What I'm more amused by is the level of scepticism over an self contained eco-system. In order for any eco-system, either contained or not contained, there has to be much greater tolerances to extreme conditions that we generally acknowledge. In truth, outside of absolute extremes where organic life is simply impossible because or either denaturing or absolute destruction of organic material, life will exist. It's also entirely possible that this bottle now contains bacteria, fungi, or other organisms that are much more efficient at breaking down the organic material left by the dying plant mater.
People really hate the daily mail, don't they? It's a tabloid, but realistically you should be skeptical about everything the press puts out. However, when it's a plant in a jar, being skeptical is really just being a crank. It's a plant in a jar. Who cares? Besides, just because more credible papers mention the guy doesn't change the fact that you have to take him for his word.
I think some people thrive on being contrarian, regardless of whether they have a valid reason for it or not. I just can't decide whether some people do it for the sake of appearing smart (look at me! I call everything into question!) or because they're extremely pessimistic and/or skeptical in nature. The problem with the latter is that it almost seems to be expressed in online discussions to a pathological extreme, so I'm sure it shares something with those personality traits that lend themselves to trolling (at least to a degree).
There's an interesting discussion on the bottled plant over at skeptics.stackexchange.com [1] that covers many of these reasons, but in more detail. The crux of it is that we can't really prove whether or not David Latimer did or did not water this plant in the 40-odd years since bottling it, so we're left with taking his word for it.
But at the end of the day I don't think it really matters. He looks like a nice guy I wouldn't mind having for a neighbor and really appreciates his plants. Maybe he's spinning a yarn, maybe he's not. Does it really matter? No.
I try to be rigorous in my thinking but I have also run into "skeptics" that are far too rigorous for daily life. My only complaint about this story is that it should be in the human interest section rather than the science section if it's too frivolous to subject to scrutiny.
The Daily Mail is especially hated because it's a tabloid hiding under a veneer of respectability. It has a long history of pandering 'science' stories.
This story for example. Don't you wonder how the interior of the glass has stayed so spotless for 40 years? It has to be cleaned, but they don't explain how.
Maybe it's some kind of magnetic cleaner, or maybe he's simply opening the bottle up to clean it. It's an obvious question, but it's typical of the Daily Mail's cynical and patronizing attitude that they don't care to answer it.
It's not any old tabloid. It's journalistic ethos centres on garnering page views by stirring up fear and anger in its readers for the most part, with a bit of titilation from prepubescent girls on the side.
I don't think it is unreasonable to assume some unique mutations in the bacteria? Depends I guess on what (if any) uv and other radiation gets through -- more perhaps than just the number of bacteria generations one would expect in 40 years...
