Problems with the first life

Careful amigo. Crick is one of the co-discoverers of DNA, so his field is probably pretty relevant, and he was damn good at it. Hoyle was a brilliant astronomer. However, Hoyle was one of the people that most vociferously propounded the idea of panspermia (although he thought it was comets), and Crick was the most famous advocate of directed panspermia (alien intelligences did it). My understanding is that Leslie Orgel, the co-author of the 1973 Icarus paper on directed panspermia has since become a bit embarrassed about the idea. He apparently has reconsidered (I'll try and find a link to his "recantation of the heresy" later, but I've got to get off the computer for a bit). Of course, even if Orgel still held to the idea, a fair number of the falsifications he provided in that paper have been realized. IOW, the evidence is against directed panspermia.

Good point. Note, however, that the reference that provides the basis for most of the creationist use of Crick's directed panspermia is from 1973. IOW, before a lot of the recent breakthroughs were even considered. I don't think he thought cells came from outer space - that was Hoyle IIRC. Crick thought aliens may have seeded simple self-replicating macromolecules. IIRC, he (and Orgel) used the commonality of DNA as one of the bases for their claim - that if there had been abiogenesis on Earth there would be "other forms" of DNA observable. In point of fact, that's one of the reasons Orgel backed away from the AliensDidIt hypothesis: mtDNA IS a different form of DNA in many ways.

Hi mihkel: could you give me a page number for the Dawkins quote, please? It doesn't ring any bells, although I admit it's been awhile since I read Watchmaker. Thanks.