Earth May Have Been a 'Water World' 3 Billion Years Ago, Scientists Find (theguardian.com) 84
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Scientists have found evidence that Earth was covered by a global ocean that turned the planet into a "water world" more than 3 billion years ago. Telltale chemical signatures were spotted in an ancient chunk of ocean crust which point to a planet once devoid of continents, the largest landmasses on Earth. If the findings are confirmed by future work, they will help researchers to refine their theories on where and how the first single-celled life emerged on Earth, and what other worlds may be habitable.
"An early Earth without emergent continents may have resembled a 'water world', providing an important environmental constraint on the origin and evolution of life on Earth, as well as its possible existence elsewhere," the scientists write in Nature Geoscience. Their work centered on a geological site called the Panorama district in north-western Australia's outback, where a 3.2 billion-year-old slab of ocean floor has been turned on its side. Locked inside the ancient crust are chemical clues about the seawater that covered Earth at the time. The scientists focused on different types of oxygen that seawater had carried into the crust. In particular, they analyzed the relative amounts of two isotopes, oxygen-16 and the ever-so-slightly-heavier oxygen-18, in more than 100 samples of the stone. They found that seawater contained more oxygen-18 when the crust was formed 3.2 billion years ago. The most likely explanation, they believe, is that Earth had no continents at the time, because when these form, the clays they contain absorb the ocean's heavy oxygen isotopes. The Earth wasn't entirely landless, however. "The scientists suspect that small 'microcontinents' may have poked out of the ocean here and there," the report adds. "But they do not think the planet hosted vast soil-rich continents like those that dominate Earth today."
"An early Earth without emergent continents may have resembled a 'water world', providing an important environmental constraint on the origin and evolution of life on Earth, as well as its possible existence elsewhere," the scientists write in Nature Geoscience. Their work centered on a geological site called the Panorama district in north-western Australia's outback, where a 3.2 billion-year-old slab of ocean floor has been turned on its side. Locked inside the ancient crust are chemical clues about the seawater that covered Earth at the time. The scientists focused on different types of oxygen that seawater had carried into the crust. In particular, they analyzed the relative amounts of two isotopes, oxygen-16 and the ever-so-slightly-heavier oxygen-18, in more than 100 samples of the stone. They found that seawater contained more oxygen-18 when the crust was formed 3.2 billion years ago. The most likely explanation, they believe, is that Earth had no continents at the time, because when these form, the clays they contain absorb the ocean's heavy oxygen isotopes. The Earth wasn't entirely landless, however. "The scientists suspect that small 'microcontinents' may have poked out of the ocean here and there," the report adds. "But they do not think the planet hosted vast soil-rich continents like those that dominate Earth today."
Can I summarize this as... (Score:4, Interesting)
..."divided the waters from the waters"?
Just checking.
Re: (Score:3)
No actual argument, then, Ipse Dixit Man.
For the record, though, I'm an advocate of theistic evolution. YEC mistakes allegory for literalism.
Re: (Score:1)
For the record, though, I'm an advocate of theistic evolution. YEC mistakes allegory for literalism.
But how do you determine what is allegory and what is literal? It seems that if it is taken literally, science is now starting to agree more with it as a literal interpretation eg. The surface of the earth was just water before the land appeared. Jesus Himself quoted Genesis (Adam and Eve, the consequences of the fall, etc) as if it were literal. If it were all allegory and figurative, then there is no actual concept of original sin, and no point in Jesus needing to die for our sins.
Re: (Score:2)
then there is no actual concept of original sin, and no point in Jesus needing to die for our sins.
And seeing as how original sin is still apparently a thing it was pointless to begin with. Does that mean jesus failed or god reneged. Doesn't matter because they are both the same being so sacrificing yourself to yourself to save us from yourself seems a bit redundant at best.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
For the record, though, I'm an advocate of theistic evolution. YEC mistakes allegory for literalism.
But how do you determine what is allegory and what is literal? It seems that if it is taken literally, science is now starting to agree more with it as a literal interpretation eg. The surface of the earth was just water before the land appeared. Jesus Himself quoted Genesis (Adam and Eve, the consequences of the fall, etc) as if it were literal. If it were all allegory and figurative, then there is no actual concept of original sin, and no point in Jesus needing to die for our sins.
The awesome part is that Adam and Eve were literally the only two people that existed, so incest was a big thing back in the day. This proves that Pornhub's incest porn is not sinful, but a manifestation of God's will.
Who knew?
Re: (Score:2)
They were the only *true* humans, elevated by god, all the others were just animals according to dogma. Cain went and got a wife from somewhere else, Adam and Eve only had the three sons (Cain, Abel, and Seth). Since the wife was from elsewhere she isn't named in Genesis, being just an animal. The same with Seth's wife. Apparently we goyim are all descended from animals, which is why the descendants of Adam are of the opinion that racism is just fine, since it's endorsed by their holy book.
Re: (Score:2)
They were the only *true* humans, elevated by god, all the others were just animals according to dogma. Cain went and got a wife from somewhere else, Adam and Eve only had the three sons (Cain, Abel, and Seth). Since the wife was from elsewhere she isn't named in Genesis, being just an animal. The same with Seth's wife. Apparently we goyim are all descended from animals, which is why the descendants of Adam are of the opinion that racism is just fine, since it's endorsed by their holy book.
I've also heard that at the time of Adam and Eve, that incest was not a problem, because the first humans were of superior stock that sons and mothers or sisters could boink and their offspring wouldn't have the genetic problems that incest can make for today. I suspect projection.
Interestingly enough, while several of the commandments deal with really boring things like not taking the lord's name in vain, you would think one might be "Though shalt not covet your sister or daughter".
Then there was L
Re: (Score:2)
Read Genesis, there were other people, perhaps created by other Gods, at the time. At that Adam and Eve didn't even have any daughters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Woah. So the Bible says there were other gods. Doesn’t the Bible also say there is only one God. Seems like a contradiction
Technically speaking, the admonition was that the Jews were not to have any other gods before the angry desert god. That would seem to indicate that there might be other perfectly legit gods, but the Jews were from that point on only allowed to worship one
Wonder if we could get a translation from the original Habiru?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Read Genesis, there were other people, perhaps created by other Gods, at the time. At that Adam and Eve didn't even have any daughters.
Yeah - Eve was keepin' pretty busy. And the sons must have been triple dippin'. Have a daughter with Eve, then Get with the daughter. Rinse and repeat.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting -
If you get out of the cannonized books and look into the other texts that were in use before the canonization there's some interesting stuff to be found. The Book of Jubilee's (sometimes called the "Little Genesis") actually names one of Adam and Eve's daughters. I got interested in that particular book because I found a reference to it when looking into account of the Anunnaki. The Jubilee's account of the flood doesn't mince words when it said the flood happened to get rid of the Anunnaki.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose it's up for interpretation as to whether or not Cain's wife from "Nod, East of Eden" was created by some being other than the God mentioned in Genesis, but as far as the source material goes, Genesis 5:4 says: "After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters."
And it's not necessarily the case that Cain making love to hi
Re: Can I summarize this as... (Score:2)
I don't believe we can definitively determine it, across all cases, at least not at this point. There remain Mysteries.
However, we can make positions based on science and scripture. For instance, for your question on the literal nature of Adam and Eve, I believe that can be harmonized by reading Genesis as describing two particular individuals being placed in a particular location from among a wider population, the population described as being created the previous "day". As some propose, A&E weren'
Re: (Score:3)
Theistic evolution is what exactly? No theory of evolution, just animals Chuck Norris allowed to survive?
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can tell, it varies slightly based upon the... uhh, desire to legitimize the belief system the claimant actually has.
It appears to, on the rational(er) side, be the basic idea that "science is right about all that sciency shit, but God let it all happen... without breaking the science. We just can't see how he did it. Still. The science is right."
It's not a self-consistent view... but it's also a... "safe" one? I
Re:Can I summarize this as... (Score:5, Funny)
Theistic evolution is what exactly? No theory of evolution, just animals Chuck Norris allowed to survive?
Write to him and ask. The address is gmail@chucknorris.com.
Re: Can I summarize this as... (Score:2)
In brief, theistic evolution says "evolution occurs". Naturalistic evolution says "-only- evolution occurs". The former is the more plausible and defensible stance.
Re: (Score:2)
Well then, what else influences the development of species?
Re: (Score:2)
Currently, human genetic engineering.
Historically, God's genetic engineering.
Re: (Score:1)
Fine, prove god exists THEN look for evidence to support this "direction" of evolution.
First things first
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Can I summarize this as...
Sure, why not.
I will give you today's internet prize for the most resoundingly boring attempt at a troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. If you don't mind me asking where you get the idea from that anything was divided.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, who helped Pence get an account here?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Can I summarize this as... (Score:2)
Considering I just factually did, your position appears rather anti-empirical.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Can I summarize this as... (Score:1)
It directly describes the scientific historical facts, if not in detail. How you twist your rationalizing mind like this, I'll never know.
Re: (Score:2)
So you also hold that the Earth, water with waves on it and the wind all existed before light did (or maybe before the Sun ignited, if we want to be generous)? That's what your holy book claims.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/... [vatican.va]
Re: (Score:2)
Frelling Xtians don't even read the first page of their infallible guide.
[1:1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth,
[1:2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
[1:3] Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
Re: (Score:2)
We understand it as allegory. Theistic evolution advocates such as myself, anyway.
The nonliteral aspects we don't have a problem with. The unlikely nature of the direct correspondences, are yours to explain.
Re: (Score:2)
Though, "quantum field" and "formless void" sound remarkably similar.
Re: (Score:2)
with an alleged 4.5 billion year history (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well... no. I could think of earth being a gas giant, but that's very obviously out of the question.
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on your definition of giant I suppose but before the Earth coalesced from all the dust particles and debris it would have been much larger, slowly over time compressing inward.
Re: (Score:2)
Well... no. I could think of earth being a gas giant, but that's very obviously out of the question.
The only gas giant here is my cousin Billy. Damn, but he can clear a room...
Re: (Score:3)
The earth could have been everything we can think of
Flat?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well known to geologists (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Well known to geologists (Score:2)
The core maybe wasn't 100% Magma but it was definitely a jumble of superheated materials (which might as well been Magma wit
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, that's not what OP was saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just formed in geologic terms can be millions of years.
Na.
Premise of my argument was that AC mistook OP's use of "continental crust" with "crust".
There is no scenario where magma-ball Earth cools from molten magma to crust just forming to cold enough for water to condense in "millions of years"
But long term rain eventually cooled the ground. Areas of the ground were still hot, we have underwater volcanoes to this day. But once water was on the surface, it assisted the beginning of plate tectonics which began the process of generating continental crust.
Not quite. Continental crust differentiation required quite a lot of cooling down (crust had to be thick enough for plate tectonics to even happen)
There was close to half billion years between the formation of the first crust and continental differentiation. This is be
Re: (Score:2)
A planet's birth is chaotic. It was a mish mash of magma, liquid and gases all interacting with varying temperatures. At one point water did flow over super heated mineral materials in gaseous form before the heat of planetary cataclysm died down enough for gases to form into liquids. planetary materials took time to harden due to the intense heat and contrast between cooling gases. Chaotic indeed! Watch the interaction between the ocean and the Volcanic activity in Hawaii https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] .
Added to that, the likely splitting of infant crust from below, it wasn't called the Hadean Epoch for nothing. Nasty place, worse than a Chucky Cheese. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely right, not news. The process creating continental crust is called differentiation. The system has to be stable enough for the heavy stuff to sink and the light stuff to float to the top (of the molten materials), before that only small chunks of lighter material stuck up above a pretty smooth sphere.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only were there water phases (probably more than one) not news to geologists, there were other phases, too.
The paper is just yet another confirmation of water half the Hadean Eon. The first half was very hot and traumatic likely due to the impact that caused us to now have the moon, which probably broke up the planet and had it reform. The second half included water settling out, flooding the world. The paper just adds more evidence of this.
The more interesting one to me was how the entire earth was fro
Irrelevant (Score:4, Interesting)
When a planet forms there will be so many asteroid impacts that it will not be anything like a smooth billiard ball - look at mercury, venus or the moon. Therefore contentinal drift and the processes associated with it are not required to produce elevated areas of a planets surface so the chances of the earth being covered by an incredibly thin (relative to the planets diameter) layer of water with almost no land is probably pretty slim IMO and their theory that because clays absord O18 and there was plenty of O18 in earths early oceans is a massive "so what?" There would be been little to no clays when the earth first formed.
Re: (Score:2)
Our meteorology instructor said, "Take a basketball, and dunk it in a bucket of water. If the Earth were the size of the ball the breathable atmosphere would be thinner than the film of water on the surface when you first take it out. The bumps are taller than Everest, the grooves are deeper than the Challenger Deep."
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they found another point of evidence, but it is well recognized that when water cooled and formed liquid, it quickly covered nearly the entire surface. The process that produces continental crust had just begun, and there were only small points of land sticking out of the ocean.
Good to see a sensible post in here.
Surely. Without that process of drift/cooling, the water would end up being a shallow sort of ocean. My guess is that any exposed land would just be random parts of the accretion process. I didn't even realize this was a thing for scientists to "find", only to confirm a very likely process.
In the beginning... (Score:2)
Who knew Waterworld was a documentary?
deposit 40 quarters to play! (Score:4, Funny)
deposit 40 quarters to play!
I knew it! (Score:2)
I always knew reality was based on a terrible movie.
That's probably when Waterworld was filimed. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually fish didn't come around until a billion or so years later. If you had been around then you probably would have been a blue-green algae.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, a visionary!
Name? (Score:2)
I was expecting to find a name for this single body of water, in the same way that the 'single continent' was named Pangaea.
(Researchers - please don't ask the Internet for suggestions, it'll end up being 'Ocean McSeaface' )
Re: (Score:3)
Panthalassa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Earth's ocean today is a single body of water, which people happen to give different names to areas of. Call it whatever you call the ocean today, because there's no real difference.
Re: (Score:2)
I was expecting to find a name for this single body of water, in the same way that the 'single continent' was named Pangaea.
(Researchers - please don't ask the Internet for suggestions, it'll end up being 'Ocean McSeaface' )
It's ocean. It can split into smaller named regions of ocean but the whole thing is just the ocean, or sea if you prefer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Just as it is now? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Science Says... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about those sea levels? (Score:1)
Which means that global warning (Score:1)