Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
113 online now:
kjsimons, nwr, Tanypteryx (3 members, 110 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,031 Year: 5,143/6,534 Month: 563/794 Week: 54/135 Day: 6/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Earliest life may be up to 4.28 billion years old.
caffeine
Member (Idle past 295 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(3)
Message 4 of 16 (801004)
03-02-2017 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Stile
03-02-2017 9:58 AM


Re: Lots of rock
But that red rock, to my untrained-amateurish eyes, looks like the same red rock that covers most of Northern Ontario too.
That is... the rock dubbed The Canadian Shield.

It is, indeed, part of the Canadian Shield; as this includes some of the largest known areas of exposed Archaean rock (meaning rock more than 2,500 million years old) in the world. Found a nice map on a blog about geology. The grey bits are surface exposures of rocks formed in the Archaean. These fossils(?) were found just on the eastern edge of Hudson bay.

Edited by caffeine, : East is East


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Stile, posted 03-02-2017 9:58 AM Stile has seen this message

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 295 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 16 of 16 (867648)
11-30-2019 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by RAZD
03-18-2017 8:05 AM


Re: Links and Information is not a debate forum
I happened to read an article yesterday which reported that this discovery had been shown to be likely the result of volcanic activity and nothing to do with bacteria. I went to dig out the source of this claim, in D. Wacey, M. Saunders, and C. Kong, ‘Remarkably preserved tephra from the 3430 Ma Strelley Pool Formation, Western Australia: Implications for the interpretation of Precambrian microfossils’, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, vol. 487, pp. 33–43, Apr. 2018..

In defence of the idea that the Canadian discovery was volcanogenic in origin, they invited me to compare their fig 2c, with fig 2e from the original paper. I have done so below.

I can't honestly say this exercise has left me feeling particularly enlightened.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2017 8:05 AM RAZD has seen this message

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022