posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:17 AM
I've heard it put in an interesting way: "Life is merely the longest running chemical reaction on the planet."
First off, DNA is not alive by any biological definition I've ever heard. You used the words "immortal" and "host" and "parasite", which
designate a living biological entity, which DNA is not. It is a molecule; a very important one, but a molecule none the less.
I've heard the outer space theory before, and the truth is, we don't know. I doubt it, but I don't know. The main objection I have to that
theory, is that I've yet to meet a person who claims to believe in it, who uses it solely to avoid having to answer the question of where did it
originally come from?
Rather than trying to go out and do some actual research on their own, they use that theory to avoid having to answer it.
"DNA didn't come here; I know, it came from a Meteor!"
My main objection to it is not the theory itself, but the scientists who claim to believe in it.
But the truth is, that it really doesn't change that much about having to answer where did DNA come from; all it does is change the location. We
know quite well that early in the developmental stages of a planetary formation, the ball is a molten sphere of lava. That doesn't change. The
condition by which DNA can come to evolve does not change that much. (I'm not suggesting that DNA is going to evolve the same everywhere in the
Universe, just that the planetary conditions are pretty much the same).
So yes, it is an interesting theory. No, I do not personally hold that much faith in it, and I sure as heck hold little to no faith in those who
believe in it in order to avoid answering the question of
"Where did we come from?"