Unknown_Poltroon: This is supposed to be new? Panspermia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia has been around for decades.
Martian_Astronomer: FTFA: Sharov and Gordon's idea raises other intriguing possibilities. For one, "life before earth" debunks the long-held science-fiction trope of the scientifically advanced alien species. If genetic complexity progresses at a steady rate, then the social and scientific development of any other alien life form in the Milky Way galaxy would be roughly equivalent to those of humans.This may be the dumbest thing I've read all morning. And I just got finished browsing FSTDT.
Huggermugger: Staff Scientist Alexei Sharov of the National Institute on Aging in BaltimoreThere's an entire institute that studies aging in Baltimore? Is it that bad to grow old in B'more?
This About That: Moore's Law is simple curve fitting, unlikely to apply elsewhere or to remain constant. So there.
kbronsito: [images.persephonemagazine.com image 300x161]all of this has happened before and it will happpen again, again, again...
GBB: Moore's Law describes the rate of technological progression, not a natural evolution. Unless these scientists are trying to say that all life on earth was engineered.
jjwars1: Bunch of morans commenting who didn't read the whole article..
Deep Contact: We were created to mine gold.
MurphyMurphy: If life here didn't originate here, then it's much less likely that our rise to intelligence and cognizance was purely evolutionary
MurphyMurphy: And we weren't seeded by an asteroid at random because the odds of that hitting a planet capable of developing anything would be nill.
MurphyMurphy: I'm going to go with C) we developed here via evolution and applying Moore's Law to evolutionary development is beyond retarded.
t3knomanser: MurphyMurphy: If life here didn't originate here, then it's much less likely that our rise to intelligence and cognizance was purely evolutionaryThat's not true at all.
OhioKnight: MurphyMurphy: And we weren't seeded by an asteroid at random because the odds of that hitting a planet capable of developing anything would be nill.That's not true at all.
t3knomanser: jjwars1: Bunch of morans commenting who didn't read the whole article..I didn't RTFA, but I did RTFpaper. The scientists behind this aren't claiming anything other than an interesting statistical quirk.
MurphyMurphy: Sorry, I was assuming we wanted to consider things that were remotely possible.
swangoatman: Where did the mass for big bang come from?
swangoatman: where did god(s) come from?
swangoatman: how is there no beginning and no end of physical universe?
swangoatman: why is soap slippery when wet?
Want to see behind the curtain? Try
It's how we feed the squirrel
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Oct 20 2017 21:45:59
Runtime: 0.414 sec (414 ms)