disregarding scientific findings and yet fall for claims about telepathy etc which have not been proven. Seems odd.

What seems odd is how you're only a 'skeptic' when it comes to claims that contradict the current scientific establishment, yet you take the title of 'Skeptic'. Seems odd.

4 hours ago, Carnoferox said:

They have been confirmed to be fossils of microorganisms through analysis by secondary ion mass spectometry (SIMS). Your "skepticism" would be lessened if you would read the actual paper. 

http://sci-hub.tw/http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/12/12/1718063115

I did read the actual paper, and it's a paper written by scientist with the same potential biases that I've already laid out a thousand times before on here.

For god sakes people, I'm not saying I believe it to be unequivocally false, merely that I am skeptical of it. 

I guess 'skeptics' are only skeptics when it's convenient to them. Figures.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
55 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I did read the actual paper, and it's a paper written by scientist with the same potential biases that I've already laid out a thousand times before on here.

Well you certainly didn't read it before your initial comments, because it isn't open-access and wasn't available before I posted the Sci-Hub link (which bypasses the paywall). You made your judgment before even reading the paper, which doesn't strike me as being very skeptical at all.

Edited by Carnoferox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeder

well Im happy with the paperwork that these are fossils...after all, they didnt jump to any conclusions did they? From the OP

 

Quote

The “microfossils” have been known for over two decades, but they have been the subject of considerable controversy within the scientific community.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

I'm skeptical too. I thought Australia was a myth.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo

I'd like to see what the sceptical scientists have to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
12 hours ago, Carnoferox said:

Well you certainly didn't read it before your initial comments, because it isn't open-access and wasn't available before I posted the Sci-Hub link (which bypasses the paywall). You made your judgment before even reading the paper, which doesn't strike me as being very skeptical at all.

You're jumping on me because I didn't just believe it instantly upon hearing it. Tell me, how is that in any way skeptical? No, that's the opposite of skepticism.

Again, I'm not saying I don't believe it, I'm saying I have questions, reservations, that I'm skeptical of and am questionig it's authenticity. Consider it an agnostic stance if you will. But I'm not just gonna believe it merely cause it's stated by some scientist(s). That isn't skepticism, it's dogmatism and blind faith.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
5 hours ago, Aquila King said:

You're jumping on me because I didn't just believe it instantly upon hearing it. Tell me, how is that in any way skeptical? No, that's the opposite of skepticism.

Again, I'm not saying I don't believe it, I'm saying I have questions, reservations, that I'm skeptical of and am questionig it's authenticity. Consider it an agnostic stance if you will. But I'm not just gonna believe it merely cause it's stated by some scientist(s). That isn't skepticism, it's dogmatism and blind faith.

No it's because you jumped to a conclusion based on the news report alone without first reading the paper itself. Now that you've read the paper, what criticisms can you level at the methods within since you're skeptical of them? 

Edited by Carnoferox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.