Astronomers Find Oldest Known Asteroids

Researchers from the University of Maryland have recently discovered three asteroids that appear to be roughly 4.55 billion years old, dating back to the formation of the Solar System. The scientists say that the asteroids have survived relatively unchanged since that time, and make good candidates for future space missions. "'The fall of the Allende meteorite in 1969 initiated a revolution in the study of the early Solar System,' said Tim McCoy, curator of the national meteorite collection at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History. 'I find it amazing that it took us nearly 40 years to collect spectra of these [CAI-rich] objects and that those spectra would now initiate another revolution, pointing us to the asteroids that record this earliest stage in the history of our Solar System.'"

Wow that's almost 6000 biblical years!

[goombah99]

It was created around the time Adam was riding his dinosaur.

Re:

[rigelstar]

Eve actually took the dinosaur as her ride while Adam was forced to walk.

Re:Wow that's almost 6000 biblical years!

[jav1231]

It's funny that you would make this joke because many in the scientific community put the same kind of "faith" in researchers that haven't even so much as touched these objects. It always amazes me that when science has to change it's findings on anything it's reported with hardly a whisper. This finding is based largely on the assumption that these calcium deposits or strata are going to occur only in this manner from a given time-period. Assumptions...almost...religious-like.

I know I know, I'm daring to distrust the gods of research. I get it. Flamebait me now for my insurrection.

Who is more credible?

[microbox]

Your point is well taken - the paper's findings are not bullet proof.

But your point about the "gods of research" is disingenuous... that is unless you believe that one is better off putting their faith in intelligent designers and corporate-science-sophistry. It's true that science could be *more* conservative with declaring findings, but really it's a question of who is more credible with the facts, and more pliable when it comes to standing corrected.

Re:Wow that's almost 6000 biblical years!

[Adambomb]

The difference with science is that, if you're honest about it, you mentally append to everything said "According to our current observations, ...". This is why science is in a state of CONSTANT revision, and always will unless we somehow become omniscient ourselves.

This is not a negative connotation, this is the whole point. If someone refuses to revise their opinion regardless of new data (whether the data is for or against or not), that is faith imo. It is also the antithesis of the scientific method.

The upshot is, to the open minded, science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive until such a time that we can observe _everything_, in which case there would be no more mysteries anyways and life would be quite boring.

Re:

[BountyX]

The thing about Science is that it's ok to be wrong. Scientists are encouraged to prove each other wrong. What starts as an assumption will slowly morph into a solid fact as more and more scientist one-up the other in a quest to disprove/improve. With religion, that dosn't exist. Here is the absolute word of god, you cannot challenge it...you cannot disprove it and if you dont accept it, you can burn in hell. There is a very big difference between "faith" in science and "faith" in religion.

Re:

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Flamebait me now for my insurrection.

Oh, you're so tough. So daring. Such a rebel, speaking truth to power.

GMAFB. If you've got something to say (even if it's something which, like your post, is BS) just say it. Don't brag about it.

Re:

[BountyX]

Christians are into the whole masochism thing. You're just turning him on now.

Re:

[Daniel Dvorkin]

(snicker) Yeah, you're probably right. With people like that, the more you point out how wrong they are, the more they take it as proof that they're Persecuted Standard-Bearers Of The Truth.

scientists disagree all the damn time

[eean]

Scientists disagree a lot. For instance just recently the species-hood of Homo floresiensis (the "hobbit people") has been called into question. Some researchers think it may have been malnutrition or genetic disorder of some old fashioned Homo sapiens.

This article isn't bringing in any opposing viewpoints regarding the research since it's a press release from the institution that the research is happening. Actual science articles from sources like New Scientist often bring in scholars of the field who aren

Re:Wow that's almost 6000 biblical years!

[BountyX]

Your argument presents the Fallacy of Accident. Your saying that scientists are just as "guilty" as those who possess strong religious faith simply becuase they both use faith. This is like saying "Strong religious faith is wrong. Scientists use strong religious faith. Therefore, scientists are "equally" wrong." However, whether or not scientists strongly leverage faith is NOT the issue. The issue is the method in which that faith is applied and CHECKED against. Furthermore, how it is placed. Like I mentioned earlier, scientific "faith" is put under constant peer-review. You could say science IS evolutionary. What starts as abstract is evolved into something we hold true in the natural world overtime; even if the original idea was completly off base; thus, contrasting perspective and "faith" serves as a tool to accelarte investigation and uncover truth. No such checks-and-balance system exists in relgion. Science is like democracy, relies on checks-and-balances, while Religion is like a tyranny, God serves as the unquestionable truth and his "word" is authoratative despite if it's true or not. Your argument about evolution is weak. It's known as the Converse Fallacy of Accident. You take a specific example then you extrapolate that example into a generalization. I applied it above in my government example to "level" with you. Evolution is unique in the scientific community. Simply put, there is no challenging theory that can hold it's ground against the data we do have about evolution. Instead of sitting around and accepting it, like religious faith does, scientists are still investingating, researching, and uncovering new evidence to plug those holes. The whole process of science is evolution. Since science depends on checks-and-balances, it's only as effective as that system, but its still a heck of a lot better than saying accepting the questionable "divine" word of god as an absolute truth. Religious faith, on the contrary, does not have a process in which it is systematically challenged and verified. Religious faith is constant and unchanged. It yields only to god and cannot be "checked-and-balanced". It attempts to put the burden of proof on disproving god, when in reality, nothing can be disproved. Therefor, it is less ignorant to place faith in a method that can be disproved (science) rather than a method that cannot (most modern religions). The burden of proof is on religion, to prove all of its "divinity", "gods", "prophets", and "magic". Back to my argument, faith is not the factor. The factor is what system\method you place your faith in. Science is a superior system to entrust faith becuase it takes the responsibilty of the burden of proof with a checks-and-balance system. Religion is a poor system to entrust faith beause it does not take the responsibilty of proof. It has no checks-and-balances. Back to your fallacy, it really comes down to why people CHOOSE to put their faith in democracy versus faith in a dictatorship or tyranny.

Re:

[Cruciform]

There are many examples of animals which could not have developed gradually through evolution without dying off because without all their current physical properties the animals would not survive for evolution to try again.

Name one. That's all I want to see. One single creature that you claim wouldn't have survived to reproduce to its current state.

I would also like to see a citation for the Great Flood claims made above as well. I've never seen a geologist claim there was one, though I've seen them talk ab

Re:

[glitch23]

Name one. That's all I want to see. One single creature that you claim wouldn't have survived to reproduce to its current state.

Bombardier beatle [wikipedia.org] - read the defense mechanism section. Without having a series of explosions it would blow itself up. Without the catalysts it would blow itself up. It needs everything it has at once so it doesn't blow itself up.

Giraffe [wikipedia.org] - read the circulatory system section. Without the rete mirabile in the giraffe's skull it would get too much blood in its brain when it lowers its head to drink or faint when it raises its head at the sight of a predator. It needs that rete mirabile for it's existence

Rubbish

[goombah99]

Rubbish.
this sort of impossibility twaddle is easily discredited. For example, tall buildings or arched/suspended bridges could not be erected without a scaffold or crane. But once erected those are removed. Just because there is no evidence to be found that they were there does not mean the buildings sprung into existence fully formed.

Same with sophisticated organisms.

Recently Behe's claim that the flagella motor protein could not have evolved because it's inoperable without one of it's many parts and

Itemized refutation

[goombah99]

Rubbish.
this sort of impossibility twaddle is easily discredited. For example, tall buildings or arched/suspended bridges could not be erected without a scaffold or crane. But once erected those are removed. Just because there is no evidence to be found that they were there does not mean the buildings sprung into existence fully formed.

Same with sophisticated organisms.

Recently Behe's claim that the flagella motor protein could not have evolved because it's inoperable without one of it's many parts and thus has no function was shown to be wrong. SPikes used by some bacteria to penetrate others turn out to be almost identical to the motor protein assembly but with a few proteins removed. it's not a motor it's a syringe.

Bombadier beetle.
Oxidative enzymes and fizzy action are good ways to digest something in your mouth cavity. It would be no surprise if the bombadier's enzymes were developed for digestion and then later recruited for defense. Many animals regurgitate or spray digestive juices as defensive or offensive weapons. Even single celled organisms secrete highly indesructable proteases to destroy the competition. Others, like the Spike bearing ones have cannons they can shoot this from. If single celled organisms can evolve this its not a stretch to imagine a beetle pulling it off.

Giraffe.
Many animals, like diving douplhins, seals, whales pull off similar stunts at orders of magnitude greater pressure differentials. Thus not only had such mechanisms evolved while we were all sea-bred creatures, and vestigal mechanisms potentialially latent in our DNA, but the specific machanism in Giraffes is not the only way to skin the pressure cat. For example, airplane pilots who work at High-Gs know that clenching muscles can prevent vaso-dialiation consequently fainting. It's not hard to imagine that early long necked creatures could survive without this adaptation, and the means to re-evolve it was possible in DNA

Woodpeckers:
this one can be dismissed. There are lots of birds that eat tree bugs by whatever means they can dig them out. trees come in all denisities. You don't need to evolve to be a wood pecker in one go.

Rapid Canyon formation.
I happen to live on the base of a caldera. My house is perched 200 feet over a straight drop to the steep walled canyon bottom. This was carved by a combination of massive floods and slow erosion. Simmilar examples abound around the area. But the origin of the massive floods is well known too. The caldera would periodically block it's outflows and then fill with water. when these dams burst torential fllods would scour the soft volcanic ash and aleufial sands into canons that would harden to rock. Similar stories can be said about the hells canyon area.

I've seen it happen in a small way in my own life time when forest fires glazed the mountain soils turning run-off trickles into 40 mile per hour flash floods digging 10 foot channels.

You really need to not assume the first silliness someone pours in your brain is the truth.

Re:

[glitch23]

Rubbish.

this sort of impossibility twaddle is easily discredited. For example, tall buildings or arched/suspended bridges could not be erected without a scaffold or crane. But once erected those are removed. Just because there is no evidence to be found that they were there does not mean the buildings sprung into existence fully formed.

You miss the point (as you did many times in your post since I started from the bottom and worked my way up). Your analogy is incorrect. The "scaffolding" is still present in the animals I provided as examples. The "scaffolding" is also still needed and was always needed for the animal to survive. Your burden of proof involves showing these animals could survive without any one or more of the features I noted. If all those capabilities are required at once we have a problem.

Bombadier beetle.

Oxidative enzymes and fizzy action are good ways to digest something in your mouth cavity. It would be no surprise if the bombadier's enzymes were developed for digestion and then later recruited for defense. Many animals regurgitate or spray digestive juices as defensive or offensive weapons. Even single celled organisms secrete highly indesructable proteases to destroy the competition. Others, like the Spike bearing ones have cannons they can shoot this from. If single celled organisms can evolve this its not a stretch to imagine a beetle pulling it off.

It isn't a question of where

Re:

[CFTM]

Throughout your post, you merely posit view points with no evidence.

There are many examples of animals which could not have developed gradually through evolution without dying off because without all their current physical properties the animals would not survive for evolution to try again.

Please list the animals in question, along with evidence supporting your view point.

Can your view point explain why human beings hiccup? I'd really, really like to see your answer on that one...
In case you were wondering, the reason why we hiccup is because we descend from creatures of the sea! In case you're skeptical, I went and found a write up from "New Scientist" (A fairly credible layman's scientific source).
Why We Hiccup! [newscientist.com]

I would a

Insightful !?

[aepervius]

There is no faith going on in the scientific community. At worst the is only trust. Those assumption on strata deposition are not religious-like any ANY way whatsoever. Firstly , if I recall correctly they were corroborated by other measurement (like radio emission measurement) secondly, if anybody came up with EVIDENCE contradicting the current supposition and theory, then stratta aging would be dropped out. Up to now , it was never the case.

You wanna religion ? Religion is trusting a little book (be it

Re:

[drerwk]

While I am in agreement with the tone of your reply to the GP, I would point out one consideration for your claim

There is no faith going on in the scientific community

. As I have come to understand the basis on which I do work as a scientist, I have to take on faith that the Universe is rational, can be explained, and that the basis of those explanations are congruent with causality. Everything I've done is science assumes causality and I equate this to my faith in it.

It is not faith

[aepervius]

It is an "physical" axiom. You just happen to TRUST that the axiom is true. But if you are a true scientist, if you happen to stumble on evidence that the universe is irrational, then as a true scientist you will be the first on a rush to publish it. A true dogmatic / faithful person would sweep it under the carpet and try to forget it. And this is why I used the word trust instead of faith. A true scientific would not have faith in anything, at best he would only trust a few axiom which were never disprove

Re:

[sohare]

You are not distrusting the gods of research so much as conflating two somewhat opposite notions of faith. Religious faith is absolutely nothing like scientific acceptance. It's a rather disingenuous (or purely ignorant) to try and see parallels between the scientific method and religious credulity. So yes, if you're being disingenuous, you should be modded flamebait. If you are purely ignorant, why the hell even bother with making inane comments? (I know, I know...this is Slashdot).

Re:

[troicstar]

but is it not better to find new and further evidence (corroborating or not) rather than accepting a religious explanation and not looking further into it ? I think that the change you speak of is a good thing, to have a good or complete understanding of nature and how it works only two decades after the first extra-solar planets were found is unrealistic. New findings are going to be inevitable, there is nothing whispery about the old ones. These will either be integrated and explained, observed to be inc

Re:

[jav1231]

Well I would first point out that I didn't make a religious argument per se' so much as point out what to me is an interesting point about the state of science today. I contend that science is itself a system of faith. I say that because I believe "faith" and "belief" to be synonymous. Some would disagree. Science should be about collecting evidence, accepting the obvious, and making educated guesses and contemplation upon where that evidence leads. If time and more evidence leads logic elsewhere, the scien

Re:

[lazyforker]

It always amazes me that when science has to change it's findings on anything it's reported with hardly a whisper.

Einstein's GR blew away Newton's model spectacularly. Likewise Darwin's Theory of Evolution swept away all the "competing" hypotheses. Similarly Galileo caused a little bit of a fuss when he supported heliocentrism. Those corrections to earlier theories caused more than a "whisper".

Genuine peer-reviewed science journals contain corrections, addenda, clarifications, amendments etc. Occ

Re:

[Cruciform]

The difference is that Science has peer review and Religion has the Inquisition.

Re:

[guilliamo]

What was there prior to the Universe being born and who did it?

Re:

[BountyX]

I found the answer to that question yesterday when I setup 6 virtual servers inside my dedicated server. Guess what...what I called my dedicated server, was actually another virtual server. I concluded that the universe is a giant fractal.

Re:

[mfnickster]

Are you suggesting it's servers all the way down..?

Re:

[Teran9]

What was there before god and who made hem?

and told him - "Get off My Lawn!!!!"

[infonography]

It was created around the time Adam was riding his dinosaur.

And they told him to get off their Lawn

Leads to doom...

[BountyX]

2 light years later that same asteroid crashes into earth and kills all the animals. Humans already killed each other by then.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[BountyX]

I remember hearing a lecture from Mr. Hawking talking about how humanity will only survive by expanding into space. It eliminates tremendous threats like disease, war, planetary impact, sun blowing up, etc. Very similar to what your talking about. Mr. Hawking actually asked the question on yahoo answers here http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=20060704195516AAnrdOD [yahoo.com] , a fun read.

Re:

[GIL_Dude]

I don't know about disease; I guess it depends on how fast travel between planets / stations is vs. how fast/virulent the disease is and how fast it could kill? I mean all these sci-fi stories of far-flung civilizations being wiped out by disease shared among locations by their supply ships don't seem that far out of the realm of possibility. I'd imagine something that kills quickly like Ebola wouldn't make it to the other locations, but that something slower - akin to a more virulent airborne thing with a

Re:

[Deadstick]

2 light years later

Ummm, how many years would that be?

rj

Re:

[3vi1]

248 Kessel Runs.

Re:

[mfnickster]

What pun is that? :-/

Re:

[ScrewMaster]

Well, I once went to the car dealer and bought a new Olds.

Re:

[BountyX]

It was mean't to be an anti-joke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-joke/ [wikipedia.org] . I failed. :(

Re:

[BountyX]

I failed again, here is the correct link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-joke [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[mfnickster]

I would call it an 'arty-joke,' but it has no heart.

[pun threshhold met]

Re:Old News

[deepershade]

Seriously. Don't click that link.

Re:

[AmigaMMC]

That link will open an infinite number of windows with porn crap and torn apart children, also lots of email messages if your email program is setup to allow mailto: Somebody must be very fucked up in his mind to even conceive something like that. What pisses me off the most is that web-browsers and operating systems seem to be entirely useless against this kind of junk. When the hell will programmers put some code so that the browser will block dozens of pop-up windows that appear at a fraction of a seco

VIRUS WARNING. Mod parent up

[goombah99]

awful web page.

Re:

[jecowa]

Hurray freedom of speech.

Re:

[solitas]

This is NO place to advertise for "Preparation A".

And then,

[RedRumRobot]

They blew them up with the oldest know Atari 2600.

So its the same age as Precambrian Rock!

[Zymergy]

If I remember Geology 101, that would place the Asteroid in the Precambrian time frame (if it were found on earth or if suspected it was originally sourced from earth material.)
http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian [wikipedia.org]

I am guessing that most of the rocky Asteroids are from the same formation time period. I had thought the Earth was mostly still being formed by asteroids and comets prior to 4.5 billion years ago? It is likely to be a part of the Earth from ~4.5 Billion years ago when the Moon is said to have formed via the giant impact hypothesis by planetoid Theia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theia_(planet) [wikipedia.org]

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[flyingfsck]

Free planets would be very cold and very dead.

Re:

[eean]

The Universe is only 13 billion years old and you need a generation of stars to create the heavier elements. I suppose that could leave some time for a previous generation.

But the Universe is really big, the chance of finding ancient alien artifacts is about 0.

early asteroids and rings round the sun

[tinkerton]

What do the models say? Does an early star have rings, like Saturn? I'd expect processes like this

- dust to lumps
- dust to rings
- lumps to sun
- lumps to planets
- rings to planets
- rings to sun

Depending on the speed of each of these factors you get different scenarios. Rings could never happen, they could disappear before the sun is created, they could be be created before , during or after planet creation. Planet creation could also start before the sun. You get the idea.

What it REALLY means for science ...

[tomhudson]

roughly 4.55 billion years old,

So it wasn't a supernova, just some much closer asteroid with a birthday cake with 4,550,123,724 candles on it ...

Recalibrating with this new constant, the universe is actually 1.4 light-years across, and only 341 years old. So much for "God created the universe 6,000 years ago." No cake for you!

Totally OT But Has Bothered Me Since I Was 6

[florescent_beige]

Doesn't it appear that the words asteroid and hemorrhoid got accidentally switched at some point?

Apologies to serious people I'll go away now...

Re:

[Mr Stubby]

Rusty: Ya' got Asteroids?

Cousin Dale: Naw, but my dad does. Can't even sit on the toilet some days.

-National Lampoon's Vacation

We Won't Know Until...

[Nom du Keyboard]

We won't know if these are actually the oldest asteroids until someone goes out there and checks their Best used by date.