[Physicist]

Are you saying that some forms of life have no DNA whatsoever?

That depends what you call life, and what you mean by DNA. Some viruses are RNA-based rather than DNA-based, but some people don't think of viruses as life-forms. Prions don't have nucleic acids at all, but even fewer people would call them life-forms. The problem here is that we tend to define life in terms of DNA, rather than vice-versa.

There aren't any cellular organisms that don't have DNA, but that's because DNA works so well. Any DNA-less single-celled critters have long since been devoured into extinction.

[Southack]

"There aren't any cellular organisms that don't have DNA, but that's because DNA works so well." - Physicist

Fair enough. Can we therefor agree that Watson's proof is valid for the probability/improbability of the necessary data self-forming in the DNA of the first cellular organism? - Southack

"Any DNA-less single-celled critters have long since been devoured into extinction." - Physicist

I've seen no proof of that assertation. Can you offer any proof or is that merely your opinion of early life?

[Southack]

"There aren't any cellular organisms that don't have DNA..."
78 posted on 3/6/02 12:55 PM Pacific by Physicist