[lbo-talk] 'American kids, dumber than dirt'

[ravi]

On 2 Nov, 2007, at 13:34 PM, knowknot at mindspring.com wrote:
> On 11/1/07, ravi <ravi at platosbeard.org>
>>
>>> Crick (not Watson) speculated . . . it was
>>> "possible" that the chemical components
>>> for life on Earth could have originated with
>>> intelligent beings elsewhere, but he did not
>>> claim that he had scientific for any such
>>> any such contention.   *    *     *
>>
>> This latter version (life originated elsewhere) is
>> more reasonable and I believe considered quite
>> possible by the experts, than the more exotic idea
>> that ETs planted life here!
>
> I agree (both that some experts subscribe to the less "exotic"  
> version of
> the sort of scenario summarized above and also that its a "quite  
> possible"
> one), but note that, for at least these two quite basic  
> considerations, it
> is far from clear what you think is "reasonable" in this connection  
> let
> alone whether this sort of generalized statement actually explains  
> very
> much (if anything) at all:
>
>       First, positing that "life" (whatever one means by that term)
> "originated elsewhere" than on Earth would not actually answer the,  
> "Where
> did life originate?" question <...>
>

Right, my response above was not intended to suggest that the second  
position is more reasonable *as an answer* to the "how and where did  
life originate" question. I would say in fact that if life arrived on  
earth via meteors or some such, it makes the "how did life start?"  
question more difficult to answer. And as you seem to hint, it may be  
difficult/meaningless to talk of "life" as a discreet entity.

The below, you will have to rewrite or explain in some manner to me,  
since I cannot understand it, I am afraid.

	--ravi


>       Second, if (as I'm guessing is so) what you're trying to  
> suggest by
> this "more reasonable" alternative to the
> extraterrestial(being)s-(intentionally)sent-'life'-or-the- 
> components-thereof-to
> Earth sort of speculation is that the chemical components (and the
> components of the chemicals) and whatever are the sources of energy  
> that
> result in "life" include components of DNA and of proteins, etc., is
> (without more) essentially truistic (even if - as of course is very
> plausible to imagine - those materials and that energy bounced off  
> other
> planets and exist or have been drifting through space in some other  
> manner
> and impacted with this planet), since that sort of claim, too, does  
> not
> answer the, "What's 'life'?" question either (notwithstanding that  
> living
> organisms on Earth consist, as they do, of chemicals and the  
> components
> thereof and of the energy relations occurring in whatever are the  
> organisms
> one refers to).