Finding exocomets creates a really big problem for the idea that the observed star system is billions of years old.
It raises the issue of just how long the comets have been around and how they can survive to the present for us to observe them since they are simply balls of ice that evaporate everytime they go near their stars? It means there must now be some way for them to be replaced - but how to observe that phenonenom? Unless and until such replacement process can be found, there's big trouble ahead.

but we don't see much of the stuff in between: the asteroid-like planetesimals and the comets.

I'm glad to see that for once, someone is willing to clearly state that so far there's no observational evidence to support the nebular theory of planetary formation. The sentence following this quoted one in the text is simply wishing it to be true. It doesn't make any difference whatsoever - there just isn't ANY kind of observational evidence to support the theory.

I'm glad to see that for once, someone is willing to clearly state that so far there's no observational evidence to support the nebular theory of planetary formation.

Kev, clearly you are delusional as ever. This very article presents observational evidence - 6 exocomets.

just how long the comets have been around and how they can survive to the present for us to observe them since they are simply balls of ice that evaporate everytime they go near their stars?

This has been explained to you before, but you suffer from some sort of learning disorder. The comets spend most of their lives in orbits that bring them nowhere near their central star. It's only the rare gravitational or collisional interaction that sends one inwards.

just how long the comets have been around and how they can survive to the present for us to observe them since they are simply balls of ice that evaporate everytime they go near their stars?

Yeah, really. The whole idea of comets around a star is silly. Everyone knows that everything we see in the sky is suspended on the celestial sphere and comets are actually flying in our atmosphere, because there's no such thing as 'outer space'. We don't need any of that hokus-pokus mumbo-jumbo voodoo sciency type thingies.

Creationists shouldn't comment on science, it is hilarious and makes deconverts from religion, see Dawkins's Convert's Corner.

The Oort cloud is the largest dynamical store of objects a system has: "The outer Oort cloud is believed to contain several trillion individual objects larger than approximately 1 km". http://en.wikiped...rt_cloud

Comets were the last unobserved bodies of known planetary system formation. Now *all* the expected observational evidence has tested the nebular theory of planetary formation.

Creationism is unwarranted science doubt, devoid of substance. In fact I'd say it's known to be not only myth but completely bogus as social stunt. "Look Oog, no see. Therefore Grog say invisible magical man diddit."