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.