4 ms·

So these are probably the oldest living organisms in existence then, huh? I'm not aware of anything that's older than 42000 years, but I'd be amazed to be wrong

So these are probably the oldest living organisms in existence then, huh? I'm not aware of anything that's older than 42000 years, but I'd be amazed to be wrong :)

dredmorbius 8y ago
Spores in amber and salt deposits have been revived after 40 and 240 million years, respectively. There are colonial organisms over 40,000 years old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-living_organisms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-living_organis... http://www.sciencemag.org/content/268/5213/1060 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/268/5213/1060 http://www.extremescience.com/OldestLivingThing.htm http://www.extremescience.com/OldestLivingThing.htm
- vkou 8y ago
  There are many reasons to doubt that the '240 million year old bacteria' were actually 240 million years old. https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/18/6/1143/1046940 https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/18/6/1143/1046940
  - dredmorbius 8y ago
    True, though even without those, we're well past 42,000 years.
    - vkou 8y ago
      It's not noise, it's contamination with modern bacteria.
      - dredmorbius 8y ago
        http://science.sciencemag.org/content/268/5213/1060 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/268/5213/1060 Amber. 42mya.
        vkou 8y ago
        Given how many times claims such as these have been brought under question, and how easy it is to make a mistake in this discipline, a single, uncorroborated publication is insufficient evidence. Truly extraordinary claims require truly extraordinary evidence, and this one smells fishy, too. [1] > Our interpretation of the phylogenetic tree constructed from 16S rRNA sequences (fig. 1b and SI table 3) suggests that isolates 41_AG11AC7 and 46_AG11AC9a are likely Staphylococcus species, which are not known to sporulate and are also common microorganisms on the human skin. > The authors also fail to present negative control sequences to confirm that the DNA sequences presented within this study are not the results of laboratory or reagent contamination, rather than contamination that likely occurred in 1995 They didn't even do any control runs to calibrate their experiment! Sounds like junk science to me. [1] https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/femsle/353/2/10.1111_1574-6968.12415/1/353-2-85.pdf?Expires=2147483647&Signature=KbKl2BeFo8FO3x~sqPvLkTpKLXFs1BR6leKVXdi30bawH--jRpIUOgIRBqhGYyUym~docz-1ycZajLRY9Z-bh~OCzGb4LAYa1GjWVPbAdk~YkdUFdSH--rOyTbAquG17IdM1X8dOJhElPgARNF0l-Trl0UHfqVyvuILea-9y-vUi7uiIe~Z03ehXuLvf-yDSuuLJGEM3cdzIrwMt2RO1-8Ou~1b4z70GllVw9HEHT7zlEiY~v8elYqjNNZxOHTYryV3115EnNgyQqUym0xXrYQ0Fy1gBRmjC8s6JDT9VZO0RV2-AUbsLRHtVXqpH4ihdjcKH8uhl09EEkNBLikSkKg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/...
pvaldes 8y ago
Marine colonial cnidarians could theoretically fight also for that title, but the oldest alive Black corals are dated "only" 4000 years old or so.

So these are probably the oldest living organisms in existence then, huh? I'm not aware of anything that's older than 42000 years, but I'd be amazed to be wrong :)

dredmorbius 8y ago

Spores in amber and salt deposits have been revived after 40 and 240 million years, respectively. There are colonial organisms over 40,000 years old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-living_organisms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-living_organis... http://www.sciencemag.org/content/268/5213/1060 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/268/5213/1060 http://www.extremescience.com/OldestLivingThing.htm http://www.extremescience.com/OldestLivingThing.htm

vkou 8y ago
There are many reasons to doubt that the '240 million year old bacteria' were actually 240 million years old. https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/18/6/1143/1046940 https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/18/6/1143/1046940
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  True, though even without those, we're well past 42,000 years.
  - vkou 8y ago
    It's not noise, it's contamination with modern bacteria.
    - dredmorbius 8y ago
      http://science.sciencemag.org/content/268/5213/1060 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/268/5213/1060 Amber. 42mya.
      - vkou 8y ago
        Given how many times claims such as these have been brought under question, and how easy it is to make a mistake in this discipline, a single, uncorroborated publication is insufficient evidence. Truly extraordinary claims require truly extraordinary evidence, and this one smells fishy, too. [1] > Our interpretation of the phylogenetic tree constructed from 16S rRNA sequences (fig. 1b and SI table 3) suggests that isolates 41_AG11AC7 and 46_AG11AC9a are likely Staphylococcus species, which are not known to sporulate and are also common microorganisms on the human skin. > The authors also fail to present negative control sequences to confirm that the DNA sequences presented within this study are not the results of laboratory or reagent contamination, rather than contamination that likely occurred in 1995 They didn't even do any control runs to calibrate their experiment! Sounds like junk science to me. [1] https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/femsle/353/2/10.1111_1574-6968.12415/1/353-2-85.pdf?Expires=2147483647&Signature=KbKl2BeFo8FO3x~sqPvLkTpKLXFs1BR6leKVXdi30bawH--jRpIUOgIRBqhGYyUym~docz-1ycZajLRY9Z-bh~OCzGb4LAYa1GjWVPbAdk~YkdUFdSH--rOyTbAquG17IdM1X8dOJhElPgARNF0l-Trl0UHfqVyvuILea-9y-vUi7uiIe~Z03ehXuLvf-yDSuuLJGEM3cdzIrwMt2RO1-8Ou~1b4z70GllVw9HEHT7zlEiY~v8elYqjNNZxOHTYryV3115EnNgyQqUym0xXrYQ0Fy1gBRmjC8s6JDT9VZO0RV2-AUbsLRHtVXqpH4ihdjcKH8uhl09EEkNBLikSkKg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/...

pvaldes 8y ago

Marine colonial cnidarians could theoretically fight also for that title, but the oldest alive Black corals are dated "only" 4000 years old or so.