If Evolution is true, how did DNA code itself

Micawber said:
The typical anti scientific religious response...

Thee is every reason for DNA not to exist? Lmao. By that Thinking there is every reason for nothing at all to exist. Please do list several reasons that DNA should not exist that would not apply to your garage door or a can of soup.
Click to expand...

Because a minimum of four different genetic characteristics dictated by DNA are required for biological reproduction.....it is absurd to pretend that these biological "building blocks" that cannot attach themselves to each other in a single simple combination, did so with sufficient complexity to reproduce......
 
Milagro said:
As I've already pointed out glycine was detected, in the cloud surrounding Comet 67P/ Churyumov-Gerasimenko, by the Rosetta spacecraft.

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists
Click to expand...
Which is more evidence that amino acids have abiotic antecedents.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Nonsense. Complete nonsense. DNA coding is nothing comparable to computer coding and it's been proven a long time ago that both amino acids and nucleic acids can be synthesized via abiotic processes and amino acids via inorganic synthesis and self replicating nucleic acids existed in quasi life forms, like viruses, before DNA existed so it's very probable that DNA evolved from those Nucleic Acid analogues.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence whatsoever that amino acids have ever turned into DNA......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Because a minimum of four different genetic characteristics dictated by DNA are required for biological reproduction.....it is absurd to pretend that these biological "building blocks" that cannot attach themselves to each other in a single simple combination, did so with sufficient complexity to reproduce......
Click to expand...
Which has what to do with Yurts question?
 
Micawber said:
The typical anti scientific religious response...

Thee is every reason for DNA not to exist? Lmao. By that Thinking there is every reason for nothing at all to exist. Please do list several reasons that DNA should not exist that would not apply to your garage door or a can of soup.
Click to expand...

The parts to my garage door are pretty stable after they are put together lol. DNA is notoriously unstable. Which raises the question of how it ever formed to begin with.

Hence, my assertion.

Though the analogy does have some merit. It's not like the hinges have a chemical affinity for the door, so there's no reason to suppose they would somehow join together on their own.

Apart from a garage door forming mechanism [or an agent that can build one] there's absolutely no reason to suppose the existence of garage doors.

We'll ignore the possibility of an agent so that leaves the mechanism.

If you don't have the DNA producing mechanism, you're indulging in wishful thinking. Which is fine as far as it goes. If you do have the mechanism, let's see it. And then I want your autograph.

Because you WILL get a Nobel Prize lol.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Going back to the original question. That question is nonsensical as DNA does not code itself. It codes for proteins and no Darth biochemical coding is nothing like electronic binary computer coding.
Click to expand...

Well Mott, Bill Gates disagrees lol.

DNA is actually much more sophisticated than computer code.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well no shit. Whoever claimed that? DNA provides the biochemical coding that determines which amino acid is selected in which particular order or sequence in protein synthesis.
Click to expand...

That is the claim of anyone who claims science has proved DNA simply rose out of amino acids....isn't that the claim you made?....
 
It's not a good question. Most of the theory was developed before DNA was discovered. DNA adds to our understanding of evolution and the theory of evolution has been useful in understanding DNA.

I have not read this yet but it seems to touch on a number of different theories on the origin of DNA and there is more detail at the link describing the various theories.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3293468/

The genetic code is nearly universal, and the arrangement of the codons in the standard codon table is highly non-random. The three main concepts on the origin and evolution of the code are the stereochemical theory, according to which codon assignments are dictated by physico-chemical affinity between amino acids and the cognate codons (anticodons); the coevolution theory, which posits that the code structure coevolved with amino acid biosynthesis pathways; and the error minimization theory under which selection to minimize the adverse effect of point mutations and translation errors was the principal factor of the code’s evolution. These theories are not mutually exclusive and are also compatible with the frozen accident hypothesis, i.e., the notion that the standard code might have no special properties but was fixed simply because all extant life forms share a common ancestor, with subsequent changes to the code, mostly, precluded by the deleterious effect of codon reassignment. Mathematical analysis of the structure and possible evolutionary trajectories of the code shows that it is highly robust to translational misreading but there are numerous more robust codes, so the standard code potentially could evolve from a random code via a short sequence of codon series reassignments. Thus, much of the evolution that led to the standard code could be a combination of frozen accident with selection for error minimization although contributions from coevolution of the code with metabolic pathways and weak affinities between amino acids and nucleotide triplets cannot be ruled out. However, such scenarios for the code evolution are based on formal schemes whose relevance to the actual primordial evolution is uncertain. A real understanding of the code origin and evolution is likely to be attainable only in conjunction with a credible scenario for the evolution of the coding principle itself and the translation system.
 
"organic soup"

"Not sure how we got to amino acids, though." P #11

It's a really big planet.
How big? Ferdinand Magellan, the guy credited with first circumnavigating it never actually made it, even if his boat did.
Most of its surface is H2O, some fresh water (the Great Lakes, the Amazon), and some salt water. With our Earth-sized cauldron:

one "teaspoon [of ocean water] will contain millions of bacteria, and 10's of millions of viruses. ... when we try to culture these organisms only about a tenth of a percent of them have ever grown in the laboratory. ...
Every 200 miles, 85% of the organisms and sequences were unique to the region.
... each site differs from each other. But the diversity and the amount of organisms is extremely high everywhere. There's different ones that grow in the cold water of the North Atlantic, than in the South Atlantic. The Atlantic ocean is different than the Pacific ocean. ... The most important thing we found is these photo-receptors see the color of light in the region reflected by the sea water.
In the Sargasso Sea, it's a deep indigo blue. The photo-receptors, it's like having one eye, only see blue light. You get into coastal waters, say see green light reflected off the chlorophyll. And a single letter change in the genetic code changes one amino acid in this protein, that changes the wavelength of light that these receptors see." Craig Venter, from his Global Ocean Sampling Expedition

... with such a wide variety of conditions, sunlight close to the surface, dark beneath, tropical, arctic, etc

If the number of spontaneous chemical interactions averaged 3 per cubic foot of water per minute, for a million years, how long would it have taken for stromatolites to form?
And let's not forget, the duration of life on Earth is regarded as about a billion years; a thousand million years!! That's a very long time!

We do have a few clues however. For example, it is said that the salinity of the blood is about the same as that of an ocean. Coincidence?

" self replication is a big part of what makes "nucleic acids" biologically significant. " MH #16

It's essential. Without FAITHFUL / accurate replication life would be naught but a bio-chemical melee.

" Evolution assumes the preexistence of DNA: "DO #21

- piffle -

I've never read any such assertion in any credible scientific journal.

"...if DNA created us, then DNA existed before anything living existed.....automatic logic fail..." #22

False.
DNA specifies the proteins that compose us.

You are assuming that only DNA can "live" or grow. We know that's false. Crystal growth being the textbook example.

Further, it's absurd to assume that humans evolved, but the biochemistry that codes for us did not.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Going back to the original question. That question is nonsensical as DNA does not code itself. It codes for proteins and no Darth biochemical coding is nothing like electronic binary computer coding.
Click to expand...


They always misunderstand the analogies used as teaching tools. It's just like the jackasses in the other thread misunderstood the "memory" analogy. But then provide them with some technical description and you might as well be speaking in the language of et.
 
I don't know why. But analogies are common criticism targets in such fora as these.

It separates the posters from the trolls.

Posters address the topic.

Trolls attack posters.

Analogies are of course prone to imperfection. Yet analogies have turned on many a light-bulb.

========================

As for the evolution of DNA: (brace yourselves for an analogy)
It's silly to assume the first mode of seated transportation was the VW Beetle.

Humans were riding camels, or horses long before we were going "all the way with ethyl".

All that's necessary for "life" to have begun was for a chemical, barely sufficient to qualify as proto-DNA, would have been the characteristic of self-replication.

Think it through.

If a chemical can reproduce itself, what do you think the reproductions are going to do? And what do you think their offspring will do?

And once they start competing, whether for territory, or resources, "only the strong survive".
 
sear said:
I don't know why. But analogies are common criticism targets in such fora as these.

It separates the posters from the trolls.

Posters address the topic.

Trolls attack posters.

Analogies are of course prone to imperfection. Yet analogies have turned on many a light-bulb.

========================

As for the evolution of DNA: (brace yourselves for an analogy)
It's silly to assume the first mode of seated transportation was the VW Beetle.

Humans were riding camels, or horses long before we were going "all the way with ethyl".

All that's necessary for "life" to have begun was for a chemical, barely sufficient to qualify as proto-DNA, would have been the characteristic of self-replication.

Think it through.

If a chemical can reproduce itself, what do you think the reproductions are going to do? And what do you think their offspring will do?

And once they start competing, whether for territory, or resources, "only the strong survive".
Click to expand...

The bolded is it. It's the whole deal.

We turn the origin of life into some incomprehensible, mythical event...but viewed scientifically, it can be a pretty basic concept.
 
#58

We can flummox ourselves by trying to comprehend the cosmos all at once.

The axiom says, if you attempt to swallow an entire elephant, be sure to take small bites.

Some say the cellular organelles (mitochondria for example, which btw have their own DNA [WITHIN THE CELL !!]) may from the evolutionary starting gun have been discreet life-forms; and that symbiosis may have brought them together.

Another approximation that some may find interesting:

For the total duration of biological evolution on Earth, evolution of the single cell took about half that time.

Once the functional cell was manifest, multi-cellular organisms were off to the races, ending up with eyes fit for eagles, hearing fit for bats, & skin fit for cuttlefish.

"We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself." Dr. Carl Sagan.
 
Thing1 said:
The bolded is it. It's the whole deal.

We turn the origin of life into some incomprehensible, mythical event...but viewed scientifically, it can be a pretty basic concept.
Click to expand...

And yet, it only happened one time, and never again. What are the odds?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top