If Evolution is true, how did DNA code itself

[Darth Omar]

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.

Notice how the link assumes 'actual primordial evolution' occurred even though there's no evidence for it.

It also smuggles 'evolution' into it, even though the same writer would no doubt castigate 'creationists' for conflating evolution with abiogenesis.

And anyone who is skeptical of it gets to wear the 'creationist' label lol.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

And yet, it only happened one time, and never again. What are the odds?

There is actually a growing school of thought in the scientific community that it happened many times in the primordial earth, but life kept getting "snuffed out" because the meteor activity was so immense at that time.

We're talking about vast stretches of time here; that's the one thing we're missing from our experimentation today. We can create all of the conditions from that time, but not the hundreds of millions of years involved for random things (like self-replication) to happen.

I'm not an atheist, btw. I think religious belief and scientific thought on the origins of life & evolution aren't necessarily contradictory. But I have always felt like the idea that, "well this makes no logical sense - so we should explain it with something that makes the LEAST logical sense (and all-knowing, all-powerful being that came out of nowhere)" is a little odd.

 

[Darth Omar]

There is actually a growing school of thought in the scientific community that it happened many times in the primordial earth, but life kept getting "snuffed out" because the meteor activity was so immense at that time.

We're talking about vast stretches of time here; that's the one thing we're missing from our experimentation today. We can create all of the conditions from that time, but not the hundreds of millions of years involved for random things (like self-replication) to happen.

I'm not an atheist, btw. I think religious belief and scientific thought on the origins of life & evolution aren't necessarily contradictory. But I have always felt like the idea that, "well this makes no logical sense - so we should explain it with something that makes the LEAST logical sense (and all-knowing, all-powerful being that came out of nowhere)" is a little odd.

There's no end to the speculation on how life began. And in virtually all cases, it's hard to know when the science ends and the science fiction begins.

Suffice to say, none of it threatens a theistic worldview---much less from a logical standpoint.

 

[Bigdog]

There is actually a growing school of thought in the scientific community that it happened many times in the primordial earth, but life kept getting "snuffed out" because the meteor activity was so immense at that time.

We're talking about vast stretches of time here; that's the one thing we're missing from our experimentation today. We can create all of the conditions from that time, but not the hundreds of millions of years involved for random things (like self-replication) to happen.

I'm not an atheist, btw. I think religious belief and scientific thought on the origins of life & evolution aren't necessarily contradictory. But I have always felt like the idea that, "well this makes no logical sense - so we should explain it with something that makes the LEAST logical sense (and all-knowing, all-powerful being that came out of nowhere)" is a little odd.

The argument is that life forms/arises easily. Yet our best evidence shows it only happened once. That is rather contradictory.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

The argument is that life forms easily. Yet our best evidence shows it only happened once. That is rather contradictory.

Neither of the statements in the bolded are true.

 

[Bigdog]

Neither of the statements in the bolded are true.

Obviusly, I disagree.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Obviusly, I disagree.

Like I said, there is growing sentiment that it happened many times.

Since every time but the "last time" was completely wiped out by meteor activity, we would never be able to gather any kind of evidence of it; so it will always be theoretical.

 

[sear]

"Notice how the link assumes 'actual primordial evolution' occurred even though there's no evidence for it." DO #61

The evidence for it posts on the Internet under the pseud Darth Omar, ironically denying itself.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

There's no end to the speculation on how life began. And in virtually all cases, it's hard to know when the science ends and the science fiction begins.

Suffice to say, none of it threatens a theistic worldview---much less from a logical standpoint.

Well, on the latter, it's because there really isn't much logic to a theistic viewpoint. That's the thing that has always struck me whenever these debates go on; people who subscribe to that POV talk a lot about the need for logic, until they bring a deity into the equation.

Like I said, I'm not an atheist. But I prefer to look at things like the origin of life scientifically, because that is the only perspective that can involve logic & provide provable explanation. Theistic interpretations should be a more personal, private thing.

 

[Timshel]

Notice how the link assumes 'actual primordial evolution' occurred even though there's no evidence for it.

It also smuggles 'evolution' into it, even though the same writer would no doubt castigate 'creationists' for conflating evolution with abiogenesis.

And anyone who is skeptical of it gets to wear the 'creationist' label lol.

Where does it conflate the theory of evolution with abiogenesis? It does not. It talks about how insights that were likely gained from the theory of evolution might explain the origin of DNA.

You might be having a problem conflating the "theory of evolution" with "evolution" itself. Evolution is an observed phenomena and a fact that is explained by the theory of evolution. How evolution impacts the origin of DNA is not currently relevant to the theory of evolution. Once we discover the origin of DNA it is likely to lead further refinement and support for the theory of evolution because they are likely related.

 

[Bigdog]

Like I said, there is growing sentiment that it happened many times.

Since every time but the "last time" was completely wiped out by meteor activity, we would never be able to gather any kind of evidence of it; so it will always be theoretical.

You're positing that life arises easilly, then magically stopped arising the last 650 million years.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

You're positing that life arises easilly, then magically stopped arising the last 650 million years.

I never said "easily." Many times over the course of 100's of millions of years doesn't = easy. I think a lot of time IS needed for something that random to occur.

And there are a couple of things on that last part. For starters, the conditions of the primordial earth were vastly different than they are today in terms of the building blocks for life and general environment. Beyond that, some think that the heat near the bottom of the ocean near volcanic areas & vents was integral. Those areas still exist to an extent...but if life was starting every day in those places, how would we know it? We're talking about something smaller than the average cell self-replicating. It's not going to evolve beyond that point, because environmental niches throughout the planet are now teeming w/ evolved life.

Nothing "magic" about it.

 

[sear]

"You're positing that life arises easilly, then magically stopped arising the last 650 million years." Bd: Master of Misinterpretation

piffle

There's abundant fossil evidence of species that were evolutionary dead-ends.

The Brontosaurus, the Pterodactyl, etc.

Know what the gay dinosaurs were called?

MEGAsoreass.

I'd be astounded if life arose only once, and all life is from that one specific, single chemical compound.

There were surely fits & starts along the way. Some chemical organizations probably didn't reproduce as well as others.

 

[Timshel]

You're positing that life arises easilly, then magically stopped arising the last 650 million years.

It does not suggest it is easy. But then we don't know.

There is no need to believe it magically stopped. Once life is established there is not as much room for new life because the existing life could easily drive the new life to extinction before it can take hold.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Abiogenesis and Evolution are two different topics.

DNA codes itself by accident. When it makes a mistake replicating itself, it creates a new DNA sequence.

RNA is used to keep a copy of the DNA master, if DNA was used over and over then mistakes would occur and the code would be lost.

Your first statement is correct. The second one wrong and the third correct.

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists

 

[Bigdog]

I never said "easily." Many times over the course of 100's of millions of years doesn't = easy. I think a lot of time IS needed for something that random to occur.

And there are a couple of things on that last part. For starters, the conditions of the primordial earth were vastly different than they are today in terms of the building blocks for life and general environment. Beyond that, some think that the heat near the bottom of the ocean near volcanic areas & vents was integral. Those areas still exist to an extent...but if life was starting every day in those places, how would we know it? We're talking about something smaller than the average cell self-replicating. It's not going to evolve beyond that point, because environmental niches throughout the planet are now teeming w/ evolved life.

Nothing "magic" about it.

There have been 7 mass extinctions over the last 650 million years opening up new niches over and over again. So both the necessary time and conditions have been available, yet there is no evidence that life has arisen anytime during those 100's of millions of years.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

There have been 7 mass extinctions over the last 650 million years opening up new niches over and over again. So both the necessary time and conditions have been available, yet there is no evidence that life has arisen anytime during those 100's of millions of years.

You're really grasping at straws here. Yes, there have been mass extinctions - but even with those, it's not like oceanic niches were wide open for "new life" to take hold. There was still abundant evolved life - particularly in the deep ocean areas - that would make winning any evolutionary competition impossible for an unevolved single-cell organism. Even on a microscopic level, there was MUCH more evolved life in oceanic niches, and those kinds of organisms were still abundant even after mass extinctions. Even if they weren't, they'd still win the competition to re-populate any free niches because of their more evolved state of being.

And the conditions were nothing like the primordial earth at any of those times, regardless. The "primordial soup" before life evolved was unique.

Look, if you want to believe a god did everything, have at it. I don't judge that or feel offended by it in any way. But that's a personal belief; there is no science to it whatsoever.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Anyone ever see "Tree of Life?" A pretty ponderous movie overall, but there is about a 15-20 minute sequence in the middle that has everything from the origin of the universe to the origin of life. It's one of my favorite movie sequences of all time; really amazing & makes you think.

 

[Darth Omar]

Anyone ever see "Tree of Life?" A pretty ponderous movie overall, but there is about a 15-20 minute sequence in the middle that has everything from the origin of the universe to the origin of life. It's one of my favorite movie sequences of all time; really amazing & makes you think.

No doubt. It's a fascinating topic.

But it's hard to know if you're watching science or science fiction lol.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

No doubt. It's a fascinating topic.

But it's hard to know if you're watching science or science fiction lol.

No doubt - anything on film from that time period can really only be imagined.

What's interesting about that sequence is that it also shows the filmmaker's interpretation of god at the very beginning of it, setting everything into motion. It actually mirrors my own views pretty accurately.