Comments on: Stromatolites http://googlesightseeing.com/2007/10/22/stromatolites/ Why bother seeing the world for real? Wed, 03 Dec 2008 00:19:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Timothy http://googlesightseeing.com/2007/10/22/stromatolites/#comment-167203 Timothy Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:57:58 +0000 http://googlesightseeing.com/2007/10/22/stromatolites/#comment-167203 A colony of bacteria is not an organism or a creature and it is highly unlikely that those Stromatolites are the oldest colonies of bacteria in the world. The bacteria themselves probably do not live very long at all. I also wonder how the colonies have survived 3000 years, surely there have been sea level changes in that time? A colony of bacteria is not an organism or a creature and it is highly unlikely that those Stromatolites are the oldest colonies of bacteria in the world.
The bacteria themselves probably do not live very long at all.
I also wonder how the colonies have survived 3000 years, surely there have been sea level changes in that time?

]]> By: Alex http://googlesightseeing.com/2007/10/22/stromatolites/#comment-166991 Alex Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:21:15 +0000 http://googlesightseeing.com/2007/10/22/stromatolites/#comment-166991 <p>Doug, it’s simply incredible how old those trees are! Here’s a maps link to the rough location of the <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=37.385278,-118.177222&ie=UTF8&t=k&z=16&iwloc=addr&om=1" rel="nofollow">Methuselah</a> tree, which at <strong>4,839 years old</strong> is clearly the oldest living organism on Earth.</p> <p>Of course after reading your comment, I spent a long time researching the definition of exactly what defines a “creature” (as opposed to a tree), with the intention of being able to say that my statement still stood, and that Stromatolites are the world’s oldest living <em>creatures</em>, not organisms.</p> <p>Princeton University’s Wordnet service <a href="http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=creature" rel="nofollow">defines</a> the word “creature” as “a living organism characterized by voluntary movement”, and Wikipedia states that Cyanobacteria, and many other bacteria, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_gliding" rel="nofollow">do indeed move</a>.</p> <p>Of course I’m not a biologist… and by this point am so completely out of my depth that I’m fully expecting to be ripped a new one by any kid who took high-school science. :D</p> <p>So perhaps any biologists reading (you know who you are!) can clear this matter up?</p> Doug, it’s simply incredible how old those trees are! Here’s a maps link to the rough location of the Methuselah tree, which at 4,839 years old is clearly the oldest living organism on Earth.

Of course after reading your comment, I spent a long time researching the definition of exactly what defines a “creature” (as opposed to a tree), with the intention of being able to say that my statement still stood, and that Stromatolites are the world’s oldest living creatures, not organisms.

Princeton University’s Wordnet service defines the word “creature” as “a living organism characterized by voluntary movement”, and Wikipedia states that Cyanobacteria, and many other bacteria, do indeed move.

Of course I’m not a biologist… and by this point am so completely out of my depth that I’m fully expecting to be ripped a new one by any kid who took high-school science. :D

So perhaps any biologists reading (you know who you are!) can clear this matter up?

]]> By: Doug Blair http://googlesightseeing.com/2007/10/22/stromatolites/#comment-166895 Doug Blair Tue, 23 Oct 2007 04:22:35 +0000 http://googlesightseeing.com/2007/10/22/stromatolites/#comment-166895 Stomatolites are very cool, but they are not as old as bristlecone pines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristlecone_pine Stomatolites are very cool, but they are not as old as bristlecone pines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristlecone_pine

]]>