Reply With Quote
Where's Michael Crichton when you need him?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...ter120000years
Senior Writer
LiveScience.com jeanna Bryner
senior Writer
livescience.com – Mon Jun 15, 11:46 am ET
After more than 120,000 years trapped beneath a block of ice in Greenland, a tiny microbe has awoken. The long-lasting bacteria may hold clues to what life forms might exist on other planets.
The new bacteria species was found nearly 2 miles (3 km) beneath a Greenland glacier, where temperatures can dip well below freezing, pressure soars, and food and oxygen are scarce.
"We don't know what state they were in," said study team member Jean Brenchley of Pennsylvania State University. "They could've been dormant, or they could've been slowly metabolizing, but we don't know for sure."
Dormant would mean the bacteria were in a spore-like state in which there's not a lot of metabolism going on, so the bacteria wouldn't be reproducing much. It's possible the bacteria could have been slowly metabolizing and replicating.
"Microbes have found ways to survive in harsh conditions for long times that we don't yet fully understand," Brenchley told LiveScience.
To coax the bacteria back to life, Brenchley, Jennifer Loveland-Curtze and their Penn State colleagues incubated the samples at 36 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) for seven months, followed by more than four months at 41 degrees F (5 degrees C).
The resulting colonies of the originally purple-brown bacteria, now named Herminiimonas glaciei, are alive and well.
"We were able to recover it and get it to grow in our laboratory," Brenchley said. "It was viable."
Such vigor is partially due to the microbe's small size, the scientists speculate. Boasting dimensions that are 10 to 50 times smaller than Escherichia coli, the new bacteria likely could more efficiently absorb nutrients due to a larger surface-to-volume ratio. Tiny microbes like this one can also hide more easily from predators and take up residence among ice crystals and in the thin liquid film on those surfaces.
H. glaciei is not the first bacteria species resurrected after a possibly lengthy snooze beneath the ice. Loveland-Curtze and her team reported another hardy bacterium in the same area that had survived for about 120,000 years as well. Chryseobacterium greenlandensis had tiny bud-like structures on its surface that may have played a role in the organism's survival. Another bacterium survived more than 32,000 years in an Arctic tunnel, and was brought back to life a few years ago.
The harsh conditions endured by these microbes serve as models of other planets.
"These extremely cold environments are the best analogues of possible extraterrestrial habitats," Loveland-Curtze said, referring to the Greenland glacier. "The exceptionally low temperatures can preserve cells and nucleic acids for even millions of years."
And studying such microorganisms may provide insight into what sorts of life forms could survive elsewhere in the solar system.
The new bacterium is described in the current issue of the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology.
At least 120,000 year old earth!?!?
Where's Michael Crichton when you need him?
What dating method they used is not included in your version of the article.At least 120,000 year old earth!?!?
Indeed, a rather convincing inference about whatever method (if you want to call "Ummm.. it's 120,000 years old or so" a 'method') can be made by the lack of definitive knowledge on the subject the scientist(s) exhibit throughout the article:
We don't know what state they were inThey could've been dormant, or they could've been slowly metabolizingThis last one I ask you to take into special consideration:Microbes have found ways to survive in harsh conditions for long times that we don't yet fully understand
Didn't you just admit there's no knowledge or proof concerning how it would survive so long? Where is the proof of this, besides in your overactive imagination??The exceptionally low temperatures can preserve cells and nucleic acids for even millions of years.
Almost surely, this is simply a frozen remnant from the recent ice age. No doubt though, they somehow found it reasonable - despite admitting no knowledge concerning how the bacteria got there, what it was doing there, or how it managed to survive so long - to date the bacteria based on their glaciation measurements.
At least that's my assumption. It is impossible to know for sure considering they completely excluded this and other vital information, expecting the mouthbreathers to buy it up front and in your face without a question - which most apparently do. Simply put, these incredibly convenient exclusions pepper article after article.
Last edited by z0sa; 06-15-2009 at 04:23 PM.
god made this earth 5000 years ago
these scientist are stupid
Thinks this is a very bad idea...
You are correct in that there is no mention of date testing in the article and therefore is a valid point.
They're probably aging it based on the depth they found it. Just like rock formations, I reckon the further down a glacier you go, the further back in time you're looking.
It's crazy that something could survive 120,000 years beneath 2 miles of ice.
Glaciers and rocks are very, very different. You simply cannot compare them oncesoever. Suffice to say that method is inoperable.
Second, you say 'deeper=further in time for glaciers.' This is not true whether you are studying rocks or glaciers. Glaciers form when ice and snow is formed faster than it can melt. Eventually, gravity begins pushing these small chunks down and a type of snowball effect occurs. However, especially early in a glacier existence, the ice and snow which make up the firmament is constantly freezing and thawing. This creates 'firn', granular ice that, over decades, forms into sheets of glacial ice. However, glacier ice is less dense than normally forming ice due to its granular nature, creating tiny pockets of air. Additionally, still goes through cycles of thawing and refreezing. These could possibly have let our little friend (the microbe) in after much glaciation had occurred, which is why your assumption is inherently incorrect.
Dammit! You beat me to it
Thinks this is a very bad idea....
Walt Disney will soon be back
There are ways of determining the age with relatively good accuracy. It's too old for Carbon Dating, but there are other isotopic balances used. Paleoclimatology has developed well enough to understand an approximate date.
O Yah ... iz forget. earth is only 5k yrs old. my bad.
ha... I've never used that smilie before. It was a lot less pleasing than I've imagined.
No offense, but you americans crack me up!
I do respect all opinions but only in the US is this issue of "evolution" and "5,000 -10,000 year old earth" so...present...
It really is fascinating from an outsider POV
Exactly.
Its willful, blissful ignorance and the Bible Belt's endearing influence on everything.No offense, but you americans crack me up!
I do respect all opinions but only in the US is this issue of "evolution" and "5,000 -10,000 year old earth" so...present...
It really is fascinating from an outsider POV
this microbe........was it created in gods image?
Thinks this is a very bad idea...
how old do you think Methuseleh really was?
young earth/old men
Thanks for speaking for the 5.5 billion people outside of the USA, and not just yourself.No offense, but you americans crack me up!
I do respect all opinions but only in the US is this issue of "evolution" and "5,000 -10,000 year old earth" so...present...
It really is fascinating from an outsider POV
you're a . Regardless of where you're from.
I was an atheist originally.Its willful, blissful ignorance and the Bible Belt's endearing influence on everything.
Last edited by z0sa; 06-16-2009 at 11:10 AM.
According to the Bible, Methuselah was 969 years old.
How does this have bearing on an earth tens of thousands of years old?
nothing tangible here. It's like arguing with ing grade schoolers.O Yah ... iz forget. earth is only 5k yrs old. my bad.
"oh, you're an idiot for not having MY opinion."
I put your silly assumptions to rest. Don't bring your uneducated guessing bull back to this thread if you don't want to be made a fool.
eh. I just think it's ironic that Bible literalists believe in a young earth and men that could live to 900 years of age,
assumptions?
if it wasn't for the Bible, nobody would really assume that the Earth was only 5-10k years old.
point taken.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
