Log in

View Full Version : Life on Mars? Fossil find shows it's possible



Nothing Human Is Alien
22nd August 2011, 20:02
LONDON (Reuters) - Scientists have found Earth's oldest fossils in Australia and say their microscopic discovery is convincing evidence that cells and bacteria were able to thrive in an oxygen-free world more than 3.4 billion years ago.

The finding suggests early life was sulphur-based -- living off and metabolizing sulphur rather than oxygen for energy -- and supports the idea that similar life forms could exist on other planets where oxygen levels are low or non-existent.

"Could these sorts of things exist on Mars? It's just about conceivable. This evidence is certainly encouraging and lack of oxygen on Mars is not a problem," said Martin Brasier of Oxford University, who worked on the team that made the discovery.

The microfossils, which the researchers say are very clearly preserved and show precise cell-like structures, were found in a remote part of western Australia called Strelley Pool.

In a study published in the journal Nature Geoscience on Sunday, Brasier's team explained that the tiny fossils were preserved between the quartz sand grains of the oldest shoreline known on Earth in some of the oldest sedimentary rocks ever discovered.

"We can be very sure about the age as the rocks were formed between two volcanic successions that narrow the possible age down to a few tens of millions of years," he said. "That's very accurate indeed when the rocks are 3.4 billion years old."

By analyzing the fossils, the rocks they were found in and the surrounding environment, the scientists have built a picture of Earth at this time as a hot, murky, violent place where there was a high and constant threat of volcanic eruptions and meteor strikes.

The sky would have been cloudy and grey, keeping the heat in even though the sun would have been weaker than today, and the oceans would have been around 40-50 degrees Celsius -- the temperature of a hot bath.

Most significantly, there was very little oxygen around since there were no plants or algae to photosynthesize and produce it, Brasier explained in a telephone interview.

"It's a rather hellish picture," he said. "Not a great place for the likes of us. But for bacteria, all of this was wonderful. In fact, if you were to invent a place where you wanted life to emerge, the early Earth is exactly right."

The researchers are now using the techniques and approaches they used in this study to re-examine other fossil finds that scientists have suggested may also contain evidence for very early life on Earth.

Kornilios Sunshine
24th August 2011, 14:57
Interesting.Lately I have seen tons of threads on other forums(out of RevLeft) about how life would be on Mars.There is a 2000 movie, Red Planet, it is awesome and I recommend you watch it.It shows actually how some astronauts survived on Mars.(not all of them)

thefinalmarch
24th August 2011, 15:23
There is a 2000 movie, Red Planet, it is awesome and I recommend you watch it.It shows actually how some astronauts survived on Mars.(not all of them)
its a disappointing work of fiction

rollshevik
25th August 2011, 03:58
it is certainly possible, there is still water on the planet. In fact we could even make it habitable one day, but that is a long, long way off.

ÑóẊîöʼn
25th August 2011, 04:21
PZ Myers (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/08/a_questions_about_those_ancien.php) wrote something related that I thought interesting:


A questions [sic] about those ancient bacterial fossils…

Category: Fossils • Organisms
Posted on: August 24, 2011 5:16 PM, by PZ Myers

Both Jerry Coyne (http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/08/23/newly-found-the-worlds-oldest-fossils/) and Larry Moran (http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2011/08/oldest-cells.html) have good write-ups on the recent discovery of what are purportedly the oldest fossil cells, at 3.4 billion years old. I just have to add one little comment: a small, niggling doubt and something that bugs me about them. All the smart guys are impressed with this paper, but this one little thing gives me pause.

I'm a microscopist — I look at micrographs all the time, and one of the things I always mentally do is place the size of things in context. And I was looking at the micrographs of these fossils, and what jumped out at me is how large they are. They're not impossibly large, they're just well out of the range I expect for prokaryotes.

Most prokaryotes have diameters in the range of 1-10µm, while typical eukaryotes are about 10 times that size. There are exceptions: Thiomargarita gets up to 500µm across, so like I say, there's nothing impossible about these cells, it's just that the micrographs show lots of cells with 10-30µm diameters. And the authors come right out and report that:

The size range is also typical of such assemblages, with small spheres and ellipsoids 5-25 µm in diameter, rare examples (<10) of larger cellular envelopes up to 80 µm in diameter, and tubes 7-20 µm across (see ref. 24).

How odd. When I poke into the nervous system of an embryonic insect or fish, those are the sizes of cells I often see (well, except there aren't many tubes of that size!). When I poke into a culture or embryo contaminated with bacteria, they're much, much smaller. So maybe paleoarchaean bacteria tended to be larger? And they do cite a source for that size range of prokaryotes…

Then here's a new problem: the source cited, ref. 24, is the Schopf paper, the older paper that claimed to have found ancient bacterial fossils, a claim that has since been discredited! Uh-oh. What they're calling "typical of such assemblages" is a data set that's widely considered artifactual now. Furthermore, that's a simplified version of what Schopf said — he actually broke the sizes down into categories, and the range was more like 1-30 µm.

- Very small solitary, paired or clustered rods (ca 0.75 µm broad, ca 1.5 µm long), inferred to be prokaryotic (bacterial) unicells: one unit (ca 2600 Myr old), one morphotype.

- Small, solitary, paired or clustered coccoids (average diameter ca 3 µm, range ca 2-5 µm), inferred to be prokaryotic (bacterial, perhaps cyanobacterial) unicells: three units (range 3320-2600 Myr old), three morphotypes.

- Large solitary or colonial coccoids (average diameter ca 13 µm, range ca 5-23 µm), inferred to be prokaryotic (bacterial, perhaps cyanobacterial) unicells: three units (range 3388-2560 Myr old), four morphotypes.

- Narrow unbranched sinuous filaments (average diameter ca 1.25 µm, range ca 0.2-3 µm), with or without discernable septations, inferred to be prokaryotic (bacterial, perhaps cyanobacterial) cellular trichomes and/or trichome-encompassing sheaths: 10 units (range 3496-2560 Myr old), 17 morphotypes.

- Broad unbranched septate filaments (average diameter ca 8 µm, range ca 2-19.5 µm), inferred to be prokaryotic (perhaps cyanobacterial) cellular trichomes: four units (range 3496-2723 Myr old), 10 morphotypes.

- Broad unbranched tubular or partially flattened cylinders (average diameter ca 13 µm, range ca 3-28 µm), inferred to be prokaryotic (perhaps cyanobacterial) trichome-encompassing sheaths: five units (range 3496-2516 Myr old), five morphotypes (e.g. figures 3a-e and 4l).

So Schopf was reporting larger cells in his older samples, and now Wacey et al. are describing what look like very large cells to me in their 3.4 billion year old rocks. I'm not a microbiologist so I could be way off on this, but…isn't this just a little bit strange? Maybe there are some micro people out there who can reassure me that this isn't a surprising result.

Wacey D, Kilburn MR, Saudners M, Cliff J, and Brasier MD (2011) Microfossils of sulphur-metabolizing cells in 3.4-billion-year-old rocks of Western Australia. Nature Geoscience Published online Aug. 21, 20110 [doi:10.1038/ngeo1238]