quote:

So the Earth's biosphere and its geosphere are not separate

Am i the only one tempted to go "well duh". Anyway, these sort of bacteria (Ardhea mostly) are a part of the stuff i studied so i guess i may be a little better informed than most.

And Soul nice

True this isn't revelational but it may be for some people - especially those who like to categoize things (in a simple way).

quote:

Originally posted by Chad the Lad:

quote:

Originally posted by ZoneSeek:
CSI-type ballistics question: Can they match shot to a specific shotgun?

*builds a fort out of books, hides*

Short answer: Yes, absolutely.

Hm. In theory, everything's unique, and all contacts have some transfer. But is this a practical reality? "This here proves it, y'all. Cletus done killed the Malloy brothers."

What are forest clearings? How do they come to exist? Are they the result of very local fires caused by lightning strikes or something?

They're a primitive form of crop circles. People always make the mistake of assuming the aliens have always been advanced - when in fact it was only a few hundred years ago that they were stumbling through the galaxy in space-zeppelin.


- Soul

*Frowns at soulslack*

Who let you in here?

Anyway, I'd just like to add that "You stumped me." Is not an acceptable answer and is not very funny, either, in case anyone was fool enough to think otherwise.

Interesting read, that part about 70% of the Earth's living things might be microbes living far underground. And immortal.

Anyone know the relative statistics for more-familiar life-forms?

What percent of Life is people? Mammals? Reptiles? Fishes? BUGS! etc?

i couldn't tell you where this fact came from, but i read somewhere that insects outnumber humans like 20 million to 1

Soft tissue recovered from tyrannosaurus remains! (NYT article)

quote:

A 70-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex recently discovered in Montana, scientists reported today, has apparently yielded the improbable: soft tissues, including blood vessels and possibly cells, that "retain some of their original flexibility, elasticity and resilience."

In a paper being published on Friday in the journal Science, the discovery team said that the remarkable preservation of the tissue might open up "avenues for studying dinosaur physiology and perhaps some aspects of their biochemistry."

Life will find a way, huh?

Extremely cool, thanks for the heads up.

neil posted this a couple days ago, thot of you sciency guys in your lounge here.

13 things that do not make sense

The possibility of recovering DNA is really cool. As Hal pointed out earlier in the thread, the oldest DNA found so far is about 30 million years old. I guess this would be more than twice as old. Getting protein would be great, too, adding more info on how dinosaurs relate evolutionarily to other animals.

That article really blows my mind...

I really hope they can use the tissue to learn something new...

70,000 years old and not quite fossilized...

*boggled*

Yeah, I'd be interested to learn why the tissue wasn't fossilized, how it came to be different from the state of other non-bone tissue more frequently found. I don't know that much about fossilization, though. Maybe Hal or Matt have ideas about it?

>>>What are forest clearings? How do they come to exist?<<<

Gal,

As far as I know, it works like this - either

(a) A large tree falls down (Because ... lightning strike? Insect infestation? Bark girdling caused by starving deer? Strangulation by noxious non-native English ivy? All of the above?). Causes an instant but temporary clearing.

(b) Soil depth is not consistent. Trees need a certain depth of soil. Areas that have more or less solid rocky stuff not too far below the surface will support small plants, but not full-sized trees. Causes a very long-lasting clearing. (Until the little plants break down enough rock and/or dead plant matter builds up to enough depth to support trees ... a lengthy process at the best of times ....)

- Cho, the amateur naturalist's daughter

Excerpts at dKos from a snarky Scientific American editorial on evolution

Thank God for snarky Scientific Americans!

Too bad it was probably lost on the goofy people who's inane actions prompted such a response...

Lovely, lovely snarky SciAm!



- Cho

quote:

Originally posted by CancerDusk:
Yeah, I'd be interested to learn why the tissue wasn't fossilized, how it came to be different from the state of other non-bone tissue more frequently found. I don't know that much about fossilization, though. Maybe Hal or Matt have ideas about it?

it was fossilised

quote:

When they got it into a lab and chemically removed the hard minerals, they found what looked like blood vessels, bone cells and perhaps even blood cells.

the so called 'cells' are microstructures of the original cells preserved probably during the process of mineralisation. So yeah being my general sceptical self about whether they will be able to extract DNA or proteins (i would think they would have more luck trying to identify the protiens via the remnant structures found).

The 30 million year old case of chloroplast DNA extraction from leaves in basically perfect preservation environment was a fluke of nature, one of those billion to one chances (well the % of bones that even get fossilised is like a million to one), perhaps this is a similar such fluke....

but just to be the ultimate drag as far as jurassic park enthusasts go, if DNA is found it will be very incomplete, like maybe a couple of hundred base pairs long. Most well preserved DNA structures denature completely by 100, 000 years.

Does that help? Or do i need to break things down more from geek speak?

And CD love the Scientific American link!