Nice find. Points well taken about them cherry picking data. I don't know if anyone knows enough about the various genomes to develop a complete picture (besides, defining what they mean by 'complexity' is nebulous at best). But I strongly disagree with some of the methods that the author and the commentors use to tear down the paper. For example, "There's no such thing as a theoretical biologist" isn't an argument. Neither is "this guy is just a 'staff scientist' at NIH, whatever that means." Firstly, there is a such thing as a theoretical biologist (see D'Arcy Thompson, one of the greatest 20th c thinkers, whose work On Growth and Form should be required reading for biology students). Second, a lack of a central theory is exactly what keeps biologists in their "data are God" type of thinking. Oh my how we love giant data sets. Want to know everything about the brain and mind? How about build a brain map! (for example) Biologists have a real problem with their endless generation of huge amounts of data and general lack of insightful ways to interpret it.

I don't think that this Moore's law paper is about hubris; I think it's about stirring the pot. If it's bad science, attack it with good science. Don't attack the scientists. Biology is a religion, in which 'data' are its deity (hell, they even have something called the 'central dogma'). If I were a betting man, I'd guess that life did originate on Earth, so don't take my interest in this paper as an endorsement of its thesis. I am, however, an enthusiast of people who use some extreme imagination to try to fill holes left by conventional wisdom.