3 ms·

The discoverer of the previous oldest fossil (3.48B years) suggests that this find may not be organic in origin. Would be nice if other experts had been interv

The discoverer of the previous oldest fossil (3.48B years) suggests that this find may not be organic in origin. Would be nice if other experts had been interviewed on that possibility, since there could potentially be some bias there. Edit: perhaps "organic" was a poor choice of words. My meaning was that she disputed the claim that the artifact is in fact a fossil created by life, and suggested that it might be a geological formation of some sort instead.

Practicality 10y ago
I am not sure what the relevance would be. Are you using the term "organic" as in biological, or as in carbon-based? In either case, what would it mean if it wasn't organic?
- scott_s 10y ago
  I believe tempestn is referring to the end of the article, where the scientist who found the previously oldest fossil says it may not actually be a fossil: The dating seems about right, said Abigail Allwood, a NASA astrobiologist who found the previous oldest fossil, from 3.48 billion years ago, in Australia. But Allwood said she is not completely convinced that what VanKranendonk's team found once was alive. She said the evidence wasn't conclusive enough that it was life and not a geologic quirk. "It would be nice to have more evidence, but in these rocks that's a lot to ask," Allwood said in an email.
  - tempestn 10y ago
    Right, yes. I don't know anything about this person, but certainly there are people out there who would be biased against having their little place in history overshadowed by a new discovery, perhaps even unconsciously. Not saying she is biased, just that it would be nice to see the opinions of some other experts, not involved in the discovery. In fact, even if it were a completely unbiased third-party opinion it would still be nice to have more than one, since as a lay-person I'm currently left with no idea how likely it is that this is in fact evidence of early life.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- pyre 10y ago
  In the article the term "organic" isn't used at all: > The dating seems about right, said Abigail Allwood , a NASA > astrobiologist who found the previous oldest fossil, from > 3.48 billion years ago, in Australia. But Allwood said she is > not completely convinced that what VanKranendonk's team found > once was alive. She said the evidence wasn't conclusive enough > that it was life and not a geologic quirk. > > "It would be nice to have more evidence, but in these rocks > that's a lot to ask," Allwood said in an email.
- yesbabyyes 10y ago
  While it has already been cleared out, I would just like to point to this, from wiktionary: organic ‎(comparative more organic, superlative most organic) 1. (biology) Pertaining to or derived from living organisms.
  - scoot 10y ago
    "cleared up", but yes, this is exactly what I took from OP's use of the term 'organic'.
    - Practicality 10y ago
      I suppose I was hopeful that it was silicon based life :)
mturmon 10y ago
That previous fossil-finder (Abigail Allwood) wrote the overview article (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature19429.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/natu...) introducing the Nature paper that is the subject of the OP. Her overview emphasizes the significance of this finding for exo-life, linking the finding to recent discoveries of ancient water, lakes, and streamflows on Mars, rather than the caveats. The more general news-based article in Nature (http://www.nature.com/news/claims-of-earth-s-oldest-fossils-tantalize-researchers-1.20506 http://www.nature.com/news/claims-of-earth-s-oldest-fossils-...) has several experts checking in with caveats.
- tempestn 10y ago
  Perfect, thanks.
zipwitch 10y ago
Or perhaps made from some strange matter, alien to understanding? (What does a fossilized Great Old One look like, anyway? Would it still be alive?)
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Practicality 10y ago

I am not sure what the relevance would be. Are you using the term "organic" as in biological, or as in carbon-based? In either case, what would it mean if it wasn't organic?

scott_s 10y ago
I believe tempestn is referring to the end of the article, where the scientist who found the previously oldest fossil says it may not actually be a fossil: The dating seems about right, said Abigail Allwood, a NASA astrobiologist who found the previous oldest fossil, from 3.48 billion years ago, in Australia. But Allwood said she is not completely convinced that what VanKranendonk's team found once was alive. She said the evidence wasn't conclusive enough that it was life and not a geologic quirk. "It would be nice to have more evidence, but in these rocks that's a lot to ask," Allwood said in an email.
- tempestn 10y ago
  Right, yes. I don't know anything about this person, but certainly there are people out there who would be biased against having their little place in history overshadowed by a new discovery, perhaps even unconsciously. Not saying she is biased, just that it would be nice to see the opinions of some other experts, not involved in the discovery. In fact, even if it were a completely unbiased third-party opinion it would still be nice to have more than one, since as a lay-person I'm currently left with no idea how likely it is that this is in fact evidence of early life.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
pyre 10y ago
In the article the term "organic" isn't used at all: > The dating seems about right, said Abigail Allwood , a NASA > astrobiologist who found the previous oldest fossil, from > 3.48 billion years ago, in Australia. But Allwood said she is > not completely convinced that what VanKranendonk's team found > once was alive. She said the evidence wasn't conclusive enough > that it was life and not a geologic quirk. > > "It would be nice to have more evidence, but in these rocks > that's a lot to ask," Allwood said in an email.
yesbabyyes 10y ago
While it has already been cleared out, I would just like to point to this, from wiktionary: organic ‎(comparative more organic, superlative most organic) 1. (biology) Pertaining to or derived from living organisms.
- scoot 10y ago
  "cleared up", but yes, this is exactly what I took from OP's use of the term 'organic'.
  - Practicality 10y ago
    I suppose I was hopeful that it was silicon based life :)

mturmon 10y ago

That previous fossil-finder (Abigail Allwood) wrote the overview article (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature19429.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/natu...) introducing the Nature paper that is the subject of the OP. Her overview emphasizes the significance of this finding for exo-life, linking the finding to recent discoveries of ancient water, lakes, and streamflows on Mars, rather than the caveats. The more general news-based article in Nature (http://www.nature.com/news/claims-of-earth-s-oldest-fossils-tantalize-researchers-1.20506 http://www.nature.com/news/claims-of-earth-s-oldest-fossils-...) has several experts checking in with caveats.

tempestn 10y ago
Perfect, thanks.

zipwitch 10y ago

Or perhaps made from some strange matter, alien to understanding? (What does a fossilized Great Old One look like, anyway? Would it still be alive?)

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]