Talk:Earliest known life forms/Archive 1

Created talk-page
Created the talk-page for the Earliest known life forms article - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Main page:
This article is now linked to from the main page. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And just as fast it's off. Only 4,000 hits. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Taxonomic
The earliest known life forms on Earth are putative fossilized microorganisms found in hydrothermal vent precipitates. Should be more specific than microorganisms. What taxonomic group? Benjamin (talk) 06:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - yes - agreed - more details would be welcome - if available - perhaps a good place to look for more relevant sourced details might be in the cited sources in the main article, including the primary ones - more relevant sourced details, presented here for further discussion before adding to the main article, may be best I would think atm - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Wording is not neutral.
"Earth remains the only place in the universe known to harbor life forms."

Known by whom? Could this be something like "known by humans" or "known by us"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.157.42.128 (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2017‎
 * The obvious (what has so far been discovered by science, or not) can be told in Wikipedia's voice. From WP:YESPOV: .  — Paleo  Neonate  – 20:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Yes - *entirely* agree as well - original text seems sufficient - and well understood (without stating as such) to be known by humans (or known by us) - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of Special:Permalink/795276446 — Paleo Neonate  – 23:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There are some scientists that think there are high odds that intelligent life other than humans exists. That sentence implies that we definitely know that humans are the only intelligent beings in existence, thus saying that sounds like a biased statement. That sentence creates a feeling that it's there to support someone's personal world views. It could as well be worded like: "Though scientists believe that there is a high likelihood of intelligent life existing outside Earth, a definite proof remains unfound." That would be technically the same content, but biased in some other direction. So I'm not saying write it this way either, but something more neutral. Does this make sense? (PS I'm not expert in astrophysics, so I don't know what is the actual stand of "mainstream" science community on extraterrestrial intelligence, but this can be researched, if desired. PPS. also not native English speaker.)  91.157.42.128 (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - imo at the moment => seems that until the existence of "extraterrestrial life forms" are less hypothetical (and/or less related to "original research") - and instead - are demonstrated to actually exist (supported by reliably sourced publications) - "known by humans" or "known by us" may be reasonably assumed (without being stated) in the wording of the statement - nonethess - your own suggested (more neutral?) alternate phrasing may be worth considering, I would think - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, unless we actually discover it, it's still unknown to exist... — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Lead image, redundant timeline
I have placed an inviting image about the topic in the lead of the article, captioned to bring people into the topic. I have also removed the timeline, which would be relevant in other articles such as abiogenesis (the process through time) but not really also for this article - this is about lifeforms at one time, not about a series or a process, so I honestly don't see why the timeline needs to be endlessly repeated all over the place. It's just in the way here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand your point re your recent rv (my related summary/rationale for my own earlier edit => "restoring original article page/image layout - seems a more worthy use of real estate - as well as presenting a better overall context/nav wls for the article.") - also view => original version compared to your recent edited version - you may (or may not) be correct about this - perhaps other editors would like to comment on this as well? Drbogdan (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's hard to see how "Earliest known life forms" can be about anything other than the earliest forms, i.e. the forms at a particular time, the time when life had just evolved. It is not, therefore, about a sequence over a timeframe of billions of years. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Stromatolite
An argument which refutes the 2016 study, regarding the 3.7 billion years old Stromatolite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.231.151.59 (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Apex cherts controversy
Is the apex chert controversy really settled enough for you to write "The earliest direct evidence of life on Earth are microfossils of microorganisms permineralized in 3.465-billion-year-old Australian Apex chert rocks."

I see that Schopf has a study in PNAS from 2017, but as recently as 2016 everyone thought they were psuedofossils, and only Schopf still believed they were fossils (see here for an article with some citations- https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-shape-of-life ) And after the 2017 study you can find comments from other scientists saying like David Wacey saying they still don't believe it. https://gizmodo.com/quest-to-find-the-world-s-oldest-fossils-intensifies-wi-1821393628 (god knows if gizmodo is considered RS). Is it now widely accepted? It doesn't seem so clear from a review of the internet, since you still find so much material about how the apex cherts are not fossils.

I have no horse in this race, I just looked a little and I'm not sure its correct for WP to make it seem like the case is totally closed on the apex cherts. 131.114.9.81 (talk) 10:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - and links - they're *greatly* appreciated - comments by other editors about the issue are Welcome of course - Thanks again for your own comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

"Earliest life forms" section isn't organized and doesn't address research chronologically.
It should probably be redone as an bulleted list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.196.239 (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW - Section seems well organized (and readable) imo - seems to first consider life forms in the sea (important & definitive to supporting & lesser evidences); then, life forms on land; then, beyond - however - Comments Welcome from other editors - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Oldest animal fossil?
Does this belong in this article?—  Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * (and others) - Thank you for your comment - and question - saw this some time ago - and would not think this is the time (or place) to add to the "Earliest known life forms" article (which mostly considers very early life forms; animals and plants are much later life forms of course), and/or adjust the "" template - perhaps when (and if ever) the findings become better supported - and clearer - that the findings are actually from an animal - and not otherwise - then - it may be a better time to consider an article add and/or template adjustment - but not at this time - it's simply too early imo - iac - Thanks again for your question - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there another article where the discovery would be appropriate?— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your question - maybe the "Animal" article of course - there may be other articles - maybe ask your question for other possible articles on the related talk-page at "Talk:Animal" - hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The Sponge article (update, someone else already got to it), and Multicellular_organism.John_Abbe (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

830 myo potentially alive microorganisms?
On 6 May 2022, scientists reported the discovery of 830 million year old microorganisms in fluid inclusions within halite that may, potentially, still be alive. According to the researchers, "This study has implications for the search for life in both terrestrial and extraterrestrial chemical sedimentary rocks." - Drbogdan (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Well at the risk of stating the obvious, these are certainly not the earliest life-forms, by a wide margin. It's hard to see how they would deserve any sort of mention in this article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * - Yes - *entirely* agree with you - not at all for this particular Wikipedia article of course - but thought the notion of recovering such life forms, in very old rocks, may suggest a way of obtaining ancient life forms from even older rocks - and perhaps worth a mention here in the discussion section - for some to be aware of similar such studies by others - that may become even more relevant to the current article - very unlikely atm but possible nonetheless I would think - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! Drbogdan (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

updated literature
"The is about 4.54 billion years; the earliest undisputed evidence of life on Earth dates from at least 3.5 billion years ago [51][52][53]."

This statement needs to be much better referenced, including not only references [51][52][53], but instead these three benchmark papers, which best reflect the current consensus of the 3.5 Ga mark for earliest undisputed evidence of life on Earth.

Baumgartner, R.J., Van Kranendonk, M.J., Wacey, D., Fiorentini, M.L., Saunders, M., Caruso, S., Pages, A., Homann, M., Guagliardo, P., 2019. Nano−porous pyrite and organic matter in 3.5-billion-year-old stromatolites record primordial life. Geology 47, 1039–1043. https://doi.org/10.1130/G46365.1 Allwood, A.C., Walter, M.R., Kamber, B.S., Marshall, C.P., Burch, I.W., 2006. Stromatolite reef from the Early Archaean era of Australia. Nature 441, 714. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04764 Lepot, K. (2020) Signatures of early microbial life from the Archean (4 to 2.5 Ga) eon. Earth Sci. Rev. 209, 103296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103296 2405:6E00:A98:C200:A584:154C:B3EB:D81F (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Thank You for your comments - added the newly suggested refs to "Multiple Sources" in the main article textMultiple Sources:


 * - all should now be ok - please comment if otherwise - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * - all should now be ok - please comment if otherwise - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * - all should now be ok - please comment if otherwise - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * - all should now be ok - please comment if otherwise - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * - all should now be ok - please comment if otherwise - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * - all should now be ok - please comment if otherwise - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Microfossils taxonomy - add?


Copied from User talk:Drbogdan

-- Earliest known life forms --

Hi Drbogdan, I hope you’re doing well. If you don’t mind, I’d like to ask a question regarding the article Earliest known life forms you created. On its talk page, someone requested more details about the microfossils taxonomy. Would it be reasonable to add such information to the article? The microorganisms from around 3.42 Ga were archaea (archaeal methanogens and/or methanotrophs), and those from 3,465 Ma were bacteria and archaea (extant phototrophic bacteria, methane-producing archaea, and methane-consuming γ-proteobacteria); see refs 1 and 8-9, respectively. I’m not an experienced Wikipedia user, however, and don’t know where exactly it should be placed there. Since you’re the author of this great and interesting article, could you edit it, please? The information I mentioned seems relevant, I believe. Thank you in advance, and greetings from Poland, TaurenMoonlighting (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Drbogdan (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


 * (and others) - Thank You for your comments - and suggested edit(s) about microfossil taxonomy - some editors may be more knowleadgeable about this than I am at the moment, and be able to better help with this - perhaps adding your actual suggested edit (with text and references) here would help - in any case - Comments Welcome - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy!! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

"known ... believed to be ...": well, which?
The article begins confidently with its title in boldface, followed immediately by a cautious partial retraction:


 * "The earliest known life forms on Earth are believed to be..." (my emphasis)

Well, these things are contradictory. The research articles cited are on the cautious side: they would like to believe so but can't be sure. The application of the word "known" to those early forms is unjustified. The lead needs to be rewritten. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank You for your comments - yes - seems so - perhaps the word "purported" may be better than "believed" in the lead sentence? - Drbogdan (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd have thought that was much like "believed", certainly clashing with "known" as before. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps => "The earliest known life forms on Earth are currently understood to be..." ? - maybe less contradictory wording? - Drbogdan (talk) 11:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we're going to have to drop the "known", as the truth is, the article is about the earliest putative life forms, and the discussion centres on how strong or flaky the evidence is for each possibly-fossil specimen. All words indicating uncertainly necessarily clash with the misguided 100%-certainty of "knowing". Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ASTBIO 502 Astrobiology Special Topics - Origin Of Life
— Assignment last updated by Brinaluvsrocks (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

— Assignment last updated by HaskelleTW (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Dresser Formation stromatolites
I'd have thought that Dresser Formation stromatolites ought to replace the Apex chert in the lede. Both are from the Pilbara area. Geopersona (talk) 08:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * (and others) - Seems the Dresser Formation is dated at 3480 Ma; the Apex Chert is dated at 3465 Ma - but noted as the "earliest direct evidence of life on Earth" - and perhaps more appropriate for the lede as currently noted? - Comments Welcome - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * From 3.42 gya to 3.46 or 3.48 gya ... as far as I'm concerned, this is fiddling about with the third significant figure, but yes, if it makes people happy it'd be appropriate to make and cite this change. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

✅ - added the following to the lede => ''' "The earliest direct known life on land may be stromatolites which have been found in 3.480-billion-year-old geyserite uncovered in the Dresser Formation of the Pilbara Craton of Western Australia and, as well, microfossils of microorganisms permineralized in 3.465-billion-year-old Apex chert rocks from the same Australian craton region." ''' - the lede should now be ok (at least better?), but please comment (or adjust) if otherwise of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)