If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Independent)   Life may have started underground, says scientist I.M. Morlock   (independent.co.uk) divider line 41
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

942 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 Dec 2013 at 12:41 PM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



41 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-09 11:19:04 AM
Eloi see what you did there, subby!
 
2013-12-09 12:16:40 PM
Yeah, I'm really into self replicating protein. You've probably never heard of it.
 
2013-12-09 12:18:16 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com

Intrigued.
 
433 [TotalFark]
2013-12-09 12:42:14 PM
ecx.images-amazon.com

We can be happy!
 
2013-12-09 12:59:40 PM
Goddamned hipsters since the dawn of time!
 
2013-12-09 01:00:36 PM
Subby, life might have arrived here underground--in dust and rock. From out there, among the stars.

Or are you so earth-centric that you think we're the only place that could invent life?

/I better shut up...I might be burned at the stake
 
2013-12-09 01:15:33 PM
It started underground on Mars, was cast loose by an asteroid, and landed here. Ta-da!
 
2013-12-09 01:32:42 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: Subby, life might have arrived here underground--in dust and rock. From out there, among the stars.

Or are you so earth-centric that you think we're the only place that could invent life?

/I better shut up...I might be burned at the stake


 I prefer my heretics medium-rare. Burning them is just a waste.
 
2013-12-09 01:52:04 PM
Life may have started underground, and here's a picture of the 14 going through palmdale.  Actually...that works.
 
2013-12-09 01:59:19 PM

Sybarite: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 496x357]

Intrigued.


Okay, I'll bite...who are they?
 
2013-12-09 02:25:10 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: Subby, life might have arrived here underground--in dust and rock. From out there, among the stars.

Or are you so earth-centric that you think we're the only place that could invent life?

/I better shut up...I might be burned at the stake


Until you have evidence, you have a religion.
 
2013-12-09 03:33:45 PM

GentlemanJ: Sybarite: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 496x357]

Intrigued.

Okay, I'll bite...who are they?



Sneaker Pimps
 
2013-12-09 03:44:32 PM
I.M. Murloc has a different opinion.

From the coasts of Westfall,
To Blackfathom Deeps,
Silent I'll hunt you,
Silent I will creep!
Gliding through the depths,
Gliding to your death,
Upon the shore I rise,
Hold, my flippers to the skies! (rwlrwlrwlrwlrwlrwl)

I am more than a fish,
I am more than a man,
DEATH WILL RISE, FROM THE TIDE! (rwlrwlrwlrwlrwlrwl)
I am MURLOC!
I am king of the sea,
But I'm not Aquaman,
DEATH WILL RISE, HEAR OUR CRY! (rwlrwlrwlrwlrwlrwl)
I am MURLOC!

Hunter of the tide,
I, will end your life,
Mourn, your fallen brave,
Sleep in a sunken grave!
Feel the deadly fin,
My nets drag you in,
Bloodstained sand and gore,
All, that's left upon the shore! (rwlrwlrwlrwlrwlrwl)
 
2013-12-09 03:45:21 PM
pshaw... we all know life started out there, among the stars.
 
2013-12-09 04:04:03 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: TheShavingofOccam123: Subby, life might have arrived here underground--in dust and rock. From out there, among the stars.

Or are you so earth-centric that you think we're the only place that could invent life?

/I better shut up...I might be burned at the stake

Until you have evidence, you have a religion.


The evidence is that fossils date back to nearly the very beginning of the earth, and it's not reasonable to assume that non-living material turned into living creatures in such a short time yet took billions of years to turn multicellular. The universe existed for billions of years before the earth, so the logical inference is that life already had developed within the planetoids / rocks that smashed together to create the earth.

Every step in complexity of life has taken about half the time as the step before it. If it took several billion years for life to develop past single cells, then it likely took twice as much time to develop from non-living creatures - which implies life is older than the earth. Adding about 10 billion years to the age of life is similar to the age of the universe determined independently, so that acts as additional corroboration.

Believing that life arose from nothing in a few million years several billion years ago is like believing that humans evolved in a few hundred years just before recorded history started. Everything we observe about life indicates that it has been making exponential progress for a very long time.
 
2013-12-09 04:19:45 PM
"In the Light Time,
dance and leap,
Gather flowers,
Laugh and sing.

When the moon comes,
Danger springs,
and pulls the Eloi underground.

to the place where evil dwells,
From that darkness, none return."

/Weena's song, H.G. Wells "The Time Machine"
 
2013-12-09 04:23:54 PM
Any number of possible origins exist for life but a recent article on deep microbes that produce hydrogen notes that the bacteria in question seem to be related to each other across the Earth, incredible though it may seem, whether they are found under the Americas, Africa, Eurasia or Australia. This suggests that they are very, very ancient, indeed and have reached their tiny homes in the depths without going topside perhaps.

Surface evidence of bacteria only goes back to the oldest rocks, about 3.8 billion years, but bacteria may have evolved in the Hadean period, while the Earth was still under heavy bombardment.

Space, Mars, deep rocky environments, the deep ocean black and white smokers--everything we've looked at could be the place or origin or a contributor to the origin of the first proto-biology.

One theory that appeals to me is that the oceans WERE the first life in that the chemistry was distributed throughout the surface, incorporating abiological elements that were generated by complex geological and possibly astronomical chemistry.

Perhaps life came to Earth with some assembly required and even without the batteries.

To my mind, the whole solar system, nay, the whole universe, was a gigantic workshop which produced complexity and chaos from simpler elements.

For example, the early solar system probably had about 12 different minerals. The early Earth produced about 450 under various conditions of temperature, heat, and wetness. We have thousands now, many of them generated under special conditions or with the assistance of living organisms. For example aragonite is the same stuff that makes up sea shells, and many of the rocks which contain it were laid down by tiny shelled organisms in the world's waters.

We are making steady progress but one of the lessons seems to be that both the Zen Buddhists and Charles Hoy Fort were right: the dividing lines between life and non-life, geology and biology, are arbitrary.

At some point, everything blurs into everything else.

From the tiniest mote of dust to the largest stars, for example, there is a continuum. From non-living to the most brilliant scientist or artist, there is another continuum.

Observe how system into system runs,
What other planets circle other suns,
What varied being peoples ev'ry star,
May tell why Heav'n has made us as we are.
The Essay on Man -- Alexander Pope

See? Even poetry and science merge together in the fullness of this world. Darwin's grandfather, Dr. Erasmus Darwin, wrote a long poem on evolution that no doubt inspired the thinking of his grandson. Dr. Darwin made a lot of money as the physician and an investor in the industrial midlands of England where the modern techological economy began in the mid-1700s. Darwin himself and his wife were both related to Josiah Wedgwood, the maker of some of the finest pottery ever made, and the brilliant ancestor of half the best minds in Great Britain over the next two or three centuries.

Dr. Johnson said that he never learned anything that didn't prove useful. Of course, he did write a dictionary, so that would be especially true of him, but as readers of the Connections column in the Scientific American know, it's hard to meet a fact you can not connect to any and every fact somehow.

So did you think Life would be simple? It is the most wonderfully complex thing we know of, with the exception of some mathematical objects, perhaps, and we haven't delved into the depths of it yet. It is likely that out technological civilization, if it survives, will add several new layers of wonderful chaos and complexity, created forms of meta-life that make civilizations look like viruses.
 
2013-12-09 04:24:09 PM

itcamefromschenectady: Quantum Apostrophe: TheShavingofOccam123: Subby, life might have arrived here underground--in dust and rock. From out there, among the stars.

Or are you so earth-centric that you think we're the only place that could invent life?

/I better shut up...I might be burned at the stake

Until you have evidence, you have a religion.

The evidence is that fossils date back to nearly the very beginning of the earth, and it's not reasonable to assume that non-living material turned into living creatures in such a short time yet took billions of years to turn multicellular. The universe existed for billions of years before the earth, so the logical inference is that life already had developed within the planetoids / rocks that smashed together to create the earth.

Every step in complexity of life has taken about half the time as the step before it. If it took several billion years for life to develop past single cells, then it likely took twice as much time to develop from non-living creatures - which implies life is older than the earth. Adding about 10 billion years to the age of life is similar to the age of the universe determined independently, so that acts as additional corroboration.

Believing that life arose from nothing in a few million years several billion years ago is like believing that humans evolved in a few hundred years just before recorded history started. Everything we observe about life indicates that it has been making exponential progress for a very long time.


You're torturing the hell out of our single test case to make you point.

And what are "steps in the complexity of life"? Definition, examples, and your reasoning why we should accept these steps as actual properties of living things and not arbitrary categories invented by humans for ease of classification.
 
2013-12-09 04:36:51 PM

itcamefromschenectady: Every step in complexity of life has taken about half the time as the step before it. If it took several billion years for life to develop past single cells, then it likely took twice as much time to develop from non-living creatures - which implies life is older than the earth. Adding about 10 billion years to the age of life is similar to the age of the universe determined independently, so that acts as additional corroboration.


There have been some recent experiments which suggest that the step from single-celled to multicellular life is quite small. Also the chemical composition of the universe has been changing over time, starting out with mostly hydrogen and helium. You need to go through a couple of generations of stars before there are enough heavy elements to create organic compounds, so the age of life isn't necessarily much longer than the age of our solar system.
 
2013-12-09 04:46:33 PM

Ghastly: Yeah, I'm really into self replicating protein. You've probably never heard of it.


Come again?
 
2013-12-09 04:50:30 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: Subby, life might have arrived here underground--in dust and rock. From out there, among the stars.

Or are you so earth-centric that you think we're the only place that could invent life?


And what's wrong with the idea that life on earth originated here? Why the need add unneeded and unwarranted complexity to the equation? If life could develop "out there", why not here? It's not even like you're throwing up your hands and saying God did it.
 
2013-12-09 04:51:50 PM

Ned Stark: itcamefromschenectady: Quantum Apostrophe: TheShavingofOccam123: Subby, life might have arrived here underground--in dust and rock. From out there, among the stars.

Or are you so earth-centric that you think we're the only place that could invent life?

/I better shut up...I might be burned at the stake

Until you have evidence, you have a religion.

The evidence is that fossils date back to nearly the very beginning of the earth, and it's not reasonable to assume that non-living material turned into living creatures in such a short time yet took billions of years to turn multicellular. The universe existed for billions of years before the earth, so the logical inference is that life already had developed within the planetoids / rocks that smashed together to create the earth.

Every step in complexity of life has taken about half the time as the step before it. If it took several billion years for life to develop past single cells, then it likely took twice as much time to develop from non-living creatures - which implies life is older than the earth. Adding about 10 billion years to the age of life is similar to the age of the universe determined independently, so that acts as additional corroboration.

Believing that life arose from nothing in a few million years several billion years ago is like believing that humans evolved in a few hundred years just before recorded history started. Everything we observe about life indicates that it has been making exponential progress for a very long time.

You're torturing the hell out of our single test case to make you point.

And what are "steps in the complexity of life"? Definition, examples, and your reasoning why we should accept these steps as actual properties of living things and not arbitrary categories invented by humans for ease of classification.


You're asking for precision for an argument that doesn't require precision. That doesn't mean the progression we see is an illusion. The first evidence of life appeared over 3.5 billion years ago. Multicellular life at 2 billion years ago. Animals somewhat less than a billion years ago. Tetrapods less than half a billion years ago.  It doesn't make sense that the very first step should have been much quicker than the second step. Another point is that if life arises from nothing in a short period of time (relatively) why aren't we overrun by aliens given the age of the universe? It is simplest to assume that life has been evolving since the beginning of the universe, or at least when it was cool enough and that single-cell life is actually highly evolved and all over the place.
 
2013-12-09 04:52:20 PM
i R eloi.
 
2013-12-09 04:52:42 PM

itcamefromschenectady: Quantum Apostrophe: TheShavingofOccam123: Subby, life might have arrived here underground--in dust and rock. From out there, among the stars.

Or are you so earth-centric that you think we're the only place that could invent life?

/I better shut up...I might be burned at the stake

Until you have evidence, you have a religion.

The evidence is that fossils date back to nearly the very beginning of the earth, and it's not reasonable to assume that non-living material turned into living creatures in such a short time yet took billions of years to turn multicellular. The universe existed for billions of years before the earth, so the logical inference is that life already had developed within the planetoids / rocks that smashed together to create the earth.


snip.

Um no. there is vastly more diversity in the bacterial and archaeal branches of the tree of life than in the part of the tree with 'multicellular' life. What allowed the development of multicellular life was the evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis by bacteria and a complete shift in the chemical environment of the Earth's oceans. The evolution happens earlier, the shift to larger and more complex cells also happens earlier. And good luck defining when multicellular organisms started... and defining what a multicellular organism is (basic definitions that include cell specialization, interdependence, and communication - are fulfilled by many types of bacteria, including filamentous cyanobacteria what are probably direct descendants of our oxygen-makers from 2.2 billion years ago). Phylogenetic clocks put the development of 'animals' to 1.9-2.0 billion years ago, basically snychronous with the rise in oxygen, and the oldest fossil evidence for multicellular eukaryotes that can be certainly traced to a modern descendant (a bangiophyte red alga) may be as old as 1.2 billion years old.

tl,dr: There is no evidence for a 1/2-time 'progression' in evolution.

/doesn't mean that earliest life didn't come from elsewhere
//begs the question: if it came from elsewhere, how did it arise there?
 
2013-12-09 04:57:08 PM

itcamefromschenectady: The evidence is that fossils date back to nearly the very beginning of the earth, and it's not reasonable to assume that non-living material turned into living creatures in such a short time yet took billions of years to turn multicellular. The universe existed for billions of years before the earth, so the logical inference is that life already had developed within the planetoids / rocks that smashed together to create the earth.


Have you even read a book on the history of life on earth? Written by scientists, I mean. A decent education can protect you from the clutches of woo-woo pseudo-science.
 
2013-12-09 04:58:56 PM
ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2013-12-09 05:00:28 PM

WelldeadLink: [ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x300]


But I vent from there!
 
2013-12-09 05:04:40 PM
So you just picked arbitrary landmarks that fit your timeline. Got it.
 
2013-12-09 05:54:54 PM

Little Nikke: itcamefromschenectady: Quantum Apostrophe: TheShavingofOccam123: Subby, life might have arrived here underground--in dust and rock. From out there, among the stars.

Or are you so earth-centric that you think we're the only place that could invent life?

/I better shut up...I might be burned at the stake

Until you have evidence, you have a religion.

The evidence is that fossils date back to nearly the very beginning of the earth, and it's not reasonable to assume that non-living material turned into living creatures in such a short time yet took billions of years to turn multicellular. The universe existed for billions of years before the earth, so the logical inference is that life already had developed within the planetoids / rocks that smashed together to create the earth.

snip.

Um no. there is vastly more diversity in the bacterial and archaeal branches of the tree of life than in the part of the tree with 'multicellular' life. What allowed the development of multicellular life was the evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis by bacteria and a complete shift in the chemical environment of the Earth's oceans. The evolution happens earlier, the shift to larger and more complex cells also happens earlier. And good luck defining when multicellular organisms started... and defining what a multicellular organism is (basic definitions that include cell specialization, interdependence, and communication - are fulfilled by many types of bacteria, including filamentous cyanobacteria what are probably direct descendants of our oxygen-makers from 2.2 billion years ago). Phylogenetic clocks put the development of 'animals' to 1.9-2.0 billion years ago, basically snychronous with the rise in oxygen, and the oldest fossil evidence for multicellular eukaryotes that can be certainly traced to a modern descendant (a bangiophyte red alga) may be as old as 1.2 billion years old.

tl,dr: There is no evidence for a 1/2-time 'progression' in evolution.

/doesn't mean that earliest lif ...

Little Nikke: itcamefromschenectady: Quantum Apostrophe: TheShavingofOccam123: Subby, life might have arrived here underground--in dust and rock. From out there, among the stars.

Or are you so earth-centric that you think we're the only place that could invent life?

/I better shut up...I might be burned at the stake

Until you have evidence, you have a religion.

The evidence is that fossils date back to nearly the very beginning of the earth, and it's not reasonable to assume that non-living material turned into living creatures in such a short time yet took billions of years to turn multicellular. The universe existed for billions of years before the earth, so the logical inference is that life already had developed within the planetoids / rocks that smashed together to create the earth.

snip.

Um no. there is vastly more diversity in the bacterial and archaeal branches of the tree of life than in the part of the tree with 'multicellular' life. What allowed the development of multicellular life was the evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis by bacteria and a complete shift in the chemical environment of the Earth's oceans. The evolution happens earlier, the shift to larger and more complex cells also happens earlier. And good luck defining when multicellular organisms started... and defining what a multicellular organism is (basic definitions that include cell specialization, interdependence, and communication - are fulfilled by many types of bacteria, including filamentous cyanobacteria what are probably direct descendants of our oxygen-makers from 2.2 billion years ago). Phylogenetic clocks put the development of 'animals' to 1.9-2.0 billion years ago, basically snychronous with the rise in oxygen, and the oldest fossil evidence for multicellular eukaryotes that can be certainly traced to a modern descendant (a bangiophyte red alga) may be as old as 1.2 billion years old.

tl,dr: There is no evidence for a 1/2-time 'progression' in evolution.

/doesn't mean that earliest lif ...


If you are quibbling about the exponent of an exponential curve, you are being far too literal to get my point. If you want to argue that complexity of life has not increased along an exponential sort of curve, you not only are going to have a hard time convincing me, but I am not likely to believe that you believe what you are saying, any more than if you were claiming to be a flat-earther. Just typing "1.9 - 2.0" instead of "2" makes you look like someone who is not worth discussing anything with.
 
2013-12-09 06:00:39 PM

Ned Stark: So you just picked arbitrary landmarks that fit your timeline. Got it.


If I sprinkle iron filings over a magnetic field, then they are arbitrary points, yet they reveal something that objectively exists. Think about it.

I can pick any arbitrary points on an exponential curve and if they are roughly evenly distributed they will demonstrate the shape.
 
2013-12-09 06:01:15 PM
I find it somewhat puzzling that people rage on the Morlocks. The Eloi heavily outnumbered them, if they'd of got off their asses and actually done something about their situation the whole being raised as food animals thing wouldn't of lasted long.  They were perfectly content to be fed and clothed by the technologically advanced Morlocks and despite knowing what was about to happen always showed up when the horn sounded.

The moral really is: people will take advantage of you if you let them.
 
2013-12-09 06:07:18 PM

Ed Grubermann: TheShavingofOccam123: Subby, life might have arrived here underground--in dust and rock. From out there, among the stars.

Or are you so earth-centric that you think we're the only place that could invent life?

And what's wrong with the idea that life on earth originated here? Why the need add unneeded and unwarranted complexity to the equation? If life could develop "out there", why not here? It's not even like you're throwing up your hands and saying God did it.


Should we believe the earth was created 6000 years ago because a history of billions of years of evolution is "unwarranted complexity"?

To me, having more time elapsed makes it more plausible for complex things to arise without God doing it.
 
2013-12-09 06:21:27 PM

Ed Grubermann: itcamefromschenectady: The evidence is that fossils date back to nearly the very beginning of the earth, and it's not reasonable to assume that non-living material turned into living creatures in such a short time yet took billions of years to turn multicellular. The universe existed for billions of years before the earth, so the logical inference is that life already had developed within the planetoids / rocks that smashed together to create the earth.

Have you even read a book on the history of life on earth? Written by scientists, I mean. A decent education can protect you from the clutches of woo-woo pseudo-science.


I used to read a lot of stuff by Steven Jay Gould. I read The Voyage of the Beagle. Lots of books on dinosaurs and TIME LIFE books on natural history as a kid. I've read innumerable books that I can't remember, such as one where all I know is that it had an ammonite on the cover. I read talk.origins for many years, including many arguments about abiogenesis. I read the Wikipedia page on the history of life on earth today.

What specifically do you think I should read?
 
DVD
2013-12-09 06:54:16 PM
I mildly recommend bringing some of this over to the Observatory forum of Ars Technica.  They've got some various science professionals in there that are good at ironing out understanding of discussions like this.

*looks fleetingly in schenectady's direction*
 
2013-12-09 06:55:03 PM

itcamefromschenectady: Ed Grubermann: TheShavingofOccam123: Subby, life might have arrived here underground--in dust and rock. From out there, among the stars.

Or are you so earth-centric that you think we're the only place that could invent life?

And what's wrong with the idea that life on earth originated here? Why the need add unneeded and unwarranted complexity to the equation? If life could develop "out there", why not here? It's not even like you're throwing up your hands and saying God did it.

Should we believe the earth was created 6000 years ago because a history of billions of years of evolution is "unwarranted complexity"?


I'm sorry, what part of empirical evidence is "unwarranted"?
 
2013-12-09 06:57:56 PM

itcamefromschenectady: Ed Grubermann: itcamefromschenectady: The evidence is that fossils date back to nearly the very beginning of the earth, and it's not reasonable to assume that non-living material turned into living creatures in such a short time yet took billions of years to turn multicellular. The universe existed for billions of years before the earth, so the logical inference is that life already had developed within the planetoids / rocks that smashed together to create the earth.

Have you even read a book on the history of life on earth? Written by scientists, I mean. A decent education can protect you from the clutches of woo-woo pseudo-science.

I used to read a lot of stuff by Steven Jay Gould. I read The Voyage of the Beagle. Lots of books on dinosaurs and TIME LIFE books on natural history as a kid. I've read innumerable books that I can't remember, such as one where all I know is that it had an ammonite on the cover. I read talk.origins for many years, including many arguments about abiogenesis. I read the Wikipedia page on the history of life on earth today.


Well, then. I'd expect you to have a better understanding of the history of the planet and the effects the atmosphere and ozone layer would have on the development of life. But, you seem to think there is some "acceleration" in the complexity of life, so I'm not holding out much hope.
 
2013-12-09 07:00:37 PM

itcamefromschenectady: Ned Stark: So you just picked arbitrary landmarks that fit your timeline. Got it.

If I sprinkle iron filings over a magnetic field, then they are arbitrary points, yet they reveal something that objectively exists. Think about it.

I can pick any arbitrary points on an exponential curve and if they are roughly evenly distributed they will demonstrate the shape.


Forcing your data points does not demonstrate the shape of anything but your preconceived ideas.
 
2013-12-09 07:05:11 PM

Ed Grubermann: itcamefromschenectady: Ed Grubermann: TheShavingofOccam123: Subby, life might have arrived here underground--in dust and rock. From out there, among the stars.

Or are you so earth-centric that you think we're the only place that could invent life?

And what's wrong with the idea that life on earth originated here? Why the need add unneeded and unwarranted complexity to the equation? If life could develop "out there", why not here? It's not even like you're throwing up your hands and saying God did it.

Should we believe the earth was created 6000 years ago because a history of billions of years of evolution is "unwarranted complexity"?

I'm sorry, what part of empirical evidence is "unwarranted"?


No part. But even if we didn't have specific evidence, it's reasonable to think that without God doing it, you'd need more than 6000 years for humans to arise out of the ether. Because in 6000 years, not that much happened, relatively speaking.
 
2013-12-09 07:06:01 PM

Ed Grubermann: itcamefromschenectady: Ned Stark: So you just picked arbitrary landmarks that fit your timeline. Got it.

If I sprinkle iron filings over a magnetic field, then they are arbitrary points, yet they reveal something that objectively exists. Think about it.

I can pick any arbitrary points on an exponential curve and if they are roughly evenly distributed they will demonstrate the shape.

Forcing your data points does not demonstrate the shape of anything but your preconceived ideas.


Nuh-uh!
 
2013-12-09 07:27:16 PM

Ed Grubermann: itcamefromschenectady: Ed Grubermann: itcamefromschenectady: The evidence is that fossils date back to nearly the very beginning of the earth, and it's not reasonable to assume that non-living material turned into living creatures in such a short time yet took billions of years to turn multicellular. The universe existed for billions of years before the earth, so the logical inference is that life already had developed within the planetoids / rocks that smashed together to create the earth.

Have you even read a book on the history of life on earth? Written by scientists, I mean. A decent education can protect you from the clutches of woo-woo pseudo-science.

I used to read a lot of stuff by Steven Jay Gould. I read The Voyage of the Beagle. Lots of books on dinosaurs and TIME LIFE books on natural history as a kid. I've read innumerable books that I can't remember, such as one where all I know is that it had an ammonite on the cover. I read talk.origins for many years, including many arguments about abiogenesis. I read the Wikipedia page on the history of life on earth today.

Well, then. I'd expect you to have a better understanding of the history of the planet and the effects the atmosphere and ozone layer would have on the development of life. But, you seem to think there is some "acceleration" in the complexity of life, so I'm not holding out much hope.


You can pick any landmarks you like, but if you spread them out evenly by some metric of progression they're going to be clustered towards one end of your timeline.
 
2013-12-10 07:16:10 AM
Like the vril?
 
Displayed 41 of 41 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report