dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (11/30/84)
> The more the actual geological record is studied, the more evident > it is that life formed quickly. The obvious conclusion is that the > probability of forming life is very high, and that it doesn't take > long periods of time to do it. I have a hypothetical question. If, given that life formed quickly, the obvious conclusion is that the probability of forming life is very high, what would the obvious conclusion be if we discovered that life appeared to have formed even more quickly, say, instantaneously? -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois "Jesus Christ is not Cute." John Fahey
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (12/03/84)
[] >I have a hypothetical question. If, given that life formed quickly, >the obvious conclusion is that the probability of forming life is >very high, what would the obvious conclusion be if we discovered >that life appeared to have formed even more quickly, say, >instantaneously? >-- >Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois This is likely to remain a hypothetical question given what "instantaneously" means in the geologic record, especially for events that occurred billions of years ago. Even so . . . The obvious explanation would be that life originated elsewhere and was introduced (deliberately or through natural processes) to the Earth. More than that it would be impossible to say. It doesn't seem to me that our ignorance of the circumstances would be a plausible reason for declaring it a miracle. Of course, one might choose, as a matter of *faith*, to believe it to be one. "I can't help it if my Ethan Vishniac knee jerks" {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas Austin, Texas 78712
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (12/03/84)
>I have a hypothetical question. If, given that life formed quickly, >the obvious conclusion is that the probability of forming life is >very high, what would the obvious conclusion be if we discovered >that life appeared to have formed even more quickly, say, >instantaneously? 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. -- "When evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve" Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
daf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader) (12/06/84)
> I have a hypothetical question. If, given that life formed quickly, > the obvious conclusion is that the probability of forming life is > very high, what would the obvious conclusion be if we discovered > that life appeared to have formed even more quickly, say, > instantaneously? I have a hypothetical question. If, given that thought takes time, the obvious conclusion is that the probability of stupid responses is very high if they are formed quickly, what would the obvious conclusion be if we discovered that the response above appeared to have formed even more quickly, say, instantaneously?
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) (12/07/84)
> 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.
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (12/13/84)
>> [Paul DuBois] >> I have a hypothetical question. If, given that life formed quickly, >> the obvious conclusion is that the probability of forming life is >> very high, what would the obvious conclusion be if we discovered >> that life appeared to have formed even more quickly, say, >> instantaneously? > > I have a hypothetical question. If, given that thought takes time, > the obvious conclusion is that the probability of stupid responses is > very high if they are formed quickly, what would the obvious > conclusion be if we discovered that the response above appeared > to have formed even more quickly, say, instantaneously? My question was serious, and I asked it for a purpose. There were two serious replies to it (those of Bill Jefferys and Ethan Vishniac), which I appreciate. The third response (above) is not very meaningful, helpful, or instructive. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois "I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being." Psalm 104:33