From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/20/2025 4:00 PM, sticks wrote:   
   > On 11/20/2025 10:43 AM, RonO wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Science News claims that they used AI analytics to identify the traces   
   >> of photosynthetic life.  3.3 billion years is around the time that   
   >> there may have only been two surviving lineages of eubacteria and   
   >> archaea both would have contained the genes for both chemotrophic and   
   >> photosynthetic life.   
   >>   
   >> The last common ancestor of eubacteria and archaea supposedly existed   
   >> with these atributes 4.2 billion years ago, so if they can find the   
   >> right rocks they may be able to detect photosynthesis in rocks that old.   
   >   
   > Also, the original link also points to further reading at the bottom of   
   > the article with a link that was here awhile back.   
   >   
   >  astrobiologist.html>   
   >   
   > "These minerals may have formed on the rock when ancient microbes used   
   > chemical reactions to produce energy. But chemical reactions not related   
   > to life can also produce these minerals under certain conditions."   
   >   
   > And this commendable sentence:   
   >   
   > "Now, scientists are looking into the explanations that wouldn't require   
   > life to form these features on the sample."   
   >   
   > My point is, the subject of this piece, "Earth's earliest life 3.3   
   > billion years ago revealed by faint biosignatures" is the kind of thing   
   > I object to.  Not the work, but the way it gets framed.  Reading the   
   > title, you would think they have found evidence of life from 3.3 billion   
   > years ago.  But when you dig in, they simply have not and are continuing   
   > their work.  One has to wonder why they omitted the "potential" in their   
   > description in the recent article?  This is a far too common way of   
   > doing things where previous work is cited and used to further the   
   > importance of a finding, without having to repeat the problems.  It's   
   > dishonest.   
   >   
      
   Your problem is that we have other evidence that life existed on this   
   planet over 3 billion years ago.  They have found fossil stromatolites   
   like the stromatolites still formed by bacteria today in rocks over 3.4   
   billion years old.  These are not just chemical traces.   
      
   Researchers are just looking for more different types of evidence for   
   life.  We already have other evidence that life existed at this time.   
      
   The article notes that the chemical signatures are not the oldest traces   
   of life.  It was just a different means of identifying evidence that   
   past life has left behind, and like I noted if they find older   
   sedimentary rocks they could do the same analysis.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)