PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Evolution of DNA
       How did the DNA came to life

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
qpwoeiru

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hello,

first of all:  I'm a creationist, but I'm also interested in evolution.  This is not intended as criticism on evolution, I just made this thread out of pure curiosity.  I hope I've put it in the right forum though.

As far as I know, evolution is based on the variation of DNA. Since the DNA describes the life-form, a variation on DNA will also variate the life-form. So the life-form will improve through this very variation on the DNA via mutation, selection and, if there is sex, crossing.

There are some well known arguments against evolution, like predecessors of some complex system a life-form possesses, like e.g. the eye, which would not show any advantage to the life-form and so could not have developed. We all know that specific argument and the solution to it, which makes this argument 'proven' wrong.

One thing is buggin' me though: The development of the DNA itself. I would like to describe my problem on an unicellular organism to keep everything simple. The DNA describes the cell, the cell is able to copy itself, so: the DNA also describes 'How To Copy'. The DNA has to be read, to be copied. This ability to copy seems to be a very complex system, and, it makes evolution, like the one I learned of in school, all possible. Without it, you would have only cells unable to improve themselves via mutation and selection. So the Question of mine is: how could such a complex system like the DNA come to existence?
It may be, that I miss something here ... unfortunately I'm not good enough to find a satisfying answer with Google... so I'm trying it here.

Please excuse my very bad English... hopefully you'll understand it anyway.

regards,
qpwoeiru.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 2:16 PM on September 29, 2011 | IP
Galileo

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Its like the same process as evolution, (although it is getting into Abiogeneis) a complex system of DNA came about from simpler pre-cursors.

RNA is a form of gentic material that can replicate itself, which has been achieved in the lab:
Self replicating RNA

RNA can function as genetic material and an enzyme, which may have formed just from polymers of nucleic acids

No one really knows how the first cell came about but thats what the study of abiogensis is about.
check out cdk007's videos on youtube. Stable fatty acid membranes trapped the nucleic acid polymers.

I'm by no means an expert in all this so if I've got anything wrong let me know!


-------
Hallowed are the Invisible Pink Unicorns
 


Posts: 160 | Posted: 03:44 AM on September 30, 2011 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Regardless of how DNA evolved in the distant past, it is a fact that it provides the framework for evolution to occur via mutations and selection.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 05:46 AM on October 1, 2011 | IP
NIF

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

qpwoeiru:
So the Question of mine is: how could such a complex system like the DNA come to existence?
if you ask a creationist, the answer you will get is "inteligent design"
if you ask an evolutionist, the answer you get is "by chance"

I personally believe in creation. but am not so nieve to over look the fact we live in an infinite universe. there fore infinate possibilities for things to happen 'by chance'.
but good luck ever trying to replicate those conditions. its like floating in space, and throwing a bucket of sand at earth. hoping that by the time it reaches land the sand has turned into a computer chip. in an infinite universe is is possible, but far from likely
 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 8:48 PM on October 15, 2011 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

NIF - here's an interesting talk given by Robert Hazen regarding OOL research.  The video is about an hour long, but you may learn from it that 'chance' isn't the only ingredient required for a naturalistic explanation of the origin of life.  I think that research is showing that given the right conditions, it is inevitable that life will emerge - as happened on earth 3.5-3.8 billion years ago.

Genesis:  The Scientific Quest for Life's Origins

Dr. Hazen's book by the same title is very interesting.

 
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 07:31 AM on October 17, 2011 | IP
Rukbat

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from qpwoeiru at 09:16 AM on September 29, 2011 :There are some well known arguments against evolution, like predecessors of some complex system a life-form possesses, like e.g. the eye, which would not show any advantage to the life-form and so could not have developed.
When your basic premise is wrong, you can be almost xertain that your conclusion will be.  A light-sensitive cell - just one cell - on the skin of one animal (remember, we're talking aquatic life here, so 3 dimensions) would warn it when a predator was approaching from above.  (Light would be blocked, even if only a little.)

And, as Darwin pointed out, evolution proceeds by survival of the more fit (I don't know who misquoted that at "the fittest").  Being just a tiny bit more fit means that you'll out-reproduce those just slightly less fit - to the point that after a few thousand generations (and the eye probably evolved from a light-sensitive cell to something you'd call an eye over hundreds of millions of generations) your variation would be the only one in the species.

Irreproducible complexity is a joke, at best.  We've seen that we can have something serve one purpose, then evolve into another one.  (The limbs of lungfish, for example, can't support the weight of the body, but they function quite well in an aquatic environment.  Then when they strengthen - for whatever reason that happened - they work on land too.)
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 9:48 PM on December 17, 2011 | IP
questions

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

why would a fish that ,by some chance ,gotten a one cell of light, be more fit,when it never needed it before? Who gave it the intellgence to use it,and how to interpet that a darkness of light is a predator,that may be attacking it? How did it know that it needed that light cell in the first place ? Where did it find that light cell ? If the light cell was a good fit , how did it know to pass it along to the others, being that it may of not had the reproduction cell to pass.  Does not dna only pass along info that it already has, because it can't pass new info, that it does not have from it's rna code? where did the first cell get it's energy,to produce ATP (adenosine triphosphate), if it gets it from raw material , if animals and plants did not make it constantly,they could not live, how long could living cells of live b4 there learned how to make ATP ? just questions, didn't know the answers to?





































 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 11:44 AM on January 16, 2012 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from questions at 11:44 AM on January 16, 2012 :
why would a fish that ,by some chance ,gotten a one cell of light, be more fit,when it never needed it before?


I assume you are talking about the evolution of the eye.  This started long before the fish.  One celled animals today have eyespots.  Since an organism that can detect

Who gave it the intellgence to use it,and how to interpet that a darkness of light is a predator,that may be attacking it?


Doesn't need intelligence, if an organism moves the right direction it's more likely to live.

How did it know that it needed that light cell in the first place ? Where did it find that light cell ? If the light cell was a good fit , how did it know to pass it along to the others, being that it may of not had the reproduction cell to pass.


How does oxygen 'know' to combine with hydrogen to make water?


 Does not dna only pass along info that it already has, because it can't pass new info, that it does not have from it's rna code?


Copying errors can be passed along, this is new information.


where did the first cell get it's energy,to produce ATP (adenosine triphosphate), if it gets it from raw material , if animals and plants did not make it constantly,they could not live, how long could living cells of live b4 there learned how to make ATP ?


Why do you think the first cell needed ATP?

just questions, didn't know the answers to?


The first step to getting the right answer is to ask the right question.

If you have any information from Kent Hovind, throw it away.





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 8:00 PM on January 16, 2012 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.