Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site talcott.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!gjk From: gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Re: Hark!, but soft... Message-ID: <170@talcott.UUCP> Date: Thu, 6-Dec-84 16:54:59 EST Article-I.D.: talcott.170 Posted: Thu Dec 6 16:54:59 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 9-Dec-84 06:29:34 EST References: <497@uwmacc.UUCP> <866@utastro.UUCP> Organization: Harvard Lines: 25 > In the geological record, 'instantaneously' is still going to be > a very long time in human terms, tens of millions of years at the > least. Besides, the hypothetical is contrary to the evidence. The > first evidence for life is at least some half billion years after > the formation of the Earth. ... > Bill Jefferys 8-% That's only because the Earth remelted shortly after it formed, so that the surface was liquid rock until ~3.8 billion years ago. In any case, the re-invention of life would not be possible now because of this extremely reactive chemical known as oxygen, and other environmental reasons. Of course, it still could have taken life 100 million years to form. On the other hand, life was all single-celled animals and algal mats until the Cambrian explosion, so it took ~3 billion years for complex life to evolve. --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "Madam, there is only one important question facing us, and that is the question whether the white race will survive." -Leonid Breshnev, speaking to Margaret Thatcher.