0
   

Question for evolutionites...

 
 
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2006 11:37 am
How did DNA evolve, one small step at a time, as the basis of evolution and with it the cellular mechanism that assembles proteins using DNA as the template?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,475 • Replies: 39
No top replies

 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2006 02:47 pm
Well Gunge, I guess it could be much the same way that Benedict Arnold could be a Democrat 12 years before there was a US Constitution and the initial inklings of the two party system that included the Democratic-Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson in 1792. BTW the political designation of Democrat as a national political party didn't occur until 1834 at which time Benedict Arnold was dead and buried in England almost 33 years.

Quote:
DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication (Jeffares et al. 1998; Leipe et al. 1999; Poole et al. 1998). The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids (Böhler et al. 1995). A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA -- all without any protein enzymes (Levy and Ellington 2003).


More evidence of this molecular pathway can be found at Molecular Fossils.

Rap
0 Replies
 
Heliotrope
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2006 05:14 pm
Evolutionites ?

Evolution is not in doubt.
Doesn't that mean that those who do not wish to acknowledge and recognise the realites of the situation should be called the Irrationalites ?
0 Replies
 
Heliotrope
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2006 05:18 pm
I lay claim to the coining of the term Irrationalites as a descriptor of those who refuse to accept scientific reasoning and evidence.
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2006 07:22 pm
Not for Gunge-- Heliotrope--Gunge is a Raelian.

Rap
0 Replies
 
El-Diablo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2006 09:40 pm
Research is being done in this now. There's no clear answer to this and those are there are vague and not well developed yet. Ignorance of a natural answer does not imply nonexistance of such an answer.

I just found this which is also kind of sketchy
http://exobio.ucsd.edu/Space_Sciences/rna-dna.htm

It's definately an interesting concept: preRNA type "genetic" material. Hopefully more information will come for this topic.

Unfortunately Gunga you come up with these great questions (or some other anti-science nut does) and instead of being sparked by curiosity you are overwhelm by skepticism and incredulity. Maybe you should consider becoming a scientist so you could firsthand investigate these inquisitive questionings of yours. It is always good to ask question of science unless you are doing so, not to get an answer, but to "stick it to the man", or in this case the scientist (by which I mean one who is interested in principles of science not just one who is professionally is involved in it).
0 Replies
 
Heliotrope
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2006 11:32 am
raprap wrote:
Not for Gunge-- Heliotrope--Gunge is a Raelian.

Rap

Raelian ?
Am I correct in assuming that is one of the many synonyms for "crass buffoon" ?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2006 01:33 pm
Re: Question for evolutionites...
gungasnake wrote:
How did DNA evolve, one small step at a time, as the basis of evolution and with it the cellular mechanism that assembles proteins using DNA as the template?

Nobody knows, but it could have evolved from RNA, which in turn could have evolved from still simpler self-catalyzing enzymes. So if you implied that the hen-and-eggness of DNA begetting proteins begetting DNA is irresolvable in princple, you would be wrong. Talk.Origin's Index to Creationist Claims provides links to the literature supporting this.

Talk.Origin's Index to Creationist Claims wrote:
Claim CB015:
DNA needs certain proteins in order to replicate. Proteins need DNA to form. Neither could have formed naturally without the other already in existence.

Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 47-48.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 45.

Response:
DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication (Jeffares et al. 1998; Leipe et al. 1999; Poole et al. 1998). The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids (Böhler et al. 1995). A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA -- all without any protein enzymes (Levy and Ellington 2003).

References:
Böhler, C., P. E. Nielsen, and L. E. Orgel. 1995. Template switching between PNA and RNA oligonucleotides. Nature 376: 578-581. See also: Piccirilli, J. A., 1995. RNA seeks its maker. Nature 376: 548-549.
Jeffares, D. C., A. M. Poole and D. Penny. 1998. Relics from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46: 18-36.
Leipe, D. D., L. Aravind, and E. V. Koonin. 1999. Did DNA replication evolve twice independently? Nucleic Acids Research 27: 3389-3401.
Levy, Matthew and Andrew D. Ellington. 2003. Exponential growth by cross-catalytic cleavage of deoxyribozymogens. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 100(11): 6416-6421.
Poole, A. M., D. C. Jeffares, and D. Penny. 1998. The path from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46: 1-17.

Source
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 09:36 am
There is something logically wrong with the idea of the post that opens this thread. You are criticizing lack of rigorous knowlege of every step of evolution, but then attempting to substitute in its place a magical process for which there's no scientific evidence at all.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 09:56 am
"You don't know it all, so you must know nothing."
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 10:01 am
DrewDad wrote:
"You don't know it all, so you must know nothing."

A perfect analysis.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Mar, 2006 07:42 am
Heliotrope wrote:
Evolutionites ?

Evolution is not in doubt.
Doesn't that mean that those who do not wish to acknowledge and recognise the realites of the situation should be called the Irrationalites ?


Or irrationalists. Smile

Either way, you can lay claim to the coinage.
0 Replies
 
Drowned By Darkness
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Mar, 2006 10:24 pm
"Doesn't that mean that those who do not wish to acknowledge and recognise the realites of the situation should be called the Irrationalites ?" Actually, they are called Creationalists.
0 Replies
 
Drowned By Darkness
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Mar, 2006 10:27 pm
I am not sure of how DNA evolved, but I believe it started out as a single Codon, and gradually over time began to be a very long strand of instructions for your body. If you want to find the answer, just Google it.
0 Replies
 
NoniNeil
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Mar, 2006 05:26 am
Since about the only ones who claim evolution is not BOTH a THEORY and a FACT are Programmed Religious Robots of the Christian right, I have a question for them.

WHO CREATED YOUR CREATOR?


---------------

Only one of the more than 30,000 different gods humans have INVENTED so far. (With NO proof for any of them.)
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Mar, 2006 06:36 am
NoniNeil wrote:
Since about the only ones who claim evolution is not BOTH a THEORY and a FACT are Programmed Religious Robots of the Christian right, I have a question for them.

WHO CREATED YOUR CREATOR?


---------------

Only one of the more than 30,000 different gods humans have INVENTED so far. (With NO proof for any of them.)

Although I don't believe in God, and do believe in evolution, this isn't a very strong objection. An omnipotent creator might have designed and created both time and causality and exist outside of them. The fact that we can't figure it out proves nothing.
0 Replies
 
Drowned By Darkness
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Mar, 2006 07:20 pm
It is just a never-ending question, just like which came first- the chicken, or the egg.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Mar, 2006 03:38 pm
The chicken came first. The chicken always comes first. That's why the egg never...






Never mind.
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Mar, 2006 11:02 pm
lol, or maybe it's just a semantical mess.

Chicken or the egg? It depends on what you mean.
0 Replies
 
Eryemil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Mar, 2006 08:39 am
Well obviously...
There were eggs before chickens existed, however there weren't chicken eggs until there were chickens, the egg from which the first bird that we would consider a chicken came from is not a chicken egg, but the egg of it's precursor. It is a moot task trying to decide the point in which chickens separated from their ancestors into a different species since it would have taken millions of years for one species to give rise to another. If you take the question at face value, then the egg obviously came first since it was a shared trait of both chickens and their precursors. However, if you assume that the 'egg' mentioned is a chicken egg then obviously chickens would have come before their eggs.

On the other hand none of you were probably interested in the answer to this age-old question and are probably laughing at my expense. A big 'Pfft' if you are.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Question for evolutionites...
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/21/2021 at 09:26:51