How Did RNA & DNA Come Into Existence ?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

This is way above your pay grade. Even your language is horrific, not to mention your interpretation of the science.

I think you're the one who should be meditating -

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Can I ask why “We don’t know” is not good enough for you?

Is it not humility - a good Christian attitude - to say that you don’t know, rather than to arrogantly claim to know, which is not Christian at all.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Is it not humility - a good Christian attitude - to say that you don’t know, rather than to arrogantly claim to know, which is not Christian at all.

Apparently a lot of Christians don't feel that way. Especially those with the "Not Perfect... Just Forgiven" bumper stickers.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Is it not humility - a good Christian attitude - to say that you don’t know, rather than to arrogantly claim to know, which is not Christian at all.

Humility is good. But it is knowing the truth that will set you free from the material reductionist theories that keep your mind enslaved to matter.

Can you please share proof and evidence of this knowledge you have, cooperton? I would honestly like to see it.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Simple Nucleic acids have been seen in space, and after simple experiments with basic atmospheres and electrical discharges.

Many scientists feel that life could arise by chance because of an experiment first conducted in 1953. In that year, Stanley L. Miller was able to produce some amino acids, the chemical building blocks of proteins, by discharging electricity into a mixture of gases that was thought to represent the atmosphere of primitive earth. Since then, amino acids have also been found in a meteorite. Do these findings mean that all the basic building blocks of life could easily be produced by chance?

“Some writers,” says Robert Shapiro, professor emeritus of chemistry at New York University, “have presumed that all life’s building blocks could be formed with ease in Miller-type experiments and were present in meteorites. [Noinden just demonstrated to have been affected by such writers, in spite of the reality that...] This is not the case.”2 *

Consider the RNA molecule. It is constructed of smaller molecules called nucleotides. A nucleotide is a different molecule from an amino acid and is only slightly more complex. Shapiro says that “no nucleotides of any kind have been reported as products of spark-discharge experiments or in studies of meteorites.”3 [no nucleotides = no nucleic acids; to use Noinden's terminology, nucleic acids like DNA and RNA of course being "constructed of ... nucleotides" as explained here; perhaps that's why Noinden said "simple Nucleic acids", to pretend that you can appropiately refer to something as a "nucleic acid" even when it's not made up of the rather complex nucleotides found in RNA and DNA and to claim that it's a (more) simple nucleic acid, creating or spreading ambiguity in language to capitalize on the ambiguity of language. The fact remains though that if you find no nucleotides “as products of spark-discharge experiments or in studies of meteorites” you have found no nucleic acids “as products of spark-discharge experiments or in studies of meteorites”, as Noinden claimed regarding spark-discharge experiments and "in space" (instead of meteorites). Of course the space claim is just as bogus; no nucleotides have been "seen in space" either. You can't even 'see' them with a telescope, with an electron microscope you can somewhat 'see' the double-helical structure of DNA; not very detailed though. Not to go too far off-topic, but as the article I just linked mentions: "The structure of DNA was originally discovered using X-ray crystallography. This involves X-rays scattering off atoms in crystallised arrays of DNA to form a complex pattern of dots on photographic film. Interpreting the images requires complex mathematics to figure out what crystal structure could give rise to the observed patterns.

The new images are much more obvious, as they are a direct picture of the DNA strands, albeit seen with electrons rather than X-ray photons." And then the verb "seeing" applies a bit better as well, but that wasn't my point, sorry for going off-track but I thought it might be useful to keep in mind when someone makes the claim that "Nucleic acids have been seen in space". The main point of this comment is to respond to the claim about nucleic acids from spark-discharge experiments though which Noinden described slightly differently.]
...
[besides]
RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. What if, despite the extremely small odds, both proteins and RNA molecules did appear by chance in the same place at the same time? How likely would it be for them to cooperate to form a self-replicating, self-sustaining type of life? “The probability of this happening by chance (given a random mixture of proteins and RNA) seems astronomically low,” says Dr. Carol Cleland *, a member of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Astrobiology Institute. “Yet,” she continues, “most researchers seem to assume that if they can make sense of the independent production of proteins and RNA under natural primordial conditions, the coordination will somehow take care of itself.” Regarding the current theories of how these building blocks of life could have arisen by chance, she says: “None of them have provided us with a very satisfying story about how this happened.”6

Footnotes (*):

- Professor Shapiro does not believe that life was created. He believes that life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully understood. In 2009, scientists at the University of Manchester, England, reported making some nucleotides in their lab. However, Shapiro states that their recipe “definitely does not meet my criteria for a plausible pathway to the RNA world.”

- Dr. Cleland is not a creationist. She believes that life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully understood.

References:

2. Scientific American, “A Simpler Origin for Life,” by Robert Shapiro, June 2007, p. 48.

a. The New York Times, “A Leading Mystery of Life’s Origins Is Seemingly Solved,” by Nicholas Wade, May 14, 2009, p. A23.

3. Scientific American, June 2007, p. 48.

6. NASA’s Astrobiology Magazine, “Life’s Working Definition​—Does It Work?” (http://​www.nasa.gov/vision/​universe/​starsgalaxies/life’s_working_definition.html), accessed 3/17/2009.

Source: QUESTION 1: How Did Life Begin? (The Origin of Life​—Five Questions Worth Asking)

a reply to: whereislogic


I love how dishonest you JW’s have to be when presenting “evidence”. I didn’t make it through 2 sentences before the number fudging began. The Miller-Urey experiments didn’t just produce “some” amino acids. Only 20 amino acids occur naturally on Earth. When Stanley Miller died, his notes were gone through and surprise surprise, he created MORE amino acids in his experiments than naturally occur on Earth. Why do you need to be dishonest about the data if you have truth on your side? Because having to lie to make it look like you have the Powah Of Hey Zeus blessing you doesn’t sound like it’s a method that the lord and savior of humanity would approve of based on the scripture that I’ve read.

I think that DNA came into existence long before life... as a building block as well as RNA various enzymes too the amino acids too

My other worldly part of brain says it was a freak event or miracle the transition of DNA to life..the first life wasn’t born, it was built.. by chemical reactions & the conditions just being right.. ha God knows how many trail errors there were before it happened. The fact life was the outcome it’s amazing... out of all the other outcomes.. I’m not religious.. but life was the answer, even if it was bacteria first LOL Just out of curiosity do you know what bacteria DNA looks like? It’s very
different to ours. We come from bacteria while some other worldly beings come from plankton strains eating and mating got us to primate stage then it’s very debatable but that would be off topic.. worms are our ancestors

a reply to: peter vlar

Proverbs 26:11

11 Like a dog that returns to its vomit,

The stupid one repeats his foolishness.

Haven't you raised the same objection before? It's not the first time I run into that red herring (perhaps it was someone else using the same response from the same or a similar database of counter-arguments with large numbers of red herrings in them). I've responded to your propagandistic way of phrasing the situation revolving around Stanley Miller's "notes" and further experimentation before. But since it's a red herring that doesn't prove anything from the source I used to be dishonest or "number fudging", I won't go into it again.

My response was about the nucleotides that make up nucleic acids and Noinden's claim that:

Simple Nucleic acids have been seen in space, and after simple experiments with basic atmospheres and electrical discharges.

I.e. spark-discharge experiments. So regarding that claim (or claims if you seperate them into 2), it doesn't matter what you can read into Miller's notes decades after the experiments that isn't even there in the manner you describe it, which even as described by you, doesn't contradict or disprove the accurate honest and clear statement in the article you were responding to, or doesn't show it to be false, misleading, dishonest or "number fudging". It clearly states:

Many scientists feel that life could arise by chance because of an experiment first conducted in 1953. In that year, Stanley L. Miller was able to produce some amino acids, the chemical building blocks of proteins, by discharging electricity into a mixture of gases that was thought to represent the atmosphere of primitive earth.

Still true and accurate. Playing around with what to count as "amino acid" (in that context*) or what to count as "some", isn't going to change a thing about it. But I only included it as an introduction to what Shapiro says about nucleotides and spark-discharge experiments. Also so that no one gets other types of experiments confused with them here, as perhaps may happen to some people thinking or talking about amino acids.

*: in the context it was used in that article clearly referring only to those amino acids that are used in lifeforms, but I skipped that context because my response was not about amino acids (I just realized that you can still notice it because of the mention of "proteins"); nevertheless I shouldn't need to have to include it to avoid someone else from playing semantics with that term and reading all sorts of so-called "amino acids" into the way that term was used there, even those that are not used by lifeforms to make up "proteins" (which could lead to a nice red herring debate about whether or not these should even be referred to as "amino acids"; which is why I don't feel like going there, enough red herrings already from the point about nucleotides and spark-discharge experiments).

It would be another distraction to switch to arguing that many more than "some" amino acids that are used in lifeforms as "the chemical building blocks of proteins" were produced by Miller in 1953 "by discharging electricity into a mixture of gases that was thought to represent the atmosphere of primitive earth"*, not another even more implausible mixture of gases. (*: this particular proposed atmosphere and consequent mixture of gasses has already been disproven to represent the atmosphere of primitive earth by the evidence from geology regarding the timeframe abiogenesis is said to have occured.) Since it would be irrelevant to the point actually being made in the context of that article and even more irrelevant to the point being highlighted by me about nucleotides and spark-discharge experiments. Thus it could lead in another red herring debate whether or not that is even so; "that" = the possible new or modified argument (switched from the previous argument that was also talking about amino acids that are not used in lifeforms), described in the whole sentence there after "switch to arguing that ...", including the caveat at the end, which all applied to the description "some" in the original 2 sentences from the article.

Check my post... thoughts?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

How Did RNA & DNA Come Into Existence ?

I don't know, but I am sure there are a bunch of books available on the internet or at your local library that cover the topic in depth.

I did read that some scientists were able to get RNA to naturally form but they are still trying to figure out the conditions needed for DNA.

My question to you is why are you asking about this on a conspiracy site? Try ask.com, google, or bing unless you are just trolling.

the human body/vehicle is made up of mostly Bacteria! about 57% -/+.
You figure out the rest. who/what made us.

a reply to: buddha
I know it is... a strain that chose to absorb all the others likely started the chain reaction that built life as we know it today..

others keep to there own kind.

Then the complex cell beings made ate and fornicated picking up trates of the other complex called beings.. until insects then fish reptiles birds mammals, then us.

originally posted by: 57ORM1IV
Check my post... thoughts?

The thing is, RNA polymerization is a non-spontaneous reaction. This means it requires energy, and it also requires protein enzymes to be made from a DNA template:



^this is how prokaryotes (bacteria) create RNA strands. This also takes for granted that RNA monomers are available to polymerize. Even if, against all odds, a long RNA chain was created at random that managed to code for a coherent protein, it still would need proteins (enzymes) to be able to parse the data and make anything worthwhile from it. But functional proteins don't exist yet because there is no way for RNA to be made into proteins...

There are many more hurdles but that's the most straight-forward problem that shows nucleic acid chains could not have formed by random chance

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: 57ORM1IV
Check my post... thoughts?

The thing is, RNA polymerization is a non-spontaneous reaction. This means it requires energy, and it also requires protein enzymes to be made from a DNA template:

^this is how prokaryotes (bacteria) create RNA strands. This also takes for granted that RNA monomers are available to polymerize. Even if, against all odds, a long RNA chain was created at random that managed to code for a coherent protein, it still would need proteins (enzymes) to be able to parse the data and make anything worthwhile from it. But functional proteins don't exist yet because there is no way for RNA to be made into proteins...

There are many more hurdles but that's the most straight-forward problem that shows nucleic acid chains could not have formed by random chance

So you think God? Then how did his DNA form?

a reply to: cooperton

Or holographic universe? Even then, it would DNA of had to developed some way at one time I still think by chance but there was a plan*shrugs* God knows who made it XD

joking aside.. I think there’s a omni or multiverse with all other options in... this was the plan here LIFE but in other universes it hasn’t gone that way....

but then that was a plan too ahahahah!

originally posted by: paraphi
Just because DNA is complicated, does not mean that it was created by an intelligence and coded, rather than jut evolved as part of nature and the past.

Rubbish!

If I can't understand it, it must mean it's magic.

so Someone something say there non existing with pen & paper and PLANNED IT ALL! LMAO

It’s human to try explain everything
but some things have no explanation...

like God