Disproving Creation #25 - Endogenous Retroviruses
Budikka666
1: http://tinyurl.com/28rt7kh None
2: http://tinyurl.com/2a2uvr8 None
3: http://tinyurl.com/26agmca None
4: http://tinyurl.com/2exl8na None
5: http://tinyurl.com/24vc7ac None
6: http://tinyurl.com/26nthkd None
7: http://tinyurl.com/36v4h2f None
8: http://tinyurl.com/36dbcv2 None
9: http://tinyurl.com/3ysloo9 None
10: http://tinyurl.com/3x9aqr3 None
11: http://tinyurl.com/2eb2vwz None
12: http://tinyurl.com/2cvn4hl None
13: http://tinyurl.com/284xzc2 None
14: http://tinyurl.com/297nesr None
15: http://tinyurl.com/2avwhlt None
16: http://tinyurl.com/2d7hdl5 None
17: http://tinyurl.com/26c6gx4 None
18: http://tinyurl.com/2bkxttj None
19: http://tinyurl.com/266tpxa None
20: http://tinyurl.com/26q7y3y None
21: http://tinyurl.com/29lf7j5 None
22: http://tinyurl.com/35dgjk2 None
23: http://tinyurl.com/2vp5boc None
24: http://tinyurl.com/2wchxa5 None
25 successive threads in which science and rationale supporting
evolution has been offered and in not in one single case has a
creationist offered any positive science or rationale for creation.
What are the odds against that?
Creationists love to quote odds! It doesn't matter to them if the
odds are pulled directly from their dumb asses and make no sense
whatsoever. To the completely clueless, they sound great, don't they?
So if they love odds so much, how come they never actually use real
odds and address the failings of their own nonsensical claims?
What, for example, are the odds of two unrelated (according to
creationists) species having the same viral remnant in the same place
in their respective genomes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus
Before you answer that question, let me add one more clue: DNA
evidence is so damning these days that not only are criminals
convicted on the basis of it, but innocent people who were wrongly
convicted before DNA evidence came into use, have been exonerated by
it. That's how accurate and precise DNA reading is.
What's that insane number the creationists like to LIE applies to the
evolution of a gene? Ten to the eightieth power? 10^80?
So what are the odds that two *unrelated* species would have even
*one* viral remnant left in the same place in three billion letters of
DNA? ERVs (endogenous retroviruses occupy a minuscule 1% of our
genome. So what are the odds that by chance a human and a chimpanzee
would have just *one* of these in common - the same ERV in the same
place in the genome?
Guess what? Humans and chimpanzees have at least seven. Same virus.
Same location in the DNA. SEVEN TIMES.
What are the odds against that if there's no evolution, creationists?
Whaddya say, losers? Is it time you started RUNNING AWAY, posting
Bible quotes, quoting evolutionists out-of-context, hiding behind
bullshit - in short, doing anything and every dumb thing but offering
science to support your bullshit?
Creation loses again.
Budikka
Andrew
Hey Budikka, there is no naturalistic only origin of a genome apart from an
intelligent causation. DNA has specified genetic information and instructions
which can come only from an intelligent Source. Therefore there is a Creator..
GOD
Virgil
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
fool calling itself "Andrew".
Until "Andrew" can establish that being ignorant of how something can
occur proves that it cannot occur, his argument sucks.
And considering how much has been learned about how to produce various
biochemical molecules recently, it may not be too long before we are no
longer ignorant of how DNA cold come into being without any god having
to rar back and pass a miracle every time.
If a god cold create nature at all, such a god could create a nature
able to create DNA sequences by itself.
So that those who say their god's version of nature can't do DNA without
further and miraculous help are dissing their own god.
AllSeeing-I
> What, for example, are the odds of two unrelated (according to
> creationists) species having the same viral remnant in the same place
> in their respective genomes?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus
catching the same virus dummy
Devils Advocaat
Which somehow completely fails to answer the question as stated.
Virgil
<3523d67b-7989-49e3...@j5g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
AllSeeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
If they were that unrelated, any viral remnants absorbed from viruses
into such differing DNA wold be absorbed in differing places in their
DNA and two such different species are also unlikely to be susceptible
to the same viruses.
DanielSan
Yet you have never provided evidence for this assertion or explained
away how genetic information and instructions really do come from
natural origins all the time.
Why is that?
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
--------------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
--------------------------------------------------
"The most heinous and the most cruel crimes of
which history has record have been committed under
the cover of religion or equally noble motives."
--Mohandas K. Ghandi, July 7, 1950
--------------------------------------------------
ed wolf
How stupid of those scientists not to think of that!
And , since budikkas question #25 is answered,
with the tiny exception of giving the odds for 7
incidents at the same places in different species,
only 24 remain to be explained. If you can do that ,
concisely and well informed like now, expect science
to go packing, and we all start from scratch, painting
caves and crapping in the woods.
ed
Conclusions invariably come after investigations, and
not before. Only a blockhead cudgels his brains on his
own, or together with a group, to " find a solution" or
"evolve an idea" without making any investigation.
Mao Tse Tung 1930
Andrew
That's like saying, if God could create trees and ink, He could
also cause them to make books by themselves, no intelligent
input required.
Andrew
AllSeeing-I
> expect science to go packing, and we all start from scratch,
good idea.
science is wrong about the origins of man anyway
archie dux
Aw, geez...I could SWEAR that it was only
yesterday that I posted this:
Lessee here...on the one hand, I've
read thousands upon thousands of pages on
evolution written by biologists such as Jerry Coyne,
Lynn Margulis, Sean B. Carroll, Donald
Prothero, David Raup, Stephen J. Gould,
Richard Fortey, Richard Dawkins,
Simon Conway Morris, Nick Lane,
all of them laying out for me, in
e x q u i s i t e detail, page after page
after page, all the reasons that evolution
best explains all the known facts.
That, as I say, is on the one hand.
On the other hand, we have that
noted curator of Cambrian mammels,
All-Seeing-I, explaining that evolution
is bogus "because I say so".
Who to believe, who to believe...
archie
Tim DeLaney
Obviously, evolution has a 50% chance
of being correct, right?
Tim
aa # 1123
Devils Advocaat
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in messagenews:90758b39-b483-4c65...@w4g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
You keep on saying this in various ways, but that doesn't make it so.
By the way, can you elaborate on your claim that "DNA can correct
errors during the process of protein synthesis"?
Virgil
<f2fde501-e350-4a9d...@y3g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
AllSeeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
Not nearly as wrong as the bible.
Virgil
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
So is "Andrew" admitting that there are things that his god cannot do?
And why would such a god create all the massive evidence supporting
evolution if there really is no evolution?
DanielSan
No, it isn't.
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
--------------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
--------------------------------------------------
"The most heinous and the most cruel crimes of
which history has record have been committed under
the cover of religion or equally noble motives."
--Mohandas K. Ghandi
--------------------------------------------------
Sapient Fridge
<bdf8da86-2094-4a2e...@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, Tim
DeLaney <delaney...@comcast.net> writes
Strain....Sapient tries to resist giving link to own post...and fails:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.origins/msg/b16799b5ad4f6001?hl=en
(All-Seeing-I's old name was Adman)
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
Sapient Fridge
<3523d67b-7989-49e3...@j5g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
AllSeeing-I <allse...@usa.com> writes
Did you miss the bit where the paragraph said "in the same place"?
Humans have 3 billion base pairs in each genome and so does a chimp,
gorilla, bonobo etc. What are the odds of all those species catching
exactly the same virus and it fixing in their population's genome in
exactly the same place? And what are the odds of that happening over
and over again, with different viruses?
Remember that these viruses have very limited targeting ability (which
is unfortunate because otherwise they would make great DNA editing tools
for research).
Andrew
news:e26bc929-c556-4e36...@k30g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
What part of it is difficult for you to understand??
> By the way, can you elaborate on your claim that "DNA can correct
> errors during the process of protein synthesis"?
I believe it was a question rather than a claim. I said, do templates
have error control programs to correct errors and mistakes? Since
you indicated that DNA was -only- a template.
There are indeed error control mechanisms for mistakes that occur
in DNA replication. This goes beyond the definition of a *template*.
Andrew
Virgil
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> >> Hey Budikka, there is no naturalistic only origin of a genome apart from
> >> an
> >> intelligent causation. DNA has specified genetic information and
> >> instructions
> >> which can come only from an intelligent Source. Therefore there is a
> >> Creator..
> >> GOD
> >
> > You keep on saying this in various ways, but that doesn't make it so.
>
> What part of it is difficult for you to understand??
One can understand something without regarding it as gospel, and
certainly nothing Andrew posts is gospel.
>
> > By the way, can you elaborate on your claim that "DNA can correct
> > errors during the process of protein synthesis"?
>
> I believe it was a question rather than a claim. I said, do templates
> have error control programs to correct errors and mistakes? Since
> you indicated that DNA was -only- a template.
>
> There are indeed error control mechanisms for mistakes that occur
> in DNA replication. This goes beyond the definition of a *template*.
Why cannot self correcting DNA strands have occurred accidentally and
then be selected for?
Seems like a mutation that would give a considerable advantage.
Father Haskell
You mean it has yet to prove anything of the bible save
that entire sections were likely written under heavy ergot
poisoning.
Budikka666
When has he *ever* given a straight answer to a simple question?!
Budikka
archie dux
OK, I am now declaring further nominations
for People Unclear on the Point officially
closed.
archie
DanielSan
> In message
> <3523d67b-7989-49e3...@j5g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
> AllSeeing-I <allse...@usa.com> writes
>>
>>> What, for example, are the odds of two unrelated (according to
>>> creationists) species having the same viral remnant in the same place
>>> in their respective
>>> genomes?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus
>>
>> catching the same virus dummy
>
> Did you miss the bit where the paragraph said "in the same place"?
>
> Humans have 3 billion base pairs in each genome and so does a chimp,
> gorilla, bonobo etc. What are the odds of all those species catching
> exactly the same virus and it fixing in their population's genome in
> exactly the same place? And what are the odds of that happening over and
> over again, with different viruses?
>
> Remember that these viruses have very limited targeting ability (which
> is unfortunate because otherwise they would make great DNA editing tools
> for research).
Wonder what that probability would be. Probably some astronomically
high figure like they give for the probability of "life forming by chance".
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Virgil" wrote:
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> >> > What, for example, are the odds of two unrelated (according to
>> >> > creationists) species having the same viral remnant in the same place
>> >> > in their respective genomes?
>> >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus
>> >> >
>> >> > Before you answer that question, let me add one more clue: DNA
>> >> > evidence is so damning these days that not only are criminals
>> >> > convicted on the basis of it, but innocent people who were wrongly
>> >> > convicted before DNA evidence came into use, have been exonerated by
>> >> > it. That's how accurate and precise DNA reading is.
>> >> >
>> >> > What's that insane number the creationists like to LIE applies to the
>> >> > evolution of a gene? Ten to the eightieth power? 10^80?
>> >> >
>> >> > So what are the odds that two *unrelated* species would have even
>> >> > *one* viral remnant left in the same place in three billion letters of
>> >> > DNA? ERVs (endogenous retroviruses occupy a minuscule 1% of our
>> >> > genome. So what are the odds that by chance a human and a chimpanzee
>> >> > would have just *one* of these in common - the same ERV in the same
>> >> > place in the genome?
>> >> >
>> >> > Guess what? Humans and chimpanzees have at least seven. Same virus.
>> >> > Same location in the DNA. SEVEN TIMES.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Hey Budikka, there is no naturalistic only origin of a genome apart from an
>> >> intelligent causation. DNA has specified genetic information and instructions
>> >> which can come only from an intelligent Source. Therefore there is a Creator..
>> >> GOD
>> >
>> > Until "Andrew" can establish that being ignorant of how something can
>> > occur proves that it cannot occur, his argument sucks.
>> >
>> > And considering how much has been learned about how to produce various
>> > biochemical molecules recently, it may not be too long before we are no
>> > longer ignorant of how DNA cold come into being without any god having
>> > to rar back and pass a miracle every time.
>> >
>> > If a god cold create nature at all, such a god could create a nature
>> > able to create DNA sequences by itself.
>>
>> That's like saying, if God could create trees and ink, He could
>> also cause them to make books by themselves, no intelligent
>> input required.
>
> So is "Andrew" admitting that there are things that his god cannot do?
Yes http://micurl.com/sziDiEa, and He also cannot stop loving atheists.
> And why would such a god create all the massive evidence supporting
> evolution if there really is no evolution?
The evidence supports the diversity of life which He created.
And the issue above is the origin of the genome, rather than
evolution.
Andrew
archie dux
wrote:
> In message
> <3523d67b-7989-49e3-9e22-7aef51a16...@j5g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
> AllSeeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes
>
>
>
> >> What, for example, are the odds of two unrelated (according to
> >> creationists) species having the same viral remnant in the same place
> >> in their respective
> >>genomes?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus
> >catching the same virus dummy
> Did you miss the bit where the paragraph said "in the same place"?
> Humans have 3 billion base pairs in each genome and so does a chimp,
> gorilla, bonobo etc. What are the odds of all those species catching
> exactly the same virus and it fixing in their population's genome in
> exactly the same place? And what are the odds of that happening over
> and over again, with different viruses?
It turns out that...oh, god, now this is eerie...those odds are
EXACTLY the same as the odds of Assey understanding your
point.
archie
> Remember that these viruses have very limited targeting ability (which
> is unfortunate because otherwise they would make great DNA editing tools
> for research).
> --
> sapient_usene...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
> Grok:http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org* nuke a spammer *
> Find:http://www.samspade.orghttp://www.netdemon.net * today *
Sapient Fridge
<dani...@speakeasy.net> writes
>On 9/14/2010 12:53 PM, Sapient Fridge wrote:
>> In message
>> <3523d67b-7989-49e3...@j5g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
>> AllSeeing-I <allse...@usa.com> writes
>>>
>>>> What, for example, are the odds of two unrelated (according to
>>>> creationists) species having the same viral remnant in the same place
>>>> in their respective
>>>> genomes?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus
>>>
>>> catching the same virus dummy
>>
>> Did you miss the bit where the paragraph said "in the same place"?
>>
>> Humans have 3 billion base pairs in each genome and so does a chimp,
>> gorilla, bonobo etc. What are the odds of all those species catching
>> exactly the same virus and it fixing in their population's genome in
>> exactly the same place? And what are the odds of that happening over and
>> over again, with different viruses?
>>
>> Remember that these viruses have very limited targeting ability (which
>> is unfortunate because otherwise they would make great DNA editing tools
>> for research).
>
>Wonder what that probability would be. Probably some astronomically
>high figure like they give for the probability of "life forming by
>chance".
If one were to say that the virus could fit anywhere in the genome
(ignoring places where it would cause stuff to stop working for now) and
assume that it's 100% certain that the individual infected becomes a
common ancestor for the future population then it would be a
3,000,000,000:1 chance that two species got the virus in the same place,
you would then multiply that by 3 billion for each additional species
and multiply that by <n> where <n> is the number of viruses we were
looking at.
So, for example, for 4 species of primates and 7 viruses it would be:
(3,000,000,000 ^ 4) * 7 = 5.67 в 10^38
That's a big number, but no problem for a god with time to waste faking
evidence for evolution of course ;-)
Virgil
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> The evidence supports the diversity of life which He created.
The physical evidence certainly supports a diversity of life, but there
is no evidence that your "He" created any of it or even that your "He"
exists.
> And the issue above is the origin of the genome, rather than
> evolution.
The issue is the origin of life. There are forms of life not requiring
DNA in their genomes so that life of some sort is very likely to have
begun without DNA and DNA evolved later.
AllSeeing-I
You have a potty mouth young lady. I saw what you called Duke. Shame
on you
AllSeeing-I
It is easy to perpetuate a lie and then get others to repeat it.
You should believe me dummy.
AllSeeing-I
wrote:
> In message <zYednfDxD6lNdxLRnZ2dnUVZ_t6dn...@speakeasy.net>, DanielSan
> <daniel...@speakeasy.net> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 9/14/2010 12:53 PM, Sapient Fridge wrote:
> >> In message
> >> AllSeeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes
>
> That's a big number, but no problem for a god with time to waste faking
> evidence for evolution of course ;-)
> --
> Grok:http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org* nuke a spammer *
> Find:http://www.samspade.orghttp://www.netdemon.net * today *
> Kill:http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You have no idea what kind of capabilities, a virus had that long ago.
Mine is the best explanation and it fits the observation,
Virgil
<6c7cb359-1fdc-4cb8...@k9g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
AllSeeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
You have a potty brain, young IDiot, and nothing that Buddikka posted is
as offensive as you insulting your betters, IllSeeing-Id .
Double shame on you!
Virgil
<d2a386f6-08fa-495b...@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
AllSeeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
You cretinist IDiots, should know, as you have so much more practice at
it than anyone else.
Virgil
<4ce0c92c-3868-428e...@m16g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
AllSeeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
And you do not have enough of an idea to be able to dispute his figures.
>
> Mine is the best explanation
Nonsense! No "explanation" that requires so many contra-logical
assumptions is of any use at all to thinking people.
Andrew
Only in the fantasies of Darwinists.
DanielSan
Actually in the hard evidence.
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
---------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
---------------------------------------------
The Bible promotes atheism:
"There is no God." --Psalm 14:1, Isaiah 45:5,
Deuteronomy 4:39
"There was no God formed" --Isaiah 43:11
"Do not believe that I am He." --John 8:24
---------------------------------------------
Devils Advocaat
> "Devils Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
The part where you completely fail to back up this claim of yours.
>
> > By the way, can you elaborate on your claim that "DNA can correct
> > errors during the process of protein synthesis"?
>
> I believe it was a question rather than a claim. I said, do templates
> have error control programs to correct errors and mistakes? Since
> you indicated that DNA was -only- a template.
Your words that I was referring to are:
"Interesting to note that DNA is able to correct errors in the process
of protein
synthesis."
That is not a question it is a claim.
Care to back it up?
>
> There are indeed error control mechanisms for mistakes that occur
> in DNA replication. This goes beyond the definition of a *template*.
I see you have shifted the goalposts, earlier you referred to "error
control programs" so why the change Andrew?
So where are these mechanisms/programs Andrew?
>
> Andrew
Virgil
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
Viruses, which are forms of life, though primitive, have no DNA in their
"genomes", and that fact supports what "Andrew" falsely denies.
Sapient Fridge
Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> writes
Also the functional parts of ribosomes, which construct proteins, are
RNA. That shows that RNA can be used as a catalyst and almost certainly
predates proteins and DNA:
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/origins/2009/02/deconstructing-the-ribosome.html
and scientists have found simpler RNA molecules that catalyse protein
reactions:
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/new_evidence_rna_world_hypothesis
Looking good for the RNA world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rna_world
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Sapient Fridge
<4ce0c92c-3868-428e...@m16g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
AllSeeing-I <allse...@usa.com> writes
<snip>
>You have no idea what kind of capabilities, a virus had that long ago.
Actually we do, at least one has been reconstructed:
http://www.michaelspecter.com/wp-content/uploads/Darwins_Surprise.pdf
Might be easier here, as I know you will be keen to read it:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/03/071203fa_fact_specter
>Mine is the best explanation and it fits the observation,
Let's see. Your explanation needs incredible odds, or new capabilities
for viruses that have never been observed in the real world nor is there
any mechanism .
My explanation needs only the mechanism we observe and already know
about. Yet for some reason you think yours is a better explanation.
Can you explain your reasoning? Is it that your explanation fits your
preconceptions and bible, whereas mine doesn't? Surely you are not so
shallow?
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Syd M.
Oh, fuck you, Assman.
When Dork acts like an asshole, he'll get called one. Just like you,
Mr. 'Morality.'
PDW
Syd M.
Why not, since that is exactly what you do, Assman.
PDW
Syd M.
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You have no idea what kind of capabilities, a virus had that long ago.
>
> Mine is the best explanation and it fits the observation,
No.
PDW
Budikka666
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You have no idea what kind of capabilities, a virus had that long ago.
That's right - long ago viruses were so wonderful they were like
gods. In fact, viruses created the Universe!
Budikka
archie dux
She does, doesn't she?
She also has a razor-sharp mind, a long memory,
and an excellent knack for research, all of
which you are frequently on the receiving
end of.
For which you have my condolences, loser.
archie
archie dux
>
> > - Show quoted text -
> You have no idea what kind of capabilities, a virus had that long ago.
But apparently you do?
Fascinating. A real learning opportunity. Pray, do list
the capabilities "a virius had that long ago".
In fact, why don't you do that right here:
> Mine is the best explanation and it fits the observation,
Really? Somehow I missed the part where you explain
how these viruses, having three billion spots to choose
from, all ended up in the same place in the different
genomes of the great apes.
<cough>common<cough>descent<cough>
Sorry, sorry, bit of a cold. Anyhow, let;s
get to the bit where you explain to us why the
viral blots on the human genome match up
exactly with those same blots on the
chimp and gorilla genome.
Here -- take all the space you need:
archie
archie dux
> "Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in messagenews:Virgil-9EBF39....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
> > "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >> The evidence supports the diversity of life which He created.
>
> > The physical evidence certainly supports a diversity of life, but there
> > is no evidence that your "He" created any of it or even that your "He"
> > exists.
>
> >> And the issue above is the origin of the genome, rather than
> >> evolution.
> > The issue is the origin of life. There are forms of life not requiring
> > DNA in their genomes so that life of some sort is very likely to have
> > begun without DNA and DNA evolved later.
> Only in the fantasies of Darwinists.
As has been frequently observed, whenever
Andrew uses the word "fantasy", it appears
to translate to "I have no idea what you're
talking about".
Let's check that out in this instance.
Andrew, when Virigl said that "there
are forms of life not requiring DNA in their
genomes", qwhat exactly was he referring
to?:
archie)