3 ms·
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
by 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 agoRight, 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]