Life on Earth likely started 4.1 billion years ago, much earlier than scientists thought

Wow, this is cool

UCLA geochemists have found evidence that life likely existed on Earth at least 4.1 billion years ago -- 300 million years earlier than previous research suggested. The discovery indicates that life may have begun shortly after the planet formed 4.54 billion years ago.Geochemists have found probable evidence for life on Earth at least 4.1 billion years ago -- 300 million years earlier than previously documented, pushing the origin of life close to when the planet formed, 4.54 billion years ago.

The research is published today in the online early edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"Twenty years ago, this would have been heretical; finding evidence of life 3.8 billion years ago was shocking," said Mark Harrison, co-author of the research and a professor of geochemistry at UCLA.

"Life on Earth may have started almost instantaneously," added Harrison, a member of the National Academy of Sciences. "With the right ingredients, life seems to form very quickly."
The new research suggests that life existed prior to the massive bombardment of the inner solar system that formed the moon's large craters 3.9 billion years ago.

"If all life on Earth died during this bombardment, which some scientists have argued, then life must have restarted quickly," said Patrick Boehnke, a co-author of the research and a graduate student in Harrison's laboratory.

Scientists had long believed the Earth was dry and desolate during that time period. Harrison's research -- including a 2008 study in Nature he co-authored with Craig Manning, a professor of geology and geochemistry at UCLA, and former UCLA graduate student Michelle Hopkins -- is proving otherwise.

"The early Earth certainly wasn't a hellish, dry, boiling planet; we see absolutely no evidence for that," Harrison said. "The planet was probably much more like it is today than previously thought."

Here's the Source for more

More time for a super civilisation to grow and to vanish without trace.

a reply to: Frocharocha


Here is something even more shocking, they are still wrong.

Very interesting, thanks for sharing.

If water is required to sustain all life forms, then water has always been present?

Maybe Earth was just created after all? Just a thought.

a reply to: Frocharocha

posted already
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

If water is required to sustain all life forms, then water has always been present?

That's our hypothesis, but water isn't a 100% requirement.

~Tenth

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

*sigh*

[citation needed]

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

That's our hypothesis, but water isn't a 100% requirement.

~Tenth

Really?

As someone else stated here, the big shocking news is ... you're still 100% wrong, on all accounts.

a reply to: Frocharocha

that would be fine as long as you teach about god in school then u can teach about evolution in church

So do they now need something besides the primordial soup and lightning bolts, or tidal pools and lipids? Or will the meteor seeds gain more momentum?

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
So do they now need something besides the primordial soup and lightning bolts, or tidal pools and lipids? Or will the meteor seeds gain more momentum?

not quite, this study showed that the ingredients and environment required for abiogenesis occurred earlier than previously thought.. it is possible to create nucleic acid precursors starting with just hydrogen cyanide (HCN), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and ultraviolet (UV) light.

HS2 was abundant in the atmosphere from volcanic activity, HCN had already been theorised to have come from the release of carbon, from a cascade of asteroids known as the Late Heavy Bombardment which blasted the surface of Earth, reacting with nitrogen in Earth’s atmosphere to form HCN, 4.1 - 3.8 billion years ago. this new study fits with this theory, even though it states in the article that it might not.

panspermia is still on the table, although it is looking somewhat less likely.

originally posted by: bjarneorn

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

That's our hypothesis, but water isn't a 100% requirement.

~Tenth

Really?

As someone else stated here, the big shocking news is ... you're still 100% wrong, on all accounts.

Well once you go ahead and post your peer reviewed research showing otherwise, I'll take my answers.

Billions? nah.

2nd line

a reply to: UnHealtyArrogance

Well don't leave us hanging...