On 9/14/2025 at 4:30 PM, Imagine Everything said:

Maybe life came from the asteroid itself.

This popped up in my feed yesterday.

https://phys.org/news/2025-09-life-impact-discovery-links-microbial.html

With the paper here.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-63603-y

Edited September 19Sep 19 by pinball1970
Paper added

15 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

This popped up in my feed yesterday.

https://phys.org/news/2025-09-life-impact-discovery-links-microbial.html

With the paper here.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-63603-y

That is very interesting.

Makes me think of these things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade

https://www.astronomy.com/space-exploration/what-happened-to-those-tardigrades-sent-to-the-moon/

Thanks @pinball1970

Edited September 19Sep 19 by Imagine Everything

On 9/19/2025 at 8:33 AM, pinball1970 said:

This popped up in my feed yesterday.

https://phys.org/news/2025-09-life-impact-discovery-links-microbial.html

With the paper here.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-63603-y

I've skimmed this and can't work out why it is important.

It seems to be about the colonisation of a meteorite impact crater created ~80m years ago, i.e. some time in the Cretaceous, by the terrestrial micro-organisms that were around at the time. Why is that of interest?

Sounds unsurprising to me. Already existing air and water borne micro-organisms (and macroscopic ones too) will very rapidly re-colonise a disturbed environment.

A meteorite creating a hydro-thermal vent system where none previously existed is more interesting but wouldn't there would have to be hot rocks or magma there? An existing aquifer but no surface vents? Would the existing underground water have life in it?

I am imagining shattering of rock strata that allows water to flow where it hadn't before, releasing and extending existing aquifers (which may have inflows of life-contaminated water from elsewhere) or perhaps a crater would be a catchment for rain that carries microorganisms down the fissures, even creating a new aquifer where none had existed in hot rock.

Edited September 20Sep 20 by Ken Fabian

12 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Sounds unsurprising to me. Already existing air and water borne micro-organisms (and macroscopic ones too) will very rapidly re-colonise a disturbed environment.

A meteorite creating a hydro-thermal vent system where none previously existed is more interesting but wouldn't there would have to be hot rocks or magma there? An existing aquifer but no surface vents? Would the existing underground water have life in it?

I am imagining shattering of rock strata that allows water to flow where it hadn't before, releasing and extending existing aquifers (which may have inflows of life-contaminated water from elsewhere) or perhaps a crater would be a catchment for rain that carries microorganisms down the fissures, even creating a new aquifer where none had existed in hot rock.

Having reread it, I think the point may be to do with the protracted existence of hydrothermal systems in the rocks shattered by the impact, in this case apparently for >1m yrs. They seem to be suggesting that systems like this, generated by meteorite impact rather than vulcanism, may have created conditions for the emergence of life on Earth.

I suppose this could be interesting to connect with previous findings that biochemical building blocks, such as the nitrogenous heterocyclic bases used by RNA, have been found in meteorites. One would need to account for how these rare chemicals came to be present in exactly the same - also rare - environments on the early Earth that were suitable for biochemistry to develop.

But this is just me attempting to join the dots. The paper itself does not really explain why these findings are significant, and nor does the Phys Org article (which exhibits zero journalism, being just a reprint of the university’s press release.)

A team from Linnaeus University in Sweden has uncovered compelling evidence that microbial life colonized the 78-million-year-old Lappajärvi impact structure in western Finland after the meteorite struck, establishing itself in the hydrothermal system born from the collision.

Only 78 million years BP ?

What's the big deal ?

Surely there was plenty of life of all sizes on the planet from the very large to the very small at this date.
So why wouldn't it have recolonised after impact ?

4 hours ago, studiot said:

Only 78 million years BP ?

What's the big deal ?

Surely there was plenty of life of all sizes on the planet from the very large to the very small at this date.
So why wouldn't it have recolonised after impact ?

Well yes that’s the puzzle. But see my previous post for a possible (tentative) explanation.

It looks to me like another of these cases in which Phys Org simply reproduces a press release from the research organisation, which has been written by someone who doesn’t understand the point of the research.

Phys Org doesn’t do any journalism, it just collates press releases, apparently.

Edited September 21Sep 21 by exchemist

@exchemist I seem to recall suggesting precursor chemical rich meteorites impacting in shallow seas and near hydro thermal vents might be significant to abiogenesis in another thread - but I'm struggling to find my older content in this version of the forum.

Whilst that occurred to me independently I think it seems kinda obvious - over hundreds of billions of years such coincidences become more likely than not to happen.

On 9/21/2025 at 4:51 PM, exchemist said:

Phys Org doesn’t do any journalism, it just collates press releases, apparently.

Ill have a look

3 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

Ill have a look

Wiki says it’s just a news aggregator.

I’ve found in the past articles they have published in which some PR person has written a press release without understanding the science. I think with Phys Org it’s pretty important to look at the actual paper, not just the press release.

23 hours ago, exchemist said:

Wiki says it’s just a news aggregator.

I’ve found in the past articles they have published in which some PR person has written a press release without understanding the science. I think with Phys Org it’s pretty important to look at the actual paper, not just the press release.

I posted the paper!

4 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

I posted the paper!

Sure, and I read it, or at least the abstract and the discussion. But that didn’t seem to explain the significance of the research and nor did the university press release. All rather baffling.

(My comment about Phys Org was just meant to be a general observation that as (I now realise) it isn’t a magazine with articles written by science journalists, one is on one’s own if the press release is unclear so recourse to the actual paper - as supplied by you in this instance - is the only route.)

On 9/24/2025 at 9:41 PM, exchemist said:

Sure, and I read it, or at least the abstract and the discussion. But that didn’t seem to explain the significance of the research and nor did the university press release. All rather baffling.

(My comment about Phys Org was just meant to be a general observation that as (I now realise) it isn’t a magazine with articles written by science journalists, one is on one’s own if the press release is unclear so recourse to the actual paper - as supplied by you in this instance - is the only route.)

Ok I had another look.

Firstly though, a word about phys.org. As you said this just reports on the science of that day across multiple disciplines.

Two things that are good about it, its focus is current publications, these are commented on literally that day and they always provide a link to the paper.

Sometimes there is no paper because they are reporting on an article only, usually "the conversation" or "Universe today," something like that and cite the original article.

Sometimes the article is very good, gets to the heart of the matter and they include interviews by the lead author, or one of the scientists connected with the study.

All good.

Sometimes the article is not good, has mistakes and can be even self contradictory. From the articles I have read though, this is in the minority.

Ok, so the paper itself!

From the intro.

"Using micro-scale isotopic techniques, we provide direct evidence of microbial colonization during the waning stages of the IGH system of this terrestrial impact structure. This research has significant implications for the hypothesis that impact craters serve as hot spots for microbial colonization on Earth and, by analogy, on other planetary bodies."

4 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

Ok I had another look.

Firstly though, a word about phys.org. As you said this just reports on the science of that day across multiple disciplines.

Two things that are good about it, its focus is current publications, these are commented on literally that day and they always provide a link to the paper.

Sometimes there is no paper because they are reporting on an article only, usually "the conversation" or "Universe today," something like that and cite the original article.

Sometimes the article is very good, gets to the heart of the matter and they include interviews by the lead author, or one of the scientists connected with the study.

All good.

Sometimes the article is not good, has mistakes and can be even self contradictory. From the articles I have read though, this is in the minority.

Ok, so the paper itself!

From the intro.

"Using micro-scale isotopic techniques, we provide direct evidence of microbial colonization during the waning stages of the IGH system of this terrestrial impact structure. This research has significant implications for the hypothesis that impact craters serve as hot spots for microbial colonization on Earth and, by analogy, on other planetary bodies."

Yes but that is "colonisation", i.e. by existing life forms. And who cares if crashed meteorites on other planets may be similarly colonised, by life forms that happen to exist there? It would be amazing if that did not happen and the crash sites remained forever sterile. This seems to have bugger all to do with abiogenesis. So I'm left wondering why any of this is of much interest.

Regarding Phys Org itself, what I'm saying is that it seems it does not "comment" at all in its "articles". These articles are simply regurgitated press releases, from the organisation announcing the results of the research. That's why they are quick. There are no authors for these articles and apparently no journalistic input. They don't employ any reporters. They simply republish collections of the days' press releases. The quality of each piece is thus 100% due to whoever at the institution drafted the press release. Sometimes these are good and at other times lousy, drafted by some PR person with no science training.

So in the instance in question there is no attempt to put this piece of research into any broader context and one is left wondering what significance it has.

I'm not dismissing Phys Org's usefulness. Timely reporting of the day's press releases is handy. But we should recognise it for what it is.

Edited October 4Oct 4 by exchemist

The paper cites other impact sites and associated ancient microbial fossilisation but mentions the difficulty linking those two events directly.

"Microbial sulfate reduction (MSR) leads to low δ³⁴S values in the produced hydrogen sulfide, as ³²S_sulfate is favored over ³⁴S_sulfate ref. ³². Pyrite formation following MSR inherits the sulfur isotopic signature of the precursor hydrogen sulfide³³, making δ³⁴S in pyrite a common marker for MSR in ancient environments^{e.g. 34}. The low minimum δ³⁴S value of −31.9‰ (Fig. 3a) in the lower impact melt rock section is thus interpreted to reflect MSR"

Their claim is that the presence of these particular signatures at the site, could only be explained by microbial activity, which in turn is a direct result of the features created by the impact.

Sorry that was supposed to be one post.

37 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Yes but that is "colonisation", i.e. by existing life forms.

Ok this is a little tricky as I am flicking between the site and the paper on my tablet. What I should have done was print the paper and make notes as I am not familiar with a lot of the terms, it's a technical paper after all.

I am not sure why they can put the events together if separated by these time periods or why those features could not have housed existing microbes.

Hydrothermal vents and the connection to Abiogenesis is not new, I am not sure if you have read any Nick Lane or Wachtershauser and his iron sulphur world theory?

If nothing else for me, this has emphasized the importance of understanding what a paper is claiming i.e. understanding the paper sufficiently before citing it!

1 hour ago, pinball1970 said:

The paper cites other impact sites and associated ancient microbial fossilisation but mentions the difficulty linking those two events directly.

"Microbial sulfate reduction (MSR) leads to low δ³⁴S values in the produced hydrogen sulfide, as ³²S_sulfate is favored over ³⁴S_sulfate ref. ³². Pyrite formation following MSR inherits the sulfur isotopic signature of the precursor hydrogen sulfide³³, making δ³⁴S in pyrite a common marker for MSR in ancient environments^{e.g. 34}. The low minimum δ³⁴S value of −31.9‰ (Fig. 3a) in the lower impact melt rock section is thus interpreted to reflect MSR"

Their claim is that the presence of these particular signatures at the site, could only be explained by microbial activity, which in turn is a direct result of the features created by the impact.

Sorry that was supposed to be one post.

Ok this is a little tricky as I am flicking between the site and the paper on my tablet. What I should have done was print the paper and make notes as I am not familiar with a lot of the terms, it's a technical paper after all.

I am not sure why they can put the events together if separated by these time periods or why those features could not have housed existing microbes.

Hydrothermal vents and the connection to Abiogenesis is not new, I am not sure if you have read any Nick Lane or Wachtershauser and his iron sulphur world theory?

If nothing else for me, this has emphasized the importance of understanding what a paper is claiming i.e. understanding the paper sufficiently before citing it!

Yes these chemical details are presumably how they estimate the rate of colonisation and the types of organism (e.g sulphate reducing bacteria) involved.

But my original question remains: why is this significant?

They could be suggesting that it could be hydrothermal systems created by meteorite impact, rather than by vulcanism, that provided the conditions for abiogenesis. That was my speculation in the fifth post in the thread. But they don't say.

Maybe we just take it for what it is and move on.