We haven’t dug far enough yet. Thus far, we have found life at the lowest points we’ve ever reached in the sea, specifically the Mariana trenches’ lowest depths.
We’ve also found evidence of life at the lowest parts of the Kola Superdeep Borehole in Russia, the furthest downwards we’ve ever reached on land.
We’d need to go probably at least a mile or two with no evidence of life to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that life couldn’t survive any further down. But thus far, we haven’t gotten that far to give any conclusive answers.
Life on earth has been proven again and again to be able to survive in extraordinary conditions that we previously thought were impossible.
Like others said, we don’t know. But I would argue that there could be life pretty close to the lithosphere. This would most likely be microorganisms like bacteria.
My thought process:
Life first appeared around 3.5 to 4 billion years ago. The proof is found in a sedimentary rock. This means that over millions of years, soil and sand and minerals and organic matter have been laid on top of the earth from that time and buried it. But, the earth is not growing in size (with the exception of meteorites, we have all the earth we will have for the foreseeable future. One of the main reasons things can get buried but not cause the earth to grow is tectonic plates. These are responsible for the growth of mountain ranges. But they are also responsible for recycling the earth. This is where the lithosphere is pulled under by the tectonic plates, pulling some of the lower cust with it. It is estimated that the earths crust can be recycled every 500 million years in some places, meaning, life on earth has lived longer than it takes for the earth to be recycled.
So, if life has lived in a place that is readily recycled and it made it down far enough to be recycled and it adapted to the crazy harsh conditions (really high temperatures and pressure, lack of atmosphere, etc.), then there could be life near the bottom of the earth crust, at a minimum of 3 miles deep (under the deepest parts of the ocean) and a maximum of 44 miles deep (under the tallest mountains).
I do not know any processes where the lifeforms could readily move through the lithosphere into the mantle, so I would say the deepest they could go is near the bottom of the earths crust.
Now, obviously, we haven’t even sort of found evidence of this. This is all hypothetical. But, without a better understanding of our earth, this is as far as I could go with the hypothetical.
If there’s still liquid water, there’s probably life. Temperature will be the limiting factor, and the current record is 122 °C under 40 MPa (400 atm) of pressure.
While “evidence of life” was found at the bottom of the Kola Superdeep Borehole, that was fossils, which could have been much shallower when they were formed.
Since the Moderator Team made the decision to flag my last response as “disingenuous”, and went on to say thereafter:
>You have a tendency to make claims that are….to put it nicely, in complete opposition to scientific fact.
>>We want to believe you are saying these things in good faith, but you must realize that a good-faith statement that is indistinguishable from trolling will be treated as trolling
Allow me to reiterate my words.
Currently there is no universally agreed upon consensus as for what constitutes life. Various fields of studies have their own definitions for what that may or may not be. Additionally, It is important to mention here that the words “life”, “living”, “alive”, and any of the words meant to be their opposition are also not universal nor identically interchangeable in every context.
As such, It is extremely difficult to provide you with any sort of accurate answer without being provided any parameters for what constitutes “life” in terms of the nature of your question. Based on your provided thoughts, one could assume that you mean cellular life or biological life; though, again… that is only one of numerous possibilities of what life is.
…
So, Mod Team. There’s your scientifically accurate answer. It’s still not going to be the one you’re happy with. Let’s not pretend it is. But if you want scientific accuracy… There you go.
Comments
Depends where you’re digging
Nobody knows. We haven’t dug very far down. The Kola bore hole is only 12Km deep and they found microbes and fossils down there.
We haven’t dug far enough yet. Thus far, we have found life at the lowest points we’ve ever reached in the sea, specifically the Mariana trenches’ lowest depths.
We’ve also found evidence of life at the lowest parts of the Kola Superdeep Borehole in Russia, the furthest downwards we’ve ever reached on land.
We’d need to go probably at least a mile or two with no evidence of life to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that life couldn’t survive any further down. But thus far, we haven’t gotten that far to give any conclusive answers.
Life on earth has been proven again and again to be able to survive in extraordinary conditions that we previously thought were impossible.
[removed]
Let’s grab a shovel and find out.
Middle earth.
Like others said, we don’t know. But I would argue that there could be life pretty close to the lithosphere. This would most likely be microorganisms like bacteria.
My thought process:
Life first appeared around 3.5 to 4 billion years ago. The proof is found in a sedimentary rock. This means that over millions of years, soil and sand and minerals and organic matter have been laid on top of the earth from that time and buried it. But, the earth is not growing in size (with the exception of meteorites, we have all the earth we will have for the foreseeable future. One of the main reasons things can get buried but not cause the earth to grow is tectonic plates. These are responsible for the growth of mountain ranges. But they are also responsible for recycling the earth. This is where the lithosphere is pulled under by the tectonic plates, pulling some of the lower cust with it. It is estimated that the earths crust can be recycled every 500 million years in some places, meaning, life on earth has lived longer than it takes for the earth to be recycled.
So, if life has lived in a place that is readily recycled and it made it down far enough to be recycled and it adapted to the crazy harsh conditions (really high temperatures and pressure, lack of atmosphere, etc.), then there could be life near the bottom of the earth crust, at a minimum of 3 miles deep (under the deepest parts of the ocean) and a maximum of 44 miles deep (under the tallest mountains).
I do not know any processes where the lifeforms could readily move through the lithosphere into the mantle, so I would say the deepest they could go is near the bottom of the earths crust.
Now, obviously, we haven’t even sort of found evidence of this. This is all hypothetical. But, without a better understanding of our earth, this is as far as I could go with the hypothetical.
Why would you break the number one rule?!
youtube video on this, Kurzgesagt Deep Biosphere is a great watch!
If there’s still liquid water, there’s probably life. Temperature will be the limiting factor, and the current record is 122 °C under 40 MPa (400 atm) of pressure.
The depth will vary based on location, but going by the data at https://stellaeenergy.com/geothermal-energy/geothermal-exploration/thermal-boreholes, you’d reach that temperature at a depth of 4km in some places in Germany.
While “evidence of life” was found at the bottom of the Kola Superdeep Borehole, that was fossils, which could have been much shallower when they were formed.
Be careful delving too greedily and too deep, I heard something about that one time and it didn’t go well for them
Since the Moderator Team made the decision to flag my last response as “disingenuous”, and went on to say thereafter:
>You have a tendency to make claims that are….to put it nicely, in complete opposition to scientific fact.
>>We want to believe you are saying these things in good faith, but you must realize that a good-faith statement that is indistinguishable from trolling will be treated as trolling
Allow me to reiterate my words.
Currently there is no universally agreed upon consensus as for what constitutes life. Various fields of studies have their own definitions for what that may or may not be. Additionally, It is important to mention here that the words “life”, “living”, “alive”, and any of the words meant to be their opposition are also not universal nor identically interchangeable in every context.
As such, It is extremely difficult to provide you with any sort of accurate answer without being provided any parameters for what constitutes “life” in terms of the nature of your question. Based on your provided thoughts, one could assume that you mean cellular life or biological life; though, again… that is only one of numerous possibilities of what life is.
…
So, Mod Team. There’s your scientifically accurate answer. It’s still not going to be the one you’re happy with. Let’s not pretend it is. But if you want scientific accuracy… There you go.
Ask the clowns on oak island
I seen some real dumbasses about 9800 feet underground watching a movie instead of working a few days ago so at least that deep
Depends on how long you last, I suppose.
It’s turtles all the way down
We haven’t dug far enough yet to reach the lizzid peeple.
As far as I want, because I’m alive, and I’m down there digging.