Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Dna And Its Origins
189 Answers
In the light of new findings, DNA is even more beautiful and complex than we imagined, considering that it was in existence in the early life-forms on the planet, doesn't any theory of the origin of life by a blind series of chemical accidents seem preposterous ?
Surely only the most unimaginative and feeble-minded could believe in this.
Surely only the most unimaginative and feeble-minded could believe in this.
Answers
Hmm. They are different achievements
14:01 Sun 11th Oct 2015
// You infer that such minds find the 'mixing of chemicals' theory preposterous so please inform of what they deem to be plausible.//
If I had the answer I'd be on my way to collect my nobel prize. I don't, but what I am most certain of, is that DNA doesn't originate accidentally in primeval soup. To paraphrase Dr Johnson- If you believe that sir, you'll believe anything!
If I had the answer I'd be on my way to collect my nobel prize. I don't, but what I am most certain of, is that DNA doesn't originate accidentally in primeval soup. To paraphrase Dr Johnson- If you believe that sir, you'll believe anything!
Just in case you are unaware, this is what we are addressing;
https:/
Probably lots more to come?
https:/
Probably lots more to come?
jomifl; Shrouded behind your hubris is the implication that you [i]do[i[ have a greater understanding than I do. I seek enlightenment from anywhere including the Answerbank, but so far I have received none, so if you can propose an answer to why "any theory of the origin of life by a blind series of chemical accidents" isn't preposterous, I and many others (including Stephen Hawking) await your wisdom.
Khandro, it isn't that I have hubris (don't we all?) it is that I am prepared to accept the opinions of those who can demonstrate having more expertise than me. You meanwhile in your (presumably) hubris free state appear to think you have a greater understanding of a subject than those who have an encyclopaedic knowlege of the said subject, without seemingly being armed with the facts to support that view. Please correct me if I have leapt to an erroneous conclusion.
jomifl; Enough waffling, please, using your "encyclopaedic knowledge" and in the light of the new (self-repairing) understanding of DNA, plus all the other chronologically listed discoveries on the above New Scientist article,
give your explanation of how you think DNA originated on Earth.
Zacs //Why not just create fully formed humans?// Are humans fully-formed? We haven't been around for very long have we?
give your explanation of how you think DNA originated on Earth.
Zacs //Why not just create fully formed humans?// Are humans fully-formed? We haven't been around for very long have we?
It would be pretty egotistical to assume that the present human form is the end result of Nature. Compared with most other species, Home sapiens have been around for a very short period and are bound to change physically.
Evolution is forever ongoing and adjusting to the changing eras of this planet.
Evolution is forever ongoing and adjusting to the changing eras of this planet.
@Khandro
You appear to be very much enthused by this latest Nobel prize and a New Scientist article (which will be paywalled, so I will not be reading it anytime soon). I can only guess what glee you've drawn from it all, other than it makes DNA seem even more exotic and complex and thus 'must' be 'designed'?
In the excitement, it has escaped your attention that this information is *not new*. It often gets mentioned in BBC Horizon documentaries which touch on genes or genetic disease, so we can conclude that you don't even follow science documentaries routinely (they'd only make you cross, after all).
I've known about DNA repair enzymes since I was at university (nearly 30 years ago).
The scientist who got the prize was working on his discovery for 40 years but it was already in the textbooks by the time I was studying.
Anyway, even with self-repair proteins, DNA still makes *mistakes*.
I dare you to God your way out if that. :-P
You appear to be very much enthused by this latest Nobel prize and a New Scientist article (which will be paywalled, so I will not be reading it anytime soon). I can only guess what glee you've drawn from it all, other than it makes DNA seem even more exotic and complex and thus 'must' be 'designed'?
In the excitement, it has escaped your attention that this information is *not new*. It often gets mentioned in BBC Horizon documentaries which touch on genes or genetic disease, so we can conclude that you don't even follow science documentaries routinely (they'd only make you cross, after all).
I've known about DNA repair enzymes since I was at university (nearly 30 years ago).
The scientist who got the prize was working on his discovery for 40 years but it was already in the textbooks by the time I was studying.
Anyway, even with self-repair proteins, DNA still makes *mistakes*.
I dare you to God your way out if that. :-P
@Khandro
Hypo;//Always bear in mind that what we see today is the competition winner//
You're steering away towards a discussion on evolution which isn't relevant and is universally accepted - by all but the seriously weird. //
You appear determined to not accept that there primitive, barely competent precursors to DNA.
A precursor organism, lacking the repair mechanism would suffer a high mutation rate so as soon as a self-repairing mutant comes about, the latter will prevail, simply by having fewer progeny lost to mutation damage. It will have a harder time adapting to environmental change because its genes are more stable but survival is a lottery anyway.
I stand by evolution as a theory and one logical upshot of that is that, just like winding back the universe to the big bang, we must wind back life processes to more primitive, less elegant, less efficient forms. I'm sure you'd like to wave it away but I see it as unavoidable because you wanted to discuss ancient DNA.
//I refer to the recent //
see my previous post ^^^^
//findings of DNA, which we now see contains the ability to self-repair and must have been able to do so millions of years ago - why is this,//
Every time DNA strands are copied, incorrect partner purine/pyrimidine letters get plopped into place by the copying enzyme. (Molecules bumping into one another: it gets a bit random, at times. Heh heh). The repair proteins drift along the strand performing a 'verification' process. Snipping subunits out and slotting correct units in is a multi-step process and consumes energy (ATP molecules) in breaking/remaking bonds.
// and does this extraordinary quality come about by accident? //
A long sequence of accidents, to be more precise. If an accidental change in a gene causes an advantageous change in the protein it codes for then it is going to be preserved.
// And as a sub-question; aren't you absolutely staggered in wonder? //
I'd be surprised any species could maintain its shape for a lifetime, let alone down the generations, if DNA didn't have a self-repair system, to be honest.
Hypo;//Always bear in mind that what we see today is the competition winner//
You're steering away towards a discussion on evolution which isn't relevant and is universally accepted - by all but the seriously weird. //
You appear determined to not accept that there primitive, barely competent precursors to DNA.
A precursor organism, lacking the repair mechanism would suffer a high mutation rate so as soon as a self-repairing mutant comes about, the latter will prevail, simply by having fewer progeny lost to mutation damage. It will have a harder time adapting to environmental change because its genes are more stable but survival is a lottery anyway.
I stand by evolution as a theory and one logical upshot of that is that, just like winding back the universe to the big bang, we must wind back life processes to more primitive, less elegant, less efficient forms. I'm sure you'd like to wave it away but I see it as unavoidable because you wanted to discuss ancient DNA.
//I refer to the recent //
see my previous post ^^^^
//findings of DNA, which we now see contains the ability to self-repair and must have been able to do so millions of years ago - why is this,//
Every time DNA strands are copied, incorrect partner purine/pyrimidine letters get plopped into place by the copying enzyme. (Molecules bumping into one another: it gets a bit random, at times. Heh heh). The repair proteins drift along the strand performing a 'verification' process. Snipping subunits out and slotting correct units in is a multi-step process and consumes energy (ATP molecules) in breaking/remaking bonds.
// and does this extraordinary quality come about by accident? //
A long sequence of accidents, to be more precise. If an accidental change in a gene causes an advantageous change in the protein it codes for then it is going to be preserved.
// And as a sub-question; aren't you absolutely staggered in wonder? //
I'd be surprised any species could maintain its shape for a lifetime, let alone down the generations, if DNA didn't have a self-repair system, to be honest.
@Old_Geezer
// At one time it was thought RNA was a precursor to DNA. I don't know if that is still the commonly accepted belief.
09:45 Fri 09th Oct 2015//
Neither do I. But it seems odd to start with a code system from out of nowhere and have the mechanism, for reading it and turning it into working cell components, arise by stepwise random changes. It would not become functional until all the pieces are finally in place. A partially complete clockwork mechanism does not move the hands.
(I've not read the relevant Dawkins book, I'm just borrowing from the imagery).
// At one time it was thought RNA was a precursor to DNA. I don't know if that is still the commonly accepted belief.
09:45 Fri 09th Oct 2015//
Neither do I. But it seems odd to start with a code system from out of nowhere and have the mechanism, for reading it and turning it into working cell components, arise by stepwise random changes. It would not become functional until all the pieces are finally in place. A partially complete clockwork mechanism does not move the hands.
(I've not read the relevant Dawkins book, I'm just borrowing from the imagery).
Hypo;// I'm sure you'd like to wave it away but I see it as unavoidable because you wanted to discuss ancient DNA.//
Errr.. yes, that's what I'm talking about buddy.
I'm finding it hard to take you seriously, you say you will not look at the (very short) article giving the chronological history, so I'll make it easier and paste it in;
DNA (or its sister molecule RNA) has now won Nobel prizes at least eight times:
1962 This was the big one, the discovery of the structure of DNA, awarded to Francis Crick, James Watson and Maurice Wilkins
1980 For recombinant DNA
1989 This was for showing how RNA catalyses reactions
2001 For the mechanics of cell division
2002 For the discovery of programmed cell death
2006 RNAi interference
2009 How ribosomes make proteins
2015 Mechanism of DNA repair
But you say "I've known about DNA repair enzymes since I was at university (nearly 30 years ago)."
That would be in 1985, which leads me to conclude 3 possibilities, that either your memory has failed you, you are a supreme ***, or you missed out on a nobel prize.
Errr.. yes, that's what I'm talking about buddy.
I'm finding it hard to take you seriously, you say you will not look at the (very short) article giving the chronological history, so I'll make it easier and paste it in;
DNA (or its sister molecule RNA) has now won Nobel prizes at least eight times:
1962 This was the big one, the discovery of the structure of DNA, awarded to Francis Crick, James Watson and Maurice Wilkins
1980 For recombinant DNA
1989 This was for showing how RNA catalyses reactions
2001 For the mechanics of cell division
2002 For the discovery of programmed cell death
2006 RNAi interference
2009 How ribosomes make proteins
2015 Mechanism of DNA repair
But you say "I've known about DNA repair enzymes since I was at university (nearly 30 years ago)."
That would be in 1985, which leads me to conclude 3 possibilities, that either your memory has failed you, you are a supreme ***, or you missed out on a nobel prize.
@Peter Pedant
An interesting wiki. Thanks.
//in 1787 the Jedburgh disconintuity caused a bit of a stir - the geologial layer had twisted on itself and was pretty obviously a change and not created like that. //
Off topic but, for even wierder landforms, check out a satellite view of the Baker's Dozen Islands. The processes responsible for a mountain ridge are easy enough to understand but seeing such a ridge coiled and twisted like a snake give me that sense of depth of time.
Or, alternatively and on the bake-off theme, perhaps the relevant deity enjoyed kneading the earth's crust, like it was playdough?
An interesting wiki. Thanks.
//in 1787 the Jedburgh disconintuity caused a bit of a stir - the geologial layer had twisted on itself and was pretty obviously a change and not created like that. //
Off topic but, for even wierder landforms, check out a satellite view of the Baker's Dozen Islands. The processes responsible for a mountain ridge are easy enough to understand but seeing such a ridge coiled and twisted like a snake give me that sense of depth of time.
Or, alternatively and on the bake-off theme, perhaps the relevant deity enjoyed kneading the earth's crust, like it was playdough?
Genes II; Benjamin Lewin (Second edition; 1985)
Chapter 33
Systems that Safeguard DNA
Para 1
"...In addition to these systems, a variety of enzymes interact with DNA to modify its structure or repair damage that has occured to it. These activities are important in understanding how DNA is perpetuated through indefinite numbers of generations; the act of replication itself is insufficient to safeguard its role in evolution."
A retraction of your expletive ad hominem would be very much appreciated.
Just out of curiosity, what religion are you and are your manners typical of that group?
Chapter 33
Systems that Safeguard DNA
Para 1
"...In addition to these systems, a variety of enzymes interact with DNA to modify its structure or repair damage that has occured to it. These activities are important in understanding how DNA is perpetuated through indefinite numbers of generations; the act of replication itself is insufficient to safeguard its role in evolution."
A retraction of your expletive ad hominem would be very much appreciated.
Just out of curiosity, what religion are you and are your manners typical of that group?
