Meteorites did not enrich ocean life: study

January 24, 2017
Meteorite
Credit: NASA

An explosion of ocean life some 471 million years ago was not sparked by a meteorite bombardment of Earth, said a study Tuesday that challenges a leading theory.

Without offering an alternative explanation for what is known as the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event (GOBE), researchers from Sweden and Denmark said the creature expansion started some two million years before the space rock bombardment.

This was based on fresh dating of crystals from meteorite-bearing sediments in Sweden.

"This study shows that the two phenomena were unrelated," researchers wrote in the journal Nature Communications.

For study co-author Anders Lindskog of Lund University in Sweden, the data showed "there is no measurable 'extraterrestrial' influence on biodiversity" in Earth's oceans.

The GOBE, which vastly expanded marine life diversity, kicked off about 70 million years after the first explosion of life on Earth during the preceding Cambrian period, some 540 million years ago.

Some scientists contend that the Ordovician event was sparked by a collision of objects in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter raining debris down on our planet.

Such a bombardment may have changed the environment just enough to stimulate diversification of existing life, the theory goes.

The question of what caused it remains open, but Lindskog speculated it was likely a combination of events and processes.

"It is reasonable that the very high sea levels that prevailed during the Ordovician... simply gave more space for to thrive," he told AFP.

"Combined with the presence of many small continents (allowing for more endemic faunas, adding to the sum of different species) and beneficial climate change (cooling, most likely), we have a pretty nice 'recipe' for biodiversification," he said by email.

Explore further: First big-picture look at meteorites from before giant space collision 466 million years ago

More information: Refined Ordovician timescale reveals no link between asteroid breakup and biodiversification, Nature Communications, nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/ncomms14066

Related Stories

Unknown alien rock found in Swedish quarry

June 14, 2016

A morsel of never-before-seen alien rock has been dug up in a limestone quarry in Sweden, where it had lain deeply buried for about 470 million years, scientists said Tuesday.

Meteorite minerals hint at earth extinctions, climate change

September 12, 2013

A huge asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs may not have been the only cosmic event to cause mass extinctions or change Earth's climate. Tiny minerals leftover from many smaller meteorites could provide the geological evidence ...

Recommended for you

The world needs to rethink the value of water

November 23, 2017

Research led by Oxford University highlights the accelerating pressure on measuring, monitoring and managing water locally and globally. A new four-part framework is proposed to value water for sustainable development to ...

'Lost' 99% of ocean microplastics to be identified with dye?

November 23, 2017

The smallest microplastics in our oceans – which go largely undetected and are potentially harmful – could be more effectively identified using an innovative and inexpensive new method, developed by researchers at the ...

11 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

FredJose
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 24, 2017
Speculation simply means IT IS NOT TRUE.
The only truth is that which accords with a supernatural creation. There is no other explanation that makes any rational sense.
The universe did not create itself from nothing.
Stars cannot spring up from clouds of gas all by themselves. Hence no galaxies either. Furthermore no planets can form from clouds of dust all by themselves.
Biological life as we know it cannot spring up from dust/pond scum all by itself via some random chemical and physical natural processes all by itself.

This leaves only the one rational explanation that is possible - the universe and everything in it was supernaturally created by a super intelligent, all-powerful creator who is both external to time and matter.
We call such a being GOD.

Any other explanation for the existence of everything is irrational.
FredJose
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2017
The key to knowing that a purely materialistic or naturalistic explanation for the existence of the universe and everything in it is irrational is quite simply this:

There is such an oversupply of highly specific INFORMATION and SPECIFICATION that governs the existence of everything and which is amenable to LOGIC that it simply defies any notion that there is a purely naturalistic cause.

Information and logic are abstract entities that cannot arise from a naturalistic or materialistic cause. Information that specifies the discovered laws of behavior of physical things as well as that of biological life simply has to have arrived from an intelligence outside of the material universe. One can take the simply analogy of a book as an example of exactly this. The material, size, shape, colour, paper, binding etc. are all specified by an outside intelligence. The information contained in it is totally portable to other media and not locked into the book itself.
st1bern
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2017
But we were told by "top notch scientists" that we are "star dust". In my world if something is there, I figure someone put it there, if it moves, some one is moving it, if it makes a sound, someone or something is making it. If I do not see the creator, or the mover, or the singer, I do not conclude the source is "Chaos" or pixy dust. I must conclude that something superior cannot come from something inferior. I have yet to see order come out of chaos. I must assume different intellects are required to make a sharp stick or a submarine or conduct lazer eye surgery. As for life and DNA? Must be an awesome entity to grant us life, love, and beauty. I for one, say "Thank You" daily! But then I am not a "scientist".
humy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 24, 2017
Speculation simply means IT IS NOT TRUE.

firstly, it isn't "speculation" but evidence-based science.
Secondly, even when something is speculation, that doesn't logically entail it is false as there is no logical contradiction in a speculation happening to be true.
Thirdly, Goddidit is speculation.
The only truth is that which accords with a supernatural creation.
How would you know this?

There is no other explanation that makes any rational sense.

In what way would all none superstitious explanations make no rational sense?
Why would saying that lighting is an electrical discharge rather than the gods being angry not make rational sense?
The universe did not create itself from nothing.

Nobody that understands cosmology claims or believes this.
humy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 24, 2017
Stars cannot spring up from clouds of gas all by themselves.

There is good evidence that stars are formed by dust and gas clouds collapsing under their own gravity, just as the known law of gravity dictates . Just one example;
http://scitechdai...lky-way/
"...astronomers observed the birth of a massive star within a dark cloud core,..."

In contrast, there is no evidence that a god or gods did this.
humy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 24, 2017
I have yet to see order come out of chaos.

So you don't believe geometrically complex ice crystals can grow by the random motion of water molecules as they adhere to each other?
So how do you explain how complex ice crystals form?
Or that the chaos of weather can result in a orderly patterns of the structure of hurricanes with a near-perfectly round eye of the hurricane?
+ Computers simulations involving fractals show how something simple can result in immense complexity and such fractal patterns have been observed to form in nature.
Drjsa_oba
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2017
Hi Humy,
You have to take into account that FredJose is just a common troll. I would not be surprised if he lives under an old bridge and eats children and goats that try to cross. In fact there is no logical reason to believe that anything else is even possible.
Guy_Underbridge
5 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2017
I would not be surprised if he lives under an old bridge and eats children and goats that try to cross.
Dr. J, Don't knock the BBQ'ed goat, unless you've tried it, accompanied by a good Cabernet.

Guy_Underbridge
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2017
The only truth is that which accords with a supernatural creation. There is no other explanation that makes any rational sense.
I guess that must be the alternate definition of 'rational':
"I look at thing, I don't understand, it must be f-ing magic."
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2017
Speculation simply means IT IS NOT TRUE.

No, it means guessing at what the truth is...
The only truth is that which accords with a supernatural creation. There is no other explanation that makes any rational sense.

No, There are a number of them that make MORE sense...
The universe did not create itself from nothing.

Guess what that means. There was SOMEthing - (in motion).
Stars cannot spring up from clouds of gas all by themselves. Hence no galaxies either. Furthermore no planets can form from clouds of dust all by themselves.

They don't do it "by themselves". They have magnetism, gravity and energy, just to start...
Biological life as we know it cannot spring up from dust/pond scum all by itself via some random chemical and physical natural processes all by itself.

It didn't spring, it crawled. Over billions of iterations of trial and error...
And it wasn't "random".
(cont)
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 25, 2017
(cont)
This leaves only the one rational explanation that is possible - the universe and everything in it was supernaturally created by a super intelligent, all-powerful creator who is both external to time and matter.
We call such a being GOD.

A paradox, here. THAT is not a rational explanation.
What began this Universe was reaction to a simple "difference" (I call it "charge differential") somewhere within it's "set".
Even the most minute difference causes reaction.
GOD is an acronym for "Geometrically Ordinated Datum".
(Something moves in one place, something else has to move at it's matching opposite in it's field defined set - and so it begins...)
Any other explanation ... is irrational.

You betray your own limits. Your inability to comprehend the simple action/reaction process is confoundingly irrational.
Attempting to rationalize that with the APPEARANCE of irrationality - is the only rational way to exist...:-)
And it's fun, too !!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.