Could sulfur-based microbes live on Mars?
Posted 08.21.2011 at 1:01 pm
19 Comments
Oldest Fossils
This cluster of cells is one example of the spheroidal and ellipsoidal microfossils found at the 3.4-billion-year-old Strelley Pool Formation in Western Australia.
David Wacey/University of Western Australia
Clusters of islands poked through hot oceans 3.4 billion years ago, when the world still had no oxygen and the seas churned under a pallid, overcast sky. But life thrived on Earth even then, scientists say — and now they have the world’s oldest fossils to prove it.
There were no plants or algae to photosynthesize and produce oxygen, so microbial life used sulfur for energy and growth, researchers say. Microfossils of these earliest microbes extend the sandstone record of life on Earth by about 300 million years.
Related Articles
Tags
Science, Rebecca Boyle, archaea, Australia, fossils, microbial life, microfossils, oldest, paleontology, prehistoric, sulfur, university of oxford, University of Western AustraliaSulfur-based bacteria exist today, in places like hydrothermal vents and hot springs. And early Archaean rocks have shown evidence for ancient sulfur-based metabolism as early as 3.5 billion years ago, but fossils of these sulfur-based life forms have been difficult to find and even more difficult to verify. Now researchers at UWA and the University of Oxford believe their newest find passes the test.
The fossils consist of carbonaceous cells and the protective sheaths that housed them. They were found in the Strelley Pool Formation, an outcropping of sedimentary rocks in a remote field in western Australia that represents the oldest shoreline on the planet. The fossils were well-preserved between the quartz sand grains of the ancient beach, the researchers say.
The fossils resemble other, well-studied microfossils from 2 billion years ago, the researchers say. They were found clustered in groups, stuck to sand grains in appropriate habitats, and they were even found with pyrite (fool’s gold), which may be byproducts of their sulfur metabolism.
The Strelley Pool Formation: David Wacey/University of Western Australia
Researchers used Raman spectroscopy, high-resolution transmission electron microscopy and geochemical analysis to show the fossils indeed contain carbon-based material and that it was not the result of some later contamination. Writing in this week’s edition of Nature Geoscience, they acknowledge it is notoriously difficult to prove the biological nature of putative Archaean-era fossils — but they have several pieces of evidence in this case, including the fossils’ mineralogy and morphology.
Incidentally, the same Oxford team has studied other ancient fossils from a site 20 miles away and considered them not good enough. Those fossils, from the Apex chert in Australia, didn’t have the right mineralogy and shapes for them to be of biological origin, according to an Oxford news release about the Strelley Pool fossils. But these fossils do.
The researchers are now re-examining other fossils using the same methods, trying to determine if they also might contain evidence for life.
And, they say, they’re thinking about the implications this study may have on astrobiology. If life does exist — or did exist — elsewhere in the solar system, it might look something like this. The researchers’ careful evidence tests could be used to figure it out.
“Could these sorts of things exist on Mars? It’s just about conceivable,” said Martin Brasier, a professor of paleobiology at Oxford. “But it would need these approaches – mapping the chemistry of any microfossils in fine detail and convincing three-dimensional images – to support any evidence for life on Mars.”
Microfossils of Sulfur-Metabolizing Bacteria: The fossil cells were found clustered in groups and attached to sand grains. The middle cell in this image has a ruptured wall. David Wacey/University of Western Australia
19 Comments
To comment, please Login.
Popular Tags
Science
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 2013: American Energy Independence
Five amazing, clean technologies that will set us free, in this month's energy-focused issue. Also: how to build a better bomb detector, the robotic toys that are raising your children, a human catapult, the world's smallest arcade, and much more.
Popular on Popsci
Most Commented
Science
- Scientists Create First Cloned Human Embryo
- State Drops Charges Against High School Student Arrested For Science Experiment
- Dear Schools: Stop Treating Science-Curious Kids Like Criminals
- Mexican Cartels Control Pot Farms As Far North As Washington State
- Buzz Aldrin Wants To Send People On A One-Way Trip To Mars
- Giving White People The Illusion Of Darker Skin Makes Them Less Racist
- Space Tourism's Black Carbon Problem
- What Modern Humans Can Learn From The Neanderthals' Extinction
- Cold Fusion Machine Gets Third-Party Verification, Inventor Says
- FYI: Do Wind Farms Make It Less Windy?
Most Emailed
Science
- Climate Change Will Increase Heat-Related Deaths In NYC, Study Says
- Why Are Tornadoes So Hard To Predict?
- Scientists Reveal The Cause Of The Irish Potato Famine
- Reconstructing The Oklahoma Tornado From Start To Finish, In Videos
- Megapixels: A Parasitic Worm Infects An Ant
- Cold Fusion Machine Gets Third-Party Verification, Inventor Says
- Inside The World's Most Ambitious Eco-City
- Huge Tornado Flattens Towns Near Oklahoma City [Updated]
- Number Of Published Cancer Studies That Can't Be Reproduced Is Shockingly High
- IMDB's Greatest Movies Ever, Beautifully Organized By Genre [Infographic]
Most Viewed
Science
- Climate Change Will Increase Heat-Related Deaths In NYC, Study Says
- Why Are Tornadoes So Hard To Predict?
- Scientists Reveal The Cause Of The Irish Potato Famine
- Reconstructing The Oklahoma Tornado From Start To Finish, In Videos
- Megapixels: A Parasitic Worm Infects An Ant
- Cold Fusion Machine Gets Third-Party Verification, Inventor Says
- Inside The World's Most Ambitious Eco-City
- Huge Tornado Flattens Towns Near Oklahoma City [Updated]
- Number Of Published Cancer Studies That Can't Be Reproduced Is Shockingly High
- IMDB's Greatest Movies Ever, Beautifully Organized By Genre [Infographic]
Online Content Director: Suzanne LaBarre | Email
Senior Editor: Paul Adams | Email
Associate Editor: Dan Nosowitz | Email
Assistant Editor: Colin Lecher | Email
Assistant Editor: Rose Pastore | Email
Contributing Writers:
Rebecca Boyle | Email
Kelsey D. Atherton | Email
Francie Diep | Email
Shaunacy Ferro | Email
Today on PopSci.com
Copyright © 2012 Popular Science
A Bonnier Corporation Company. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
if we find even a little bone on mars... the religious dudes will be so disapointed ^^ (no disrespect ^^)
vt007 wrote - if we find even a little bone on mars... the religious dudes will be so disapointed ^^ (no disrespect ^^)
rlb2 reply - Then don't look at this, a skeleton like remains near the Spirit rovers landing site lower right and some other rock-like forms that appears to be gasping for air.. The spirit rover landing site is full of fossil looking rocks.
https://picasaweb.google.com/104144022457768434822/MarsSpiritRoverColorImages2ndYearAndMoreSol688Current#5482767405834265618
And don't look at this youtube time lapse images made into a movie that shows microbial like movement in the soil of the Phoenix Lander...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhfSjJeQf58
Ron Bennett
Don't think so VT. Nothing in any religion I know of states that life only exists on earth. Certain sects just say that to be how it is without any documentation to back it up.
@vt007, Sir, as much as my Dear Lord creates Earth and Man and Woman, yes he created the stars above. If of further interest to you, he created an endless variety of life. It does not hurt religion in any way, to find life on another planet. To be certain, religion appeals to a man’s heart and soul. There are no specific dates in the bible, but only lessons to learn. If you are to blind, deaf and close minded to learn that is your own problem. Our dear Lord loves every single person ever created. He speaks in the hearts and minds of us all. Of course we are created too, as in individuals and some hear clearly or not at all. All each hear unique and perceive uniquely too. Science wants to put facts in hand and so science is fine. But science is only describing factually the wonders of all our Dear Lord has made. They are not in conflict with each other.
If wrote this now, because I sense you wanted a religous response. Perhaps you wish argue or just to comment on. And if you choose to ignore my comments, thats ok too.
Ah, yes.
Science and Religion.
Both products of the human mind. Both authored by men.
The first is a useful tool or those who would peer into the unknown despite fear, the second a refuge for those who seek to assuage fear of the unknown.
Who has the more open mind: The one who observes the world first and then draws conclusions, or the one who perceives the world through the lens of established conclusions? The one who accepts what he sees, or the one who sees what he accepts?
Finding life elsewhere neither proves nor disproves the existence of any god or gods. It simply suggests further that there is no reason to posit the existence of a god to explain our existence here.
I find myself a rather religious person and as I was toldto me science and religion do not mix and should never be attempted to be mixed. Science simply tries to give explanations for things we do not yet understand but it will never be able to prove or disprove the existence of God. The Bible states that God created everything, but it does not say how God created things. My personal belief is that God created the entire universe in 6 24 hour days but that he provided evidence to give an explanation to how the universe would have been created, life would have been created, etc. etc. if he had not created the universe in 6 24 days but rather created it the way secular scientists believe it was created. This explanation allows for the existence of all fossils, light from stars that are 8 billion light years away to reach earth, and many more examples and still in my opinion to coincide with the Bible. And just out of curiosity how many of you are Christian, Jewish, Muslim or any other religion that has a single God that created everything.
On life on Mars,
I believe there are microbes on Mars, but the images are no where near definitive, nor even suggestive. The partials are moving in a way one could expect grains of dirt to move. Why do they stop at just three or so images, I am sure those objects either stop moving or become obvious.
Fossils like JC being found in bread can be coincidence, to verify you have to find repetitive patterns that cannot be explained as magma, bubbles, wind sheer, or any other natural effect. No images I saw had definitive signs.
That being said, I believe life is pretty much everywhere, Earth is not that special, there is likely a planet and solar system very very similar to ours. Trillions on trillions of planets.
As far as religion,
Casting a blanket statement about religion is hard, as there are 100s of religions, and 7 billion views on faith and religion.
Religions change as our knowledge grows. So religion will just change as science proves things impossible. Consider even old religions such as catholics. Back in the day, the pope allowed persecution of scientists that have since proven to be correct, this makes it obvious they could not speak to god. People realize the truth they ignore how wrong these leaders were and alter their beliefs and history to fit what they want.
I personally take the Empirical method of analysis to religion, thus making the only realistic option that of the flying spaghetti monster. So I am a Pastafarian.
God exists. religion is wrong..all forms
Very good!
- Brasier has extensively criticized Schopf's earlier finds, well founded IMO so since they amounted to as much pattern findings, so this should be good. (I don't think the ~ 3.5 Ga old Strelley Pool chert stromatolite finds [ http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/3194/evidence-of-earths-earliest-life ] were affected by that criticism.) So now we have a set of 3-4 finds @ ~ 3.2-3.5 Ga bp.
- Genome family data predicted that life before the Archaean Expansion ~ 3.2 Ga bp was utilizing sulfur metabolism, perhaps exclusively so.
- And the tantalizing Nuvvuagittuq greenstone belt (NGB), that may go back from 3.8 Ga bp to 4.28 Ga bp (!), has signs of precisely such sulfur metabolism. (The tentative dating is published data; unfortunately the mineralogical interpretation is unpublished data on the web.)
I really hope they can get something more out of the NGB. Strelley Pool is well researched I think, NGB is rather late finds.
- Brasier et all will reevaluate earlier finds, which is now sorely needed!
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
@ vt007:
Of course this is science of hard facts. Of course religion can be rewritten to adopt any finds; this is how we know it has no factual content.
@ BubbaGump:
- "my [redacted for propriety] creates Earth and Man and Woman".
Show me the evidence. We have evidence for that Earth was created with the solar system by the usual natural formation process, and we _know_ there were never a single human breeding pair (no Adam and Eve).
- "They are not in conflict with each other."
Of course they are, see my 1st point! One is about finding facts, the other is about trying to botch facts.
Specifically on creationism we now know that everything from cosmology to evolution has no gap for a creating agent. The universe had no creator, nor the Earth, nor life, and not humans, science predicts this.
Specifically on christian religion, which I assume this is futile apologetics for, without Adam and Eve there were no reason for the equally biologically absurd notions of a Jesus myth born of an unimpregnated woman and zombified after death.
And if we admit history as science, apparently there is as much historical veracity and validity in the religious texts of any religion as in my making up stories in a travelogue. By coincidence some will sound like actual events. Or at least that is how I interpret historians.
Conflict in every detail I am aware of.
@ QuantumLeaper:'
- "Science ... will never be able to prove or disprove the existence of God"
Quite right, science doesn't "prove or disprove" anything. It can test for erroneous facts and theories until the correct ones remains. We know the process converges, the basis for everyday physics is now completely known.
So what suffice to do is to test that physicalist monism is a valid theory, that there is a physical monism, since it is the simplest model and gods refuses to be seen. I estimate that is doable as of the 80's, by then we had enough tested hypotheses to establish with a binomial test that there is a coherent monism (by testing energy conservation, say) beyond reasonable doubt.
I am a physicalist because it is testable and valid.
This means there are no reasonable gaps left for, say, creator myths.
And why would you be a non-physicalist based on no evidence whatsoever, and going against millions of tested hypotheses obeying physicalism?
- "My personal belief is that God created the entire universe in 6 24 hour days but that he provided evidence to give an explanation to how the universe would have been created, life would have been created, etc. etc."
Yes, the old Lying God. He is quite the jerk, which is why most reject him outright ever since people started to understand fossils and deep time.
Also, it doesn't seem to work with such Last Thursdayism. Quantum mechanics with its no hidden variables can't be seamlessly spliced like that, AFAIK.
In the context: no "quantum leaps" is observed, as it were. Quantum mechanics is _more_ continuous than classical mechanics, since pre and post states of systems obey a continuous transform in QM but are discrete objects in CM.
Pull some strings and the tops and yo-yos are spinning, how fun. Religion is a person experience and full of personal opinions and experience that cannot be quantified. Religion exists for the benefit of inner growth. And yes it is not science. Science should stop trying to dissect it. It’s like trying to dissect a person’s feelings; you can't; it’s all subjective. I do appreciate science and I love my own religion. I can easily see finding life throughout the universe, even though we haven't found it yet. When we do find it, my religion will be intact and just fine or my religion may grow and mature too.
please stop arguing with believers, this is a science site, their minds can not be changed until their closed minds open; of course, i will be accused of the same thing and the believers will claim their minds are the open ones; which bible should i claim and judge the others as unworthy? condemned to eternal damnation, sure hope i pick the right one? religion? sect? cult? witchcraft? superstition? is it getting warm in here or is it just me?
Besides finding life on other planets, what about those pesky past aliens that visited us in history and tinkered with the human DNA thousands of years ago. Religions can be real for those folk in the past; but they may have also written about past aliens with the assumption they were visitors from GOD. From this science and religion gets really mixed up and shaken.
Oh, brother!
Midoman is right although if i may EDIT
God MAY Exist
Religion is Wrong
All forms
BubbaGump is addicted to painkillers
@bjorn, I do not do drugs or alcohol. I do exercise and eat my veggies. But really, just imagine you were a serious religious person several thousands of years ago and suddenly an alien visitor comes floating down from the sky and begins speaking to you and tell you what to do and think. Is it possible this serious religious person might interpret that as being a Devine visit and write down the entire alien visitor said to him as being religious. How would a person with no technical vocabulary express himself with his simple words of his culture describe a highly technology coming to visit him from the sky above. Do you think this person might describe it with the words he only knows and his religious teachings too? Well, it’s just food for thought.
@Sacridias
I too, brother, have seen the light of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. May you be touched by his noodly appendages.
lol I think this is an awesome find for science. If an organism can be sulphur based, why couldn't it be methane based? Maybe it is possible for life in one of Titan's lakes?