lesliedellow
Member
- Sep 20, 2010
- 9,654
- 2,582
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
That is simply wrong as a matter of history. Darwin was dead before Lemaitre was even born.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Darwinism has always been inclusive of living and non-living history, going back to and including the Big Bang:
That is simply wrong as a matter of history. Darwin was dead before Lemaitre was even born.
I'd like to throw out an idea and get some thoughts on it.
It appears to me that one of the big problems with abiogenesis theory is a kind of chicken-and-egg problem.
DNA, by itself, doesn't do anything; it's a memory store that is acted upon by other chemicals. Where do those chemicals come from? They're manufactured in the cell by processes that read the DNA to get their specifications.
So which came first, the DNA or the chemicals that act upon them? If the DNA came first, nothing happens. But if those other chemicals came first, they can't reproduce because their specifications aren't stored anywhere.
So the DNA just happens to contain the very specifications of the chemicals that act upon it. It strikes me as a kind of chicken-and-egg conundrum, taken down to the cellular level.
I can't see such a system ever coming together randomly.
Any thoughts? Am I off-base here?
It turns out that RNA (like one side of DNA's double helix) can do just that. It makes sense then that an RNA heredity system could function, and then later, and RNA strand and it's complement could join to make a DNA system, which would work then because the catalysts are already around, plus it would benefit from the complintary base-pairing ability of DNA.
Papias
You did not bother to mention that RNA is too fragile to survive in a hostile environment, not to mention there are many other functions of DNA that RNA cannot do. Plus, there is no evidence now or in the past that RNA evolved into DNA...unless you can link a scientific peer-reviewed paper that shows how?
I have always loved this topic because that comes with a statistical probability argument that is simply untenable. I just wish they would do a probablity argument for human brain related genes evolving from that of apes.Step from atoms to life could be:
- atoms form simple molecules like NH3, CO2 (shown to happen)
- These form organic precursors like amino acids (shown to happen)
- These form more complicated peptide chains (shown to happen)
- Some peptide chains are catalysts for their own formation - copying (shown to happen)
- Some of these encode information (shown to happen)
- Some form with sufficiently low copy errors (not yet shown to happen)
- A copier with decent, but imperfect copying undergoes selection (shown to happen)
- Complexity increases from there, leading to an RNA system (not yet shown to happen)
- An RNA system, through failed separation, leads to a DNA system (not yet shown to happen)
- A DNA system undergoes selection (shown to happen)
- this is life as we know it.
no self respecting Darwinian would dare admit a miracle, especially creation. Even those who profess to be Christian.
Yep. You are off base. You should look up RNA and Spiegelman's Monster for starters.I'd like to throw out an idea and get some thoughts on it.
It appears to me that one of the big problems with abiogenesis theory is a kind of chicken-and-egg problem.
DNA, by itself, doesn't do anything; it's a memory store that is acted upon by other chemicals. Where do those chemicals come from? They're manufactured in the cell by processes that read the DNA to get their specifications.
So which came first, the DNA or the chemicals that act upon them? If the DNA came first, nothing happens. But if those other chemicals came first, they can't reproduce because their specifications aren't stored anywhere.
So the DNA just happens to contain the very specifications of the chemicals that act upon it. It strikes me as a kind of chicken-and-egg conundrum, taken down to the cellular level.
I can't see such a system ever coming together randomly.
Any thoughts? Am I off-base here?
"Look at this hole made perfectly my shape, just for me to fit in, it's proof of God", said the puddle.Not to mention a universe where we are perfectly placed to grow, learn and reach our potential.
True, even when they are proposing even more miracles than the bible does. From the big bang, to stellar evolution, to planetary evolution, to abiogenesis, to every increase in information and complexity against all odds and every pertinent natural law. Not to mention a universe where we are perfectly placed to grow, learn and reach our potential.
True enough but I would mention that to date genetics has developed two scientific laws of nature reflecting meiosis and mitosis. Life procedes from life in nature which leaves abiogenesis in a highly speculative catagory of theoretical biochemistry. Perhaps some would infere miralles beyond the range of biblical revelation, there is sound reasn to believe the sun, moon and state were greater before creation week for instante.True, even when they are proposing even more miracles than the bible does. From the big bang, to stellar evolution, to planetary evolution, to abiogenesis, to every increase in information and complexity against all odds and every pertinent natural law. Not to mention a universe where we are perfectly placed to grow, learn and reach our potential.
You're assuming the first proteins needed to be as complex as modern proteins to be functional. In a prebiotic environment without competition, proteins wouldn't need to be as competetive as modern ones.DNA and rNA as building blocks are easy enough to discount, but even before that point, the problem is proteins. In order to be useful, they must be folded in just the right way, which does not happen by accident.
"Look at this hole made perfectly my shape, just for me to fit in, it's proof of God", said the puddle.
We evolved to fit the universe. If the parameters of the universe were different, we'd have evolved to fit them. Anthropic principle - WikipediaMore like the very universe were made to promote our existence. From temperature, to free water, to light and darkness alternating, to the ocean tides, the moon, the exact gravity, protection from stray solar waves and radiation... any criteria you could think of, and every one you can't.
You're assuming the first proteins needed to be as complex as modern proteins to be functional. In a prebiotic environment without competition, proteins wouldn't need to be as competetive as modern ones.
We evolved to fit the universe. If the parameters of the universe were different, we'd have evolved to fit them. Anthropic principle - Wikipedia
Why is there "no way to tell"? What's wrong with experiment?There is no way to tell if improperly proteins would combine at all, much less successfully. And even the least complex rNA or DNA has dozens of proteins.
You did not bother to mention that RNA is too fragile to survive in a hostile environment,
what, specificially, are you talking about? Of course it need not do exactly everything DNA can do - it only need to be able to replicate., not to mention there are many other functions of DNA that RNA cannot do.
Plus, there is no evidence now or in the past that RNA evolved into DNA...unless you can link a scientific peer-reviewed paper that shows how?
The appeal of RNA is that it can he reduced to 400 nucleotides and sone change. Getting a protein peptide chain is vastly more complicated. The problem with RNA is its very vulnerable outside living systems, no catalysts and no power source.There is no way to tell if improperly proteins would combine at all, much less successfully. And even the least complex rNA or DNA has dozens of proteins.
Put simply the prebiotic soup would have had too high of a PH for the RNA to have survived. These nucleotides have a low survivablity rate on their own anyway. The latest details I'm getting is that an RNA world would have to maintain a mean temperature of about 60 degrees. So much for LUCA surviving in superheated underwater vents:What exactly do you mean by "hostile environment"? Of course it can't exist in today's environment, when amoebas, enzymes, etc would destroy it - but they didn't exist then like they do today. That's like saying "no one could have sold a black and white tv in 1955, because who would buy a black and white tv instead of just getting an ipod!"
what, specificially, are you talking about? Of course it need not do exactly everything DNA can do - it only need to be able to replicate.
That's pretty well explained here. Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries - Madame Curie Bioscience Database - NCBI Bookshelf)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?