ydoaPs Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 is pretty cool, IMO. Is this a new-ish discovery? I've never heard of it before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 its not half rock have plant, it is neither. it's bacterial skyscrapers. i don't agree with his comment that it is a transitional fossil of non-life to life. its a rock made out of bacterial waste. its a bit like looking at faeces and saying its a transitional fossil between rocks and humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghstofmaxwll Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 He got the looks and sound of a fruit loop, but talks evolution. Het het het het Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted November 22, 2007 Author Share Posted November 22, 2007 i don't agree with his comment that it is a transitional fossil of non-life to life. its a rock made out of bacterial waste. its a bit like looking at faeces and saying its a transitional fossil between rocks and humans. I think he was trying to say that the bacteria in these rocks were working together and in close quarters. He may have been saying that this is a stepping stone to multicellularity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 I think he was trying to say that the bacteria in these rocks were working together and in close quarters. He may have been saying that this is a stepping stone to multicellularity. not the impression i got from 4:30 - 5:00 (roughly) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted November 22, 2007 Author Share Posted November 22, 2007 not the impression i got from 4:30 - 5:00 (roughly) Like I said, that's just what I got from the video. I know almost nothing about biology(compared the the American public, I'd be an expert, though). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 i'm not a biology expert either but solid waste from some bacteria/animal/plant tends not to be a transitional fossil to that species. evidence that some form of life existed there: yes, transitional fossil: no. i mean he specifically says 'what better transitional fossil could you ask for' reffering to life from non-life. even though the case is life to non-life. it could have been made clearer and more accurate. anyway, i'm off to make a transitional fossil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted November 22, 2007 Author Share Posted November 22, 2007 If he meant what I thought he meant, then these rocks would be fossils of the transition from singlecellular to multicellular life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 well the bacteria are still single cell organisms in the stromatolyte(sp?) it was only after the oceans became habitable due to the oxygen production of the stromatolytes that multi cellular life formed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDarwin Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 well the bacteria are still single cell organisms in the stromatolyte(sp?) it was only after the oceans became habitable due to the oxygen production of the stromatolytes that multi cellular life formed. Stromatolite* Stromatolites are interesting as the first colonial organisms, but I don't know that they represent much more than that in the way of transitional forms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edtharan Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 This is pretty cool, IMO. Is this a new-ish discovery? I've never heard of it before. Stromatolites have been know about for many years. They have been turning up in fossils in the flints used in flint lock guns. In Western Australia there is even a bay where there are literally thousands of them. It is not a new discover at all. Just because you haven't heard of it before and now you have does not mean that it is a new discovery. Watch the series "Life on Earth" by David Attenborough, he covers the Stromatolites in one of the episodes. The bacteria in the Stromatolites produce a material that glues the individual bacteria together. Because it is a kind of glue, this also traps particles of dirt and rock too. In a way, they form a bit like the plaque on your teeth. Both are produced by bacteria. In the case of Stromatolites, however, they also pick up junk from around them (like dirt and rock). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeonBlack Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 So the oceans were some kind of aqueous iron metal solution before stromatolites? I know almost nothing about evolution or geology, but the little chemistry I know tells me that that's not quite right. What I heard was that there was iron oxide in the ocean and bacteria reduced the iron, which allowed it to precipitate. I also agree with I_a that this guy did present some misleading statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucaspa Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 So the oceans were some kind of aqueous iron metal solution before stromatolites? No. You didn't read the posts: "The bacteria in the Stromatolites produce a material that glues the individual bacteria together. Because it is a kind of glue, this also traps particles of dirt and rock too. In a way, they form a bit like the plaque on your teeth. Both are produced by bacteria. In the case of Stromatolites, however, they also pick up junk from around them (like dirt and rock)." Dirt and rock. Not iron. I have not seen any data on the early ocean having a lot of iron. However, dissolved oxygen will react with iron to form iron oxide. Nor is calcium carbonate a byproduct of photosynthesis. Also, this is NOT a "transitional" species. The speaker is very confused about his science. The valid part is that the earliest fossils we have are of single-celled organisms. This contradicts creationism and is supports evolution. In creationism, the Flood would have mixed all the fossils together so that we would find multicellular organisms in all the layers of the fossil record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeonBlack Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 I have not seen any data on the early ocean having a lot of iron. You didn't listen to him. ...green oceans. Why were they green? Because they had a lot of iron in them. And when you have iron rich water, it's green. What the hell is he talking about then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucaspa Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 You didn't listen to him. "...green oceans. Why were they green? Because they had a lot of iron in them. And when you have iron rich water, it's green. " What the hell is he talking about then? I have no idea. Somewhere he got the idea that the oceans had a lot of iron in them. Then he extrapolated that to make a logical inference that they were green. IOW, he worked backwards, He obviously has not seen the early oceans, so he hasn't seen that they were green and then worked out the reason they were green. He must work in the other direction: know first the early ocean had a lot of iron and then deduce that, therefore, they were green. The assertion "the oceans were green" is just that -- an assertion. It's not data. For data we would need some geological data and he doesn't provide that. Perhaps layers of iron oxide that precipitated from the early ocean? The only geological data he presents is stromatolites and they are data of microrganisms being present 3.8 billion years ago. Only that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticLance Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 It appears that there is a pre-Cambrian period in which iron oxide is gradually precipitated. A rather long period - one billion years. The interpretation is that this happened after the first photosynthesizing bacteria appeared - of which stromatolites are the only ones to leave clear fossil imprints. Iron was in some other form, and was converted to iron oxide by free oxygen from the photosynthesis. It is suggested from this observation that after the first appearance of photosynthesizing bacteria, it took a billion years before the Earth's atmosphere had much free oxygen at all. My authority on this is the great David Attenborough; so it has GOT to be correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now