Also, why in the world are people bringing up asteroid impacts? Not everything that falls to the earth are large, solid masses. The most likely explanation is an accretion of interstellar dust earlier in Earth's history, when planets were still mopping up remaining residues.
quote:Interstellar dust does not fall in sufficient quantities to create a high enough concentration to acount for the origin of life.
Well certainly not 5 billion years after the formation of the planet.
I will of course admit that I'm not a cosmologist so I don't know the rates of dust accretion 4 billion years ago. However, the hypothesis is so very compelling given the fact that it would solve the problem of chirality.
Edited by BeagleBob, : No reason given.
Edited by BeagleBob, : Word substitution: "hypothesis."
I think the clip is honest. Did you see it? He wasn't trying to give ID it's "best shot", at least it doesn't come off as that.
Quite honestly I forget which clips from Expelled I have or haven't seen. It makes no difference though. Who is the better judge of what Richard Dawkins thinks about directed panspermia? Me? You? Ben Stein? Could it possibly be Richard Dawkins?
Which source is best placed to offer a clear view of Dawkins' opinion? Expelled, which seeks to ridicule Dawkins or dawkins.net which is completely under Dawkins' editorial control?
It seems absurd to suggest that Dawkins is using his own website to promote opinions to which he does not adhere, only to let his real feelings slip out in some interview. Why can't you just take the man's word that he believes what he believes?
Dawkins doesn't believe that life came from space, as anyone who has read his books will be aware. He was discussing a hypothetical scenario, which he considers to be vanishingly improbable, but still more likely than creation by a supernatural entity, since it can still be explained by reference to natural processes ( the aliens themselves must have evolved). When he brings up this kind of argument it is invariably for the purpose of making the "who designed the designer" point, not as a serious suggestion in its own right.
Taking this, as I believe Stein does, to mean that "Richard Dawkins believes in aliens" is a dishonest misrepresentation of Dawkins' views.
I'm far from convinced there is a problem of chirality. Even if there is, I'm not sure how this is supposed to solve it. The most biased interstellar creation scenarios I know of only create a 60/40 bias. Compare that to selective binding to crystal faces which get a 90/10 bias.