How Life Survived Snowball Earth
Artist's impression of "Snowball Earth." The Snowball Earth hypothesis suggests that, hundreds of ... More millions of years ago, the Earth's surface may have frozen solid as a result of severe climate change.
During the Cryogenian period about 700 to 635 million years ago, Earth experienced a super ice age, one that froze the entire planet from the poles to the equator. Scientist have long wondered how life survived this 'Snowball Earth.' Most of the surface was covered by ice, so there was no to little sunlight reaching the oceans, and with no weathering happening on the frozen-solid continents, no nutrients were washed into the sea. Maybe hot springs deep beneath the ice provided a last viable spot where life persisted until the ice receded.
In a new study, researchers at MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, the Natural History Museum in London and the University of Waikato in New Zealand, propose an alternative hypothesis.
'We're interested in understanding the foundations of complex life on Earth. We see evidence for eukaryotes before and after the Cryogenian in the fossil record, but we largely lack direct evidence of where they may have lived during,' says lead author Fatima Husain, a graduate student in MIT. 'The great part of this mystery is, we know life survived. We're just trying to understand how and where.'
The scientists found that lifeforms could have survived the global freeze by living in watery oases on the surface.
Similar environmental conditions still exist today in cryoconite holes. Dark-colored dust and debris transported by glaciers to the surface absorb sunlight, heating up and melting into the ice forming small pockets and holes. At temperatures hovering around 0 degrees Celsius, the resulting meltwater ponds could have served as habitable environments for early life.
Cryoconite hole on a glacier
The researchers analyzed samples from a variety of cryoconite holes and meltwater ponds located on the McMurdo Ice Shelf in an area that was first described by members of Robert Falcon Scott's 1903 expedition as 'dirty ice.' They discovered clear signatures of life in every pond. Even more surprising, the communities varied from pond to pond, revealing a high diversity of life forms.
There were cyanobacteria, prokaryotic, single-celled photosynthetic organisms that lack a cell nucleus or other organelles. The oldest cyanobacteria-like fossils appear on Earth over 3 billion years ago. While these ancient microbes are known to survive within some of the the harshest environments on Earth, the researchers wanted to know whether eukaryotes — complex organisms that evolved a cell nucleus and other membrane bound organelles — could also weather similarly challenging circumstances. Chemical analysis showed the presence of various molecules clearly associated with eukaryotic life.
The team found that salinity plays a key role in the kind of life a pond can host: Ponds that were more brackish or salty had more similar communities, which differed from those in ponds with fresher waters.
'No two ponds were alike,' Husain explains. 'There are repeating casts of characters, but they're present in different abundances. And we found diverse assemblages of eukaryotes from all the major groups in all the ponds studied. These eukaryotes are the descendants of the eukaryotes that survived the Snowball Earth. This really highlights that meltwater ponds during Snowball Earth could have served as above-ice oases that nurtured the eukaryotic life that enabled the diversification and proliferation of complex life — including us — later on.'
Additional material and interviews provided by MIT News.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
What happens when you use ChatGPT to write an essay? See what new study found.
Artificial intelligence chatbots may be able to write a quick essay, but a new study from MIT found that their use comes at a cognitive cost. A study published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Media Lab analyzed the cognitive function of 54 people writing an essay with: only the assistance of OpenAI's ChatGPT; only online browsers; or no outside tools at all. Largely, the study found that those who relied solely on ChatGPT to write their essays had lower levels of brain activity and presented less original writing. "As we stand at this technological crossroads, it becomes crucial to understand the full spectrum of cognitive consequences associated with (language learning model) integration in educational and informational contexts," the study states. "While these tools offer unprecedented opportunities for enhancing learning and information access, their potential impact on cognitive development, critical thinking and intellectual independence demands a very careful consideration and continued research." Here's a deeper look at the study and how it was conducted. Terms to know: With artificial intelligence growing popular, here's what to know about how it works AI in education: How AI is affecting the way kids learn to read and write A team of MIT researchers, led by MIT Media Lab research scientist Nataliya Kosmyna, studied 54 participants between the ages of 18 and 39. Participants were recruited from MIT, Wellesley College, Harvard, Tufts University and Northeastern University. The participants were randomly split into three groups, 18 people per group. The study states that the three groups included a language learning model group, in which participants only used OpenAI's ChatGPT-4o to write their essays. The second group was limited to using only search engines for their research, and the third was prohibited from any tools. Participants in the latter group could only use their minds to write their essays. Each participant had 20 minutes to write an essay from one of three prompts taken from SAT tests, the study states. Three different options were provided to each group, totaling nine unique prompts. An example of a prompt available to participants using ChatGPT was about loyalty: "Many people believe that loyalty whether to an individual, an organization, or a nation means unconditional and unquestioning support no matter what. To these people, the withdrawal of support is by definition a betrayal of loyalty. But doesn't true loyalty sometimes require us to be critical of those we are loyal to? If we see that they are doing something that we believe is wrong, doesn't true loyalty require us to speak up, even if we must be critical? Does true loyalty require unconditional support?" As the participants wrote their essays, they were hooked up to a Neuoelectrics Enobio 32 headset, which allowed researchers to collect EEG (electroencephalogram) signals, the brain's electrical activity. Following the sessions, 18 participants returned for a fourth study group. Participants who had previously used ChatGPT to write their essays were required to use no tools and participants who had used no tools before used ChatGPT, the study states. In addition to analyzing brain activity, the researchers looked at the essays themselves. First and foremost, the essays of participants who used no tools (ChatGPT or search engines) had wider variability in both topics, words and sentence structure, the study states. On the other hand, essays written with the help of ChatGPT were more homogenous. All of the essays were "judged" by two English teachers and two AI judges trained by the researchers. The English teachers were not provided background information about the study but were able to identify essays written by AI. "These, often lengthy essays included standard ideas, reoccurring typical formulations and statements, which made the use of AI in the writing process rather obvious. We, as English teachers, perceived these essays as 'soulless,' in a way, as many sentences were empty with regard to content and essays lacked personal nuances," a statement from the teachers, included in the study, reads. As for the AI judges, a judge trained by the researchers to evaluate like the real teachers scored each of the essays, for the most part, a four or above, on a scale of five. When it came to brain activity, researchers were presented "robust" evidence that participants who used no writing tools displayed the "strongest, widest-ranging" brain activity, while those who used ChatGPT displayed the weakest. Specifically, the ChatGPT group displayed 55% reduced brain activity, the study states. And though the participants who used only search engines had less overall brain activity than those who used no tools, these participants had a higher level of eye activity than those who used ChatGPT, even though both were using a digital screen. Further research on the long-term impacts of artificial intelligence chatbots on cognitive activity is needed, the study states. As for this particular study, researchers noted that a larger number of participants from a wider geographical area would be necessary for a more successful study. Writing outside of a traditional educational environment could also provide more insight into how AI works in more generalized tasks. Greta Cross is a national trending reporter at USA TODAY. Story idea? Email her at gcross@ This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Using ChatGPT to write an essay lowers brain activity: MIT study
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
This is your brain on ChatGPT
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Sizzle. Sizzle. That's the sound of your neurons frying over the heat of a thousand GPUs as your generative AI tool of choice cheerfully churns through your workload. As it turns out, offloading all of that cognitive effort to a robot as you look on in luxury is turning your brain into a couch potato. That's what a recently published (and yet to be peer-reviewed) paper from some of MIT's brightest minds suggests, anyway. The study examines the "neural and behavioral consequences" of using LLMs (Large Language Models) like ChatGPT for, in this instance, essay writing. The findings raise serious questions about how long-term use of AI might affect learning, thinking, and memory. More worryingly, we recently witnessed it play out in real life. The study, titled: Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task, involved 54 participants split into three groups: LLM group: Instructed to complete assignments using only ChatGPT, and no other websites or tools. Search engine group: Allowed to use any website except LLMs, even AI-enhanced answers were forbidden. Brain-only group: Relying only on their own knowledge. Across three sessions, these groups were tasked with writing an essay about one of three changing topics. An example of the essay question for the topic of "Art" was: "Do works of art have the power to change people's lives?" Participants then had 20 minutes to answer the question related to their chosen topic in essay form, all while wearing an Enobio headset to collect EEG signals from their brain. In a fourth session, LLM and Brain-only groups were swapped to measure any potential lasting impact of prior sessions. The results? Across the first three tests, Brain-only writers had the most active, widespread brain engagement during the task, while LLM-assisted writers showed the lowest levels of brain activity across the board (although routinely completed the task fastest). Search engine-assisted users generally fell somewhere in between the two. In short, Brain-only writers were actively engaging with the assignment, producing more creative and unique writing while actually learning. They were able to quote their essays afterwards and felt strong ownership of their work. Alternatively, LLM users engaged less over each session, began to uncritically rely on ChatGPT more as the study went on, and felt less ownership of the results. Their work was judged to be less unique, and participants often failed to accurately quote from their own work, suggesting reduced long-term memory formation. Researchers referred to this phenomenon as "metacognitive laziness" — not just a great name for a Prog-Rock band, but also a perfect label for the hazy distance between autopilot and Copilot, where participants disengage and let the AI do the thinking for them. But it was the fourth session that yielded the most worrying results. According to the study, when the LLM and Brain-only group traded places, the group that previously relied on AI failed to bounce back to pre-LLM levels tested before the study. To put it simply, sustained use of AI tools like ChatGPT to "help" with tasks that require critical thinking, creativity, and cognitive engagement may erode our natural ability to access those processes in the future. But we didn't need a 206-page study to tell us that. On June 10, an outage lasting over 10 hours saw ChatGPT users cut off from their AI assistant, and it provoked a disturbing trend of people openly admitting, sans any hint of awareness, that without access to OpenAI's chatbot, they'd suddenly forgotten how to work, write, or function. This study may have used EEG caps and grading algorithms to prove it, but most of us may already be living its findings. When faced with an easy or hard path, many of us would assume that only a particularly smooth-brained individual would willingly take the more difficult, obtuse route. However, as this study claims, the so-called easy path may be quietly sanding down our frontal lobes in a lasting manner — at least when it comes to our use of AI. That's especially frightening when you think of students, who are adopting these tools en masse, with OpenAI itself pushing for wider embrace of ChatGPT in education as part of its mission to build "an AI-Ready Workforce." A 2023 study conducted by revealed that a third of U.S. college students surveyed used ChatGPT for schoolwork during the 2022/23 academic year. In 2024, a survey from the Digital Education Council claimed that 86% of students across 16 countries use artificial intelligence in their studies to some degree. AI's big sell is productivity, the promise that we can get more done, faster. And yes, MIT researchers have previously concluded that AI tools can boost worker productivity by up to 15%, but the long-term impact suggests codependency over competency. And that sounds a lot like regression. At least for the one in front of the computer. Sizzle. Sizzle. Is Microsoft misleading users about Copilot? New claims point the finger at AI productivity Why OpenAI engineers are turning down $100 million from Meta, according to Sam Altman Google's latest Gemini 2.5 models are its biggest response to ChatGPT yet — and they're already live
News24
an hour ago
- News24
How did life survive 'Snowball Earth'? In ponds, study suggests
Earth has not always been so hospitable to live. During several ice ages, the planet's surface was almost completely frozen over, creating what has been dubbed "Snowball Earth". Liquid water appears to be the most important ingredient for life on any planet, raising the question: how did anything survive such frosty, brutal times? A group of scientists said Thursday that they had found an astonishing diversity of microorganisms in tiny pools of melted ice in Antarctica, suggesting that life could have ridden out Snowball Earth in similar ponds. During the Cryogenian Period between 635 and 720 million years ago, the average global temperature did not rise above -50 degrees Celsius. The climate near the equator at the time resembled modern-day Antarctica. Yet even in such extreme conditions, life found a way to keep evolving. Fatima Husain, the lead author of a new study published in Nature Communications, told AFP there was evidence of complex life forms "before and after the Cryogenian in the fossil record". "There are multiple hypotheses regarding possible places life may have persisted," said Husain, a graduate student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Perhaps it found shelter in patches of open ocean, or in deep-sea hydrothermal vents, or under vast sheets of ice. The tiny melted ice pools that dotted the equator were another proposed refuge. These ponds could have been oases for eukaryotes, complex organisms that eventually evolved into multicellular life forms that would rise to dominate Earth, including humans. READ | SA environment lawyer globally recognised for work to have Antarctica declared a legal person Could aliens be hiding in ponds? Melted ice ponds still exist today in Antarctica, at the edges of ice sheets. In 2018, members of a New Zealand research team visited the McMurdo ice shelf in east Antarctica, home to several such pools, which are only a few metres wide and less a metre deep. The bottom of the ponds are lined with a mat of microbes that have accumulated over the years to form slimy layers. "These mats can be a few centimetres thick, colourful, and they can be very clearly layered," Husain said. They are made up of single-celled organisms called cyanobacteria that are known to be able to survive extreme conditions. But the researchers also found signs indicating there were eukaryotes such as algae or microscopic animals. This suggests there was surprising diversity in the ponds, which appears to have been influenced by the amount of salt each contained. "No two ponds were alike," Husain said. "We found diverse assemblages of eukaryotes from all the major groups in all the ponds studied." "They demonstrate that these unique environments are capable of sheltering diverse assemblages of life, even in close proximity," she added. This could have implications in the search for extraterrestrial life. "Studies of life within these special environments on Earth can help inform our understanding of potential habitable environments on icy worlds, including icy moons in our Solar System," Husain said. Saturn's moon Enceladus and Jupiter's Europa are covered in ice, but scientists increasingly suspect they could be home to simple forms of life, and several space missions have been launched to find out more about them.
