Difference between revisions of "Talk:Deoxyribonucleic acid"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(life: self replication def.)
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
::It's definitely a matter of debate at some levels - it depends on how you define "living", of course.  One simplistic way would be to define life as things with DNA, making the definition here tautological.  In my opinion, I think better definitions revolve around self-replication, which viruses certainly do.  That they need other living things to achieve this is irrelevant, since most living things depend on others in order to replicate - for food, at the very least.  Even retroviruses, which as I recall are little more than a protein coverin gover a snippet of RNA, would meet this definition of "life", and I really see no problem with that. [[User:Human|Human]] 13:00, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
::It's definitely a matter of debate at some levels - it depends on how you define "living", of course.  One simplistic way would be to define life as things with DNA, making the definition here tautological.  In my opinion, I think better definitions revolve around self-replication, which viruses certainly do.  That they need other living things to achieve this is irrelevant, since most living things depend on others in order to replicate - for food, at the very least.  Even retroviruses, which as I recall are little more than a protein coverin gover a snippet of RNA, would meet this definition of "life", and I really see no problem with that. [[User:Human|Human]] 13:00, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
:::Oh okay! Seems to make sense to me, but as I said my knowledge is fairly limited! Cheers for the clear up. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:50, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
  
 
A double helix is just like one ladder that is twisted around.  The two sides of the ladder are the helices (and in this analogy, the base pairs are the rungs, of course).  Gattaca! [[User:Human|Human]] 11:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 
A double helix is just like one ladder that is twisted around.  The two sides of the ladder are the helices (and in this analogy, the base pairs are the rungs, of course).  Gattaca! [[User:Human|Human]] 11:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 09:50, 17 April 2007

"All living creatures contain DNA" might be pushing it. Viruses and retroviruses, AFAIK, only have RNA. Human 21:46, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Pushing my knowledge slightly but I'm fairly sure that virus's aren't actually living. MatteeNeutra 11:51, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
It's definitely a matter of debate at some levels - it depends on how you define "living", of course. One simplistic way would be to define life as things with DNA, making the definition here tautological. In my opinion, I think better definitions revolve around self-replication, which viruses certainly do. That they need other living things to achieve this is irrelevant, since most living things depend on others in order to replicate - for food, at the very least. Even retroviruses, which as I recall are little more than a protein coverin gover a snippet of RNA, would meet this definition of "life", and I really see no problem with that. Human 13:00, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Oh okay! Seems to make sense to me, but as I said my knowledge is fairly limited! Cheers for the clear up. MatteeNeutra 11:50, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

A double helix is just like one ladder that is twisted around. The two sides of the ladder are the helices (and in this analogy, the base pairs are the rungs, of course). Gattaca! Human 11:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)