The influence of science on society

Originally posted by Alcra
Wrong, a virus is smaller, but is still life (it can grow, reproduce etc).

Viruses are not alive. Part of the definition of life is that it's made of cells. Also, viruses can't do a lot of the things life needs to do to be life without the molecular machinery of cells.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Where do you find DNA without a cell?

For DNA to replicate, very sophisticated proteins are needed, right?

For the proteins to be formed the cell is needed.

So which came first, the chicken or the egg?

The first self replicating molecules were probably RNA. RNA can replicate itself without outside assistance from what I understand, and evolution acts on it. It isn't life, but given a period of evolution it's very reasonable that it would become life (a cell).

Originally posted by dj2becker
Would you agree that the cell is the simplest form of life?

I would, because life is defined in part as something made of cells.

Originally posted by frogstomp
the 4 amino acids that make up DNA came first

Nucleotides, not amino acids. Amino acids make proteins.

Originally posted by dj2becker
You were saying that intelligence evolved but you are not sure when this happened. But you were not willing to agree that it did in fact evolve from the prebiotic soup. In other words you were implying that it evolved after the soup. But the point I am trying to make is that it must have evovled from something. That is the reason why I was trying to assert ...[text shortened]... ved from itself. Do you mean to say that intelligence has always been there from the beginning?

Intelligence did evolve from prebiotic soup, through a long series of intermediate stages, over 3.8 billion years or so.

Originally posted by jimmyb270
When have you ever seen intelligence create intelligence?[/b]

I have not. Neither have you seen unintelligence create intelligence. Personally I believe it is more like likely for intelligence to create intelligence than it is for unintelligence to create intelligence. That is the point I have been trying to make all along.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The flaw with this common Creationist argument is that you guys don't have a rigorous and consistent definition of "information". Werner Gitt's was utterly flawed. Can you rigorously define "information" dj? If you don't do ...[text shortened]... etroviruses inserting their genomes into other organisms' genomes

Point mutations altering genes
Point mutations lengthening genes while altering them
Polyploidy
Transposons moving genes around
Retroviruses inserting their genomes into other organisms' genomes

Has this ever formed a new specie? As far as I know mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new limbs that are funtional or useful.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Would you define "intelligence"?

The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.

Originally posted by dj2becker
The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.

Then how can god be intelligent?. Surely being omniscient means he has no need to acquire and being omipresent has no need to apply.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Intelligence did evolve from prebiotic soup, through a long series of intermediate stages, over 3.8 billion years or so.

Do you mean to say that the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge evolved from something that did not have the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge?

Originally posted by Starrman
Then how can god be intelligent?. Surely being omniscient means he has no need to acquire and being omipresent has no need to apply.

That was my human definition of intelligence. God is not human thus the you cannot attribute human intelligence to Him. God is the greater source of intelligence.

Originally posted by dj2becker
That was my definition of human intelligence. God is not human thus the you cannot attribute human intelligence to Him. God is the source of human intelligence.

At last, a statement of positive assessment. Now, please provide evidence to back up this claim.

Originally posted by Starrman
At last, a statement of positive assessment. Now, please provide evidence to back up this claim.

Do you wish to have tangible evidence of something intangible?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Nucleotides, not amino acids. Amino acids make proteins.

Thank you

as you can see Im not a biochemist or a microbiologist either.
In fact I fall asleep any time i do any research on the subject , which invariaby causes me to have terrible nightmares about Marsh Clark on Court TV . That's enough to drive a person to atheism , however my faith is stronger than a DNA explaination, would that dj2 could grasp the concept that god is or isn't regardless of whether we think he is or not.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]
Point mutations altering genes
Point mutations lengthening genes while altering them
Polyploidy
Transposons moving genes around
Retroviruses inserting their genomes into other organisms' genomes

Has this ever formed a new specie? As far as I know mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new limbs that are funtional or useful.[/b]

Can you please define information? You're changing the subject.