New Evidence About 'The Great Dying' 250 Million Years Ago 657
PornMaster writes "The Guardian is reporting that scientists have found the first direct evidence that the killoff of 80% of land species and 95% of marine species 2 billion years ago was due to a meteor." The project web site has more info, maps, etc.
And this means? (Score:2, Funny)
What's An Order Of Magnitude Among Friends? (Score:5, Funny)
A buried crater off Australia could be the first direct evidence of a celestial assassin that wiped out more than 80% of life on Earth 250m years ago. Obviously, Guardian headline writers follow the
Re:What's An Order Of Magnitude Among Friends? (Score:5, Funny)
(8 may need to be adjusted up or down depending on your country's definition of billion...)
Re:What's An Order Of Magnitude Among Friends? (Score:2)
Which, given that the article in question appeared in the Grauniad, a UK paper, means that the the figure should be more like 8,000.
Re:What's An Order Of Magnitude Among Friends? (Score:2, Informative)
Scientists believe they are on the track of the biggest mass murderer in the two-billion year history of life.
Um, if you RTFA, it never says that the murder is 2bn years old. It states the the history of life is 2bn years old.
Re:What's An Order Of Magnitude Among Friends? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's An Order Of Magnitude Among Friends? (Score:5, Funny)
As Homer would say... (Score:5, Funny)
Finally... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Finally... (Score:2)
Re:Finally... (Score:3, Funny)
250 Million years ago... not 2B (Score:4, Informative)
Re:250 Million years ago... not 2B (Score:2, Funny)
it was at 250 million years ago not 2 Billion
But Kent Hovind [drdino.com] says the Earth is only a few thousand years old!
Re:250 Million years ago... not 2B (Score:2)
I've always found those stats suspect (Score:4, Interesting)
more than 95% of marine life?
that would mean that whatever we have today, evolved from >20% / >5% of those species that survived?
that's a whole lotta evolution if you ask me.
Re:I've always found those stats suspect (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I've always found those stats suspect (Score:5, Interesting)
In this view, in a crowded world, species are constantly in competition with each other, and diversity is held in balance, while in the time after a great extinction, all such constraints disappear, and species are free to do as they please.
Re:I've always found those stats suspect (Score:5, Interesting)
and scientist don't even know for sure the total number of different species we have right now... it's all estimates, as new species are discovered every day.
Re:I've always found those stats suspect (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I've always found those stats suspect (Score:3, Interesting)
Look at it another way: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Look at it another way: (Score:3, Funny)
I could have told you _that_. It's a simple corollary of Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap, there's 4 times as much life in the sea as there is on land, so 80% of terrestrial life and 95% of marine life are completely useless.
Re:I've always found those stats suspect (Score:3, Insightful)
actually, if you look at the hard evidence, the whole concept of macro-evolution is nothing more than a wild guess in the dark. the theory is full of holes and most of the logic doesn't completely add up. but i guess people have to believe in something.
Re:I've always found those stats suspect (Score:3, Insightful)
29 evidences for macroevolution: all falsifiable.. (Score:3, Informative)
Not that the evidence isn't also compatible with creators / designers... but those designers are not
Re:I've always found those stats suspect (Score:3, Funny)
Before you people get started...This post is not an attempt to start a flame.
-=GuestFox=-
Re:I've always found those stats suspect (Score:3, Funny)
Life vs Species (Score:2)
I guess it depends on if you believe the article,which says % of LIFE, or the poster's interpretation which assumed it meant % of all SPECIES.
Big difference.
Re:I've always found those stats suspect (Score:5, Interesting)
Life is always experimenting with greater diversity; in times of low diversity, as after great die-offs, the existing forms will quickly branch out to fill the available ecological niches. There does, however, seem to be an upper bound as well, as the Cambrian shows.
Re:I've always found those stats suspect (Score:3, Informative)
They can measure number of species quite easily, just by counting the different species in the fossil record. There are problems with deciding whether 2 similar animals are different species, and the data can be skewed by the fact that soft bodied animals may not preser
what is the evidence? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:what is the evidence? (Score:5, Funny)
Daniel
My bad (Score:5, Funny)
2 billion or 250 million? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not 2 BILLION! (Score:4, Informative)
There wouldn't have been much on land at 2Ga.
Re:Not 2 BILLION! (Score:2, Funny)
Hogwash (Score:2, Insightful)
Direct evidence my arse. Scientists have found a few holes in the ground and some sediments. It amazes me that so many people just blindly accept these theories (and they are only theories) about meteors wiping most of the life out on earth long ago.
"Blindly accept"? (Score:3, Informative)
Could you explain exactly who is "blindly accepting" these theories? We all know they're "just theories".
BTW they found a bit more than just "sediments" and a "few holes in the ground". It does seem likely in fact that they have found a meteor impact crater, just not necessarily one that resulted in a major extinction.
250 million, not 2 billion (Score:2, Informative)
Two billion years ago there existed only prokaryotic bacteria. The impact the articles are talking about was the end of the Permian era. It happened about 250 million years ago (as stated in the article). Both the Guardian's and Slashdot's articles are mistitled.
Verneshot (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Verneshot (Score:2)
Nah, when they find solid evidence of a verneshot pipe I'
I wonder... (Score:4, Funny)
Anyone know... (Score:5, Funny)
You never really see figures about how fast, and how big that chunk of rock (?) was. Gimme a nice scientific factoid, in standard Volkswagen units or something.
Re:Anyone know... (Score:3, Funny)
-WS
Where's the Irridium (Score:5, Insightful)
Evolution from celestial contamination (Score:4, Funny)
BBC link (Score:5, Informative)
Also in the Economist (Score:3, Informative)
The article mentions an interesting theory, that instead of an external meteorite triggering mass eruptions, it might be the volcanic eruptions that came first. The eruptions were powerful enough to fire a great gob of rock into space, and each big crater is where it re-impacted. On this view the eruptions would be the prime cause of the mass extinctions - at Permian, Cretaceous and Triassic - and the impact craters just a side effect.
Lies.. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Lies.. (Score:3, Funny)
True, but who's definition of a day are we going by here? An Earth day, a Saturn day, or a galactic day? Then there's the whole biblical "A day is as a thousand years" thing.
Who, besides you, ever said this? Dinosaurs did exist, they just weren't millions of years before people... http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/foot/foot.htm [genesispark.com]
God is perfect, but
Effects (Score:5, Informative)
Distance from Impact: 1000.00 km = 621.00 miles
Projectile Diameter: 28280.20 m = 92759.06 ft = 17.56 miles
Projectile Density: 3000 kg/m3
Impact Velocity: 30.00 km/s = 18.63 miles/s
Impact Angle: 45 degrees
Target Density: 3000 kg/m3
Target Type: Competent Rock or saturated soil
Energy:
1.60 x 1025 Joules = 3.82 x 109 MegaTons TNT
The average interval between impacts of this size somewhere on Earth is 2.6 x 109years
Crater Size:
Transient Crater Diameter: 173.30 km = 107.62 miles
Final Crater Diameter: 340.69 km = 211.57 miles
The crater formed is a complex crater.
Thermal Radiation:
Time for maximum radiation: 16.79 seconds after impact
Visible fireball radius: 425.5 km = 264.2 miles
The fireball appears 96.7 times larger than the sun
Thermal Exposure: 6.13 x 108 Joules/m2
Duration of Irradiation: 655 seconds
Radiant flux (relative to the sun): 936.0
Effects of Thermal Radiation:
Clothing ignites
Much of the body suffers third degree burns
Newspaper ignites
Plywood flames
Deciduous trees ignite
Grass ignites
Seismic Effects:
The major seismic shaking will arrive at approximately 200.0 seconds.
Richter Scale Magnitude: 11.0 (This is greater than any earthquake in recorded history)
Mercalli Scale Intensity at a distance of 1000 km:
VI. Felt by all. Many frightened and run outdoors. Persons walk unsteadily. Windows, dishes, glassware broken. Knickknacks, books, etc., off shelves. Pictures off walls. Furniture moved or overturned. Weak plaster and masonry D cracked. Small bells ring (church, school). Trees, bushes shaken (visibly, or heard to rustle).
VII. Difficult to stand. Noticed by drivers of motor cars. Hanging objects quiver. Furniture broken. Damage to masonry D, including cracks. Weak chimneys broken at roof line. Fall of plaster, loose bricks, stones, tiles, cornices (also unbraced parapets and architectural ornaments). Some cracks in masonry C. Waves on ponds; water turbid with mud. Small slides and caving in along sand or gravel banks. Large bells ring. Concrete irrigation ditches damaged.
Masonry C. Ordinary workmanship and mortar; no extreme weaknesses like failing to tie in at corners, but neither reinforced nor designed against horizontal forces.
Masonry D. Weak materials, such as adobe; poor mortar; low standards of workmanship; weak horizontally.
Ejecta:
The ejecta will arrive approximately 494.4 seconds after the impact.
Average Ejecta Thickness: 9.4 m = 30.83 ft
Mean Fragment Diameter: 5.4 mm = 0.2107 inches
Air Blast:
The air blast will arrive at approximately 3333.3 seconds.
Peak Overpressure: 920445.5 Pa = 9.2045 bars = 130.7033 psi
Max wind velocity: 661.5 m/s = 1479.8 mph
Sound Intensity: 119 dB (May cause ear pain)
Damage Description:
Multistory wall-bearing buildings will collapse.
Wood frame buildings will almost completely collapse.
Multistory steel-framed office-type buildings will suffer extreme frame distortion, incipient collapse.
Highway truss bridges will collapse.
Highway girder bridges will collapse.
Glass windows will shatter.
Cars and trucks will be largely displaced and grossly distorted and will require rebuilding before use.
Up to 90 percent of trees blown down; remainder stripped of branches and leaves.
Re:Effects (Score:5, Funny)
I'm on fire, Im being tossed about in a 1400kph wind, I was hit by debris traveling at mach6 just a moment ago, did I mention the earthquake?
Oh, and my ears hurt.
Re:Magnitude 11, eh? (Score:3, Informative)
The Richter scale [wikipedia.org] does not have an end. It measures the energy release of an earthquake on an exponential scale, meaning that a magnitude 5 earthquake is an order of magnitude more energetic than a magnitude 4 earthquake. Hence the usage of the word magnitude.
Actually..... (Score:5, Informative)
Hope that's atleast a little informative.
-RevSin
New clues to 2bn-year-old murder (Score:2, Funny)
Movie Title (Score:2)
Maybe it's the final one in the series.
Dinosaurs still walk among us (Score:2, Funny)
I am surprised... (Score:2, Funny)
Yes Giant Meteors Can Cause Volcanoes (Score:5, Interesting)
Forgot to say... (Score:3, Interesting)
Just Crack the Crust (Score:3, Interesting)
250 Million years, give or take (Score:5, Interesting)
His point? "Evidence" can often be made to support any number of theories, among them the 4.5 billion year age of the earth or in this case the cause of a mass extinction. In the future we will know more, but we should never assume we have all the answers right now.
Re:250 Million years, give or take (Score:3, Insightful)
You observe. You collect evidence. Then you interpret the evidence to see if it matches any posited hypothesis. Usually, you put forth an hypothesis first, and then you test to see if your evidence fits.
You do not massage data to make it fit, unless you have an agenda to fulfill.
Oh, so this theory is back... (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, they need to explain why we don't find such clues, and they haven't done it yet.
For now, the only convincing scenario involves volcanism and oceanic methan tanks (methan is stored inside ocean, both dissolved and inside seabed).
Big volcanism activity in what is today Siberia (and there are proofs of it) increases mean temperature for about 5-10 C by producing greenhouse effect. Then with such increase, methan starts to evaporate from ocean, induces more greenhouse effect, and mean temperature goes up 5-10C more. At the same time, it kills life in the ocean.
That 10-20C increase in mean temperature is enough to kill 80% of species on the surface of the ground.
So that scenario explains everything better than the meteor theory.
Forgive my bad English... I think that this explanation could be found on some american scientific website, so feel free to post the link.
Oh, and you can find more info there [campusprogram.com]
Prevention (Score:3, Funny)
1) Advance as far technologically as we can, as fast as we can, especially in manned space travel.
2) Learn how to survive with a polluted atmosphere, instead of just avoiding polluting it in the first place, which would retard technological growth.
3) Get as many people the hell off this rock as fast as we can. A moonbase would be a great start.
So, if you want the human race to become extinct, vote for John Kerry. If you want us to survive, vote for George Bush.
Thanks for your support.
"first direct evidence" (Score:5, Insightful)
just like in judicial cases you can have circumstantial evidence, scientific hypotheses can be supported by indirect evidence.
Um ... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not "supposed to" believe it, where did you get that idea? Clearly you have no idea how science functions, why don't you learn what science is before publicly criticizing it? It is obvious from your post that you don't even understand the basics of the scientific method, despite the fact that you think you "know a bit" about science.
If you actually read up a bit about this, the scientists here are basically saying that this MIGHT BE a possible cause of one of the great extinctions (read "more research required"). Furthermore, this is now just one new "HYPOTHESIS" against two other major "HYPOTHESES" that alread exist that proposing other "POSSIBLE" reasons for this great extinction.
Certainly nobody has asked you to "believe" any of these possible explanations, and none of the scientists involved have claimed that their hypotheses are 'the truth' either. In fact, with things like this, scientists never really decide that any one theory is "the truth" - they basically often settle on a theory that is "the most likely" - they, however, ALWAYS "leave the door open" to other possible explanations that may appear in future that are better. Always. (This is all in refreshing contrast to religions like Christianity, where you are in fact expected to 100% completely believe something regardless of whether or not there is really evidence for it.)
The slashdot blurb has also spun this thing completely wrong. So even worse, now you make decisions about scientific theories based on a slashdot blurb. Sheesh.
Re:Um ... (Score:4, Insightful)
While true in theory, my observations differ somewhat from your statement. "Radical" new ideas are often ridiculed for quite a while before the evidence mounts especially when made by a non famous scientist. Plate tectonics was first proposed by a meterologist, not a geologist, and he was ridiculed for his theory, even though it is now the accepted theory.
I remember reading articles about a meteor wiping out the dinosaur theory and how the author took quite a (figurative) beating over that theory.
Going back even farther, Galileo wasn't the first to challenge Aristole's(I think it was his) law that the heavier the object, the faster it falls. He was just the first to do it and live because he had protection from some noble. Earlier scientist were thought to be possessed by demons and had to be helped by being given a beating until the demons were driven out and they returned to their senses. (Side note: Technically, Galileo was wrong. Heavier objects in a vacuum will fall faster at any temperature above absolute zero. It has to do with differences between inertial and gravitational masses. The difference is *extremely* small however.)
Of course, not all "radical" new theories pan out, but many great advances have been made by those brave souls who propose new theories.
Even wrong theories can be benefical. Look at Columbus. The dispute Columbus fought was not round Earth versus flat Earth as is commonly believed. It was accepted that the Earth was round by that time. The dispute was over size. Columbus, as it turns out, thought the Earth was much smaller than it actually is, and did fail in his quest to sail to China (although he died still thinking he made it). But he did discover 2 unknown (to Europeans at that time) new continents. The atrocities commited on this new discovery is another story though.
Re:Um ... (Score:3, Insightful)
So WHY do you keep going back?? Cause you know, when I hear somebody talking, and say to myself, "Wow, that guy's completely full of shit!", my next thought is always "Let's go visit him next week and see what else he has to say!"
Do you really need a regular dogmatic guilt trip session to spark creative thoughts for you? Here's somethin
Re:ah, but if the church (Score:5, Interesting)
And they are just collecting evidence to substantiate their hypothesis.
Religious claims cannot be recreated. A scientific claim can.
Tomorrow if this is disproved, you can throw this out of the window. I'm yet to see any religious figurehead materialize before me -- that still hasn't made any religious believers throw out religion.
Science is based on assumptions, which evolve into hypothesis and are substantiated with evidence. Plain and simple. When another kind of evidence is found, science simply changes it's assumptions and hypothesis to fit the facts.
Besides, whether or not you believe it is entirely upto you. Your soul is not going to hell if you don't. It's just the most plausible thing that might have happened, and in the light of no other explanations, this seems just about right.
And look at the choice of words from the article -- they think, they believe etc. -- they do not say, we are so damn sure that THIS happened.
Have you been to the sun? How do you know it's full of Hydrogen and Helium? It's based on an assumption, that was later on substantiated with evidence (spectra of the sunlight). Have you seen a Black Hole? It was based on an assumption that it's quite likely Black hole exist, and later on they were substantiated with evidence by observation.
This is no different.
Religion merely makes claims, and has no need to substantiate nor prove. Unlike science.
And judging by your comments you know nothing of science.
Flirtation with Madness (Score:3, Interesting)
Only the Great American Heartland ("Praise jeezus, and pass me that rattlesnake!"). The Right and Left Coasts have enough cynnicism and free-thinking left (so to speak) to save it, though.
O.K. I'm an American. I've lived on the East Coast for (oh, roughly) 50 years. What's going on now is what's been going on since the original, intolerant, religious crackpots, er, our Glorious Founding Fathers, came ashore. It's
Re:Flirtation with Madness (Score:3, Insightful)
This is absolutely correct. It reflects very accurately the situation in which we find ourselves: athiests feel threatened by the religious, faithful feel threatened by the non-believers. Why are we threatened? On the whole all of the people involved are decent, respectable folk, who would enjoy chatting with you on the street.
Once the battle lines are drawn (athiest vs. religious, liberal vs. conservative), though, it gets ugly. People on feel they are being attacked, and
Re:ah, but if the church (Score:3, Interesting)
The existance of fossils and strata are simply fact. They exist. Various theories about how and when they formed are not
Re:ah, but if the church (Score:3)
I will NOT use that explanation. Ever. Assuming you are talking about the defense, "God put old fossils there to test us".
So you are saying that if people dig up remains of beings that prove a common ancestor, you will switch your views?
If you find a fossil that proves common ancestry, then yes, I will affirm it. However, just finding a fossil that you think proves common ancestry does not mean it does. First
Why is there any evidence for evolution? (Score:3, Interesting)
If creationism were true, there would be no evidence at all for evolution. There would be no fossils, no radioactive decay evidence, nothing. That there is pretty convincing evidence for evolution suggests that either:
(1) it actually happened, or
(2) God put it there as some kind of sneaky plan to fool most of us into thinking creationism is ignorant nonsense.
Which of these do you choose?
Re:sneaky plan (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, firstly, that is not in empty space, which as I hope even you believe, is what exists between the stars.
Secondly, if light was stopped for a while, that would mean it took *longer* to get here from the stars, which would mean they were *even older* than millions of years!
For your argument to work, light would need to be speeded up. No-one has done that, of course.
(Also, they aren't
Yucatan... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yucatan... (Score:2, Informative)
If I'm not mistaken that meteor is linked to another mass extinction event 65 million years ago (ie dead dinosaurs). The current article is about a larger mass extinction event 250 million years ago. All of this makes me a bit nervous ;-)
Ben
Re:Yucatan... (Score:2)
Re:Yucatan... (Score:5, Informative)
You know, there hasn't just been one great extinction in history. The dino-killer happened 65MYA. This article is talking about a much earlier event that happened 250MYA.
The comment in the article about the Chix . . . Chick . . . Mexican event refers to the idea that impact catastrophies may not have been the isolated event many assumed. Considering the large number of impact structures of up to several hundred kilometers in diameter around the world, it seems pretty obvious to me that it would have had a large effect on the development of life.
Most of these structures are so weathered that they aren't recognizable from the ground. For instance, the Chesapeake Bay on the east coast of the United States is a 90 km impact structure. Here are a couple [solarviews.com] of links [www.unb.ca] about terrestrial impact structures. The second one is the best.
Re:Yucatan... (Score:3, Interesting)
"For instance, the Chesapeake Bay on the east coast of the United States is a 90 km impact structure."
Close, but not quite. The impact was at the southern end of what is now Chesapeake Bay, but was then just sort-of offshore proto-Virginia, USA. There's an picture of the crater on the cover of this paper [usgs.gov] about it. Somewhere I read that the crater is so huge and deep that fragments of the wall exist above the surface as separate ridges in southeastern Virginia and southern Maryland, ev
Re:Yucatan... (Score:5, Informative)
You're confusing the "great dying" of 250m years ago with the extinction of the dinosaurs 65m years ago. The Yucatan meteor has long been used as a possible explanation of the latter. This new crater off the coast of Australia is now seen as a possible explanation of the former.
Re:until now (Score:4, Interesting)
That said, perhaps you would field the evidentiary findings that indicate this is not true? If we have 0 'reason to believe' something else is the case, an 1 'reason to believe' this is the case, where would the smart money bet?
Re:until now (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:until now (Score:4, Interesting)
Empirical claims are probabilistic. All empirical knowledge depends on the persistence of objects (and behaviors, really) in time; i.e., we acknowledge that gravity exists because it is repeatable over a sufficient number of tests for us to draw the conclusion that it will continue to be repeatable into the forseeable future. We really don't have any *reason* to believe that this is the case other than statistical analysis - "It's always been this way."
Re:until now (Score:3, Interesting)
Not necessarily. If you know what one object is and if you know what two objects are, then 1+1=2 becomes an empirical statement. Given one object and another object can you recognize them together as two objects?
Once you start applying a mathematical truth to the real wor
Re:until now (Score:5, Insightful)
this is the first direct evidence i.e. they found the meteor (or what's left of it).
I'd say that if everything points to a meteor, and then you find the actual meteor, then that's as far from "sketchy" as possible and has very little to do with "belief".
Re:2 Billion Years Ago ?? (Score:5, Informative)
The article tells us that the event happened 250 million years ago.
It's always good to rtfa..
:^)
Re:2 Billion Years Ago ?? (Score:3, Funny)
I use sidereal time [dircon.co.uk], you insensitive clod!!
"Echd'oh"? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:2 Billion Years Ago ?? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Gotta raise the BS flag here... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't tell the evolutionists.... (Score:4, Interesting)
First let me say that I am a Christian, and as such believe that God created life, the universe and everything. I have no idea if the seven days were literal 24 hour periods. It wouldn't bother me if they were 1 second periods. God is all powerful and there is nothing that He can not do.
That aside, I believe your arguement would be easily refuted by evolutionists. The meteor in question only killed 80% of the land animals and 95% of marine life. This means that the remaining creatures (who would have arrived supposedly from billions of years of evolution) continued to evolve. Additionally, this continued evolution would have occurred at a much faster rate given the fact that there was virtually no competition and a vastly open ecosystem to spread out and diversify in.
Re:Don't tell the evolutionists.... (Score:5, Insightful)
How on Earth you arrive at that conclusion? The big extinction didn't kill everything or wind speciation back to step 1. The meteor didn't kill off 80% of species and then magically devolve the remaining 20%.
Ultimately, I think, it comes down to faith.
No, no it does not. These scientific theories really do work, as you witness every day when you use a computer or a TV set or a DVD player. Whether scientists are right about, say, the speed of light or radioactivity does not need to be taken on faith.
Remember, creationists aren't just disputing some evolutionary biologists somewhere. They have to dispute physics, geology, cosmology, basically anything that gives you a dating method or shows what the place was like billions of years ago. Just about every branch of science eventually matures to the point that it burps out evidence the Earth or universe is old.
X
Re:Don't tell the evolutionists.... (Score:3, Insightful)
No.
Why post about something you clearly have no interest in understanding?
_All life_ didn't die out 250M years ago. All the _evolution_ done up until then lived on.
Re:Don't tell the evolutionists.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, instead of four billion years, they've got to explain in it 250 million years. Given that they've already posited that mankind's ancestors appeared about 50 million years ago, they're down to a mere 200 million years to go from single-celled to upright and walking.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The meteor killed 80% of life, not species. I'm sure there were small animals left, something like insects (that's multicelled), maybe also other small animals like lizzards that live in caves that were able to adapt. Even though most life was killed, I'm sure a lot of species survived.
And even if that wasn't true, and all multicellular life were wiped out, evolution is STILL a better theory than "The invisible man in the sky made it all with magic". That's just silly, and is a fairytale best reserved for kids.
Re:Don't tell the evolutionists.... (Score:5, Informative)
You may ask where these organic compounds came from, well a classic experiment (earned the researcher a Nobel prize I think) called the Miller-Urey experiment showed that if one simulated the conditions on a primordial earth, one got organic compounds (ranging from your simple alkanes to the building blocks of protiens, amino acids) were formed. And these processes happen relatively quickly, thus I do not see the evolution of life as being improbable.
If any of my facts are wrong please correct, if you want back-up for my statements, feel free to request it.
Re:Don't tell the evolutionists.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that they've already posited that mankind's ancestors appeared about 50 million years ago, they're down to a mere 200 million years to go from single-celled to upright and walking.
Huh? Are you confused or just stupid?
And the worst part is you've been modded up as insightful. It's insane. Come on people, visit a goddamn library, or do some googling, or something! This post is total BS, and it doesn't take a genuis to confirm against actual scientific theories that this is total BS.
Re:Don't tell the evolutionists.... (Score:4, Insightful)
"In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.
Don't tell the creationists but... (Score:3, Informative)
Of course they can be tested. You can make a hypothesis about how cells form and you can go look for such cells in the fossil record. You can create evolving DNA and RNA strands in a test tube. You can make artificial life forms in the laboratory (this is in progress). There are many clear, simple and e