How DNA might have developed; a brilliant new theory (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Tuesday, January 26, 2010, 17:21 (5211 days ago)
In this article the discoverer of the Archaea branch of bacteria (Woese) proposes that horizontal transfer has played a major role:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527441.500-horizontal-and-vertical-the-evolution-of-evolution.html?page=1
How DNA might have developed; a brilliant new theory
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, February 01, 2010, 14:04 (5206 days ago) @ David Turell
It's very interesting to me that more people weren't exploring this idea... maybe I WAS destined for a PhD in biology at one point.-As soon as I found out about horizontal transfer in bacteria, it kinda clicked in my head; consider that mitochondria themselves are clues that they themselves were a separate form of life, though they live within animal cells. I started thinking that it seems likely that individually specialized cells may have started colonizing together, and over time some of them were able to transfer genes to each other in a way that helped the whole. Not a theory of DNA per se, but it's good to see that I wasn't just fanciful. -Article goes to show a prime example of paradigms at work.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How DNA might have developed; a brilliant new theory
by David Turell , Monday, February 01, 2010, 14:52 (5206 days ago) @ xeno6696
> I started thinking that it seems likely that individually specialized cells may have started colonizing together, and over time some of them were able to transfer genes to each other in a way that helped the whole. Not a theory of DNA per se, but it's good to see that I wasn't just fanciful. -The problem, Matt, is to have the 'specialized cells', which I presume are alive. Since you posit some DNA, where did the translating protein complexes come from? The cells must be different from each other to add up more DNA, so you are presuming they evolved from some original cells, and then varied under natural pressures.-You get us a larger DNA. That still does not solve my chicken and egg problem at the start of life as we know it.
How DNA might have developed; a brilliant new theory
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, February 01, 2010, 15:55 (5206 days ago) @ David Turell
> > I started thinking that it seems likely that individually specialized cells may have started colonizing together, and over time some of them were able to transfer genes to each other in a way that helped the whole. Not a theory of DNA per se, but it's good to see that I wasn't just fanciful. > > The problem, Matt, is to have the 'specialized cells', which I presume are alive. Since you posit some DNA, where did the translating protein complexes come from? The cells must be different from each other to add up more DNA, so you are presuming they evolved from some original cells, and then varied under natural pressures. > > You get us a larger DNA. That still does not solve my chicken and egg problem at the start of life as we know it.-We can only try to move forwards with chemistry and backwards from life to find where the origins lie; horizontal transfers still don't get us to origins though it gets us an interesting early view to the beginning of evolution. I didn't get anything about origins from that article, only early evolution.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How DNA might have developed; a brilliant new theory
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, February 01, 2010, 16:05 (5206 days ago) @ xeno6696
Rereading the article I underline that the article is still describing life before raw differentiation occurs; there's nothing here that really gives us any information about origins aside from validating an earlier argument of mine that stated that life probably didn't evolve in the same way as we see it now. We all know all life has a common ancestor; this article talks about THAT early period in history but still only applies to life *after* it came to be.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
How DNA might have developed; a brilliant new theory
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 02, 2010, 16:16 (5204 days ago) @ xeno6696
> > You get us a larger DNA. That still does not solve my chicken and egg problem at the start of life as we know it. > > We can only try to move forwards with chemistry and backwards from life to find where the origins lie; horizontal transfers still don't get us to origins though it gets us an interesting early view to the beginning of evolution. I didn't get anything about origins from that article, only early evolution.-We still come back to your point. Life comes only from life in our experience. Going backward to where? That is why Robert Shapiro has suggested starting with inorganic loops that develop some energy supply. Life runs on ADP and ATP. Get to those molecules included in the loop, then maybe, and that is a huge maybe, something will emerge to get behind the chicken-egg problem: DNA is only useful if the translating mechanisms are in place, (A' La the other Shapiro)
How DNA might have developed; a brilliant new theory
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Saturday, April 03, 2010, 18:10 (5144 days ago) @ David Turell
I just came across this item in the Freethinker:-Messy Human Genome demolishes any notion of an Intelligent Creator-http://freethinker.co.uk/2010/04/02/messy-human-genome-demolishes-any-notion-of-an-intelligent-creator/-It is based on a review in New Scientist with the more theological title "A caring god would not have designed us like this"- By the way, I've put a link to Agnostic Web on the Hastings Humanists blog under the heading "Opposing Views".
--
GPJ
How DNA might have developed; a brilliant new theory
by David Turell , Sunday, April 04, 2010, 03:55 (5144 days ago) @ George Jelliss
> Messy Human Genome demolishes any notion of an Intelligent Creator > > http://freethinker.co.uk/2010/04/02/messy-human-genome-demolishes-any-notion-of-an-inte... > It is based on a review in New Scientist with the more theological title "A caring god would not have designed us like this"-This is the usual balderdash. No one has any proof that God is as the religions describe. We do not know how much God cares or is loving. By imagining this sort of God, one can laugh at DNA, but as I read the article, the description of DNA seemed dated. How much 'junk' is really junk and how much produces rapid epigenetic changes? Recent research supports the notion that little is junk and epigenetics is very important from the duplications and methylation and other mechanisms. DNA/RNA is in reality very complex and extremely accurate in coping, not the dizzying level of mistakes the article infers. > > > By the way, I've put a link to Agnostic Web on the Hastings Humanists blog under the heading "Opposing Views".-Great!!
How DNA might have developed; a brilliant new theory
George has referred us to an article in the Freethinker: 'Messy Human Genome demolishes any notion of an Intelligent Creator'. The review in New Scientist was headed 'A caring god would not have designed us like this.'-Just to add to David's response from another angle: the two different headings seem to me to sum up the inconsistencies in the argument. The fact that our bodies are imperfect does not provide one iota of evidence against "an Intelligent Creator", but only against "a loving, all-powerful creator" or "a caring god". The mechanisms for life, reproduction, evolution and consciousness are so complex and so mysterious that humans can scarcely understand them, let alone reproduce them. That, in a nutshell, is the case for design. Every car, computer, airplane, TV set will end up in the scrapyard, every machine will break down, every building will crumble. So do all these messy failures demolish any notion that they were designed by an intelligent creator?-The rest of the article, however, repeats the same age-old but nonetheless powerful arguments that theists have never been able to respond to. Two quotes will suffice:-"Why did this deity make such a god-awful mess of it, causing so much needless suffering?" -And to those who favour a deist god or a god without attributes: "What's the point in praying to a being that either can't help or simply doesn't care?"-Two very fair questions.-My thanks to George for the link with the Hastings Humanists.
How DNA might have developed; a brilliant new theory
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Monday, April 05, 2010, 19:29 (5142 days ago) @ dhw
Here's another article about how amino acids, specifically glycine, could have been formed by comet impacts with the atmosphere of a planet.-http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100326/full/news.2010.152.html?s=news_rss-One of the essential components for DNA.
--
GPJ
How DNA might have developed; a brilliant new theory
by David Turell , Monday, April 05, 2010, 21:05 (5142 days ago) @ George Jelliss
Here's another article about how amino acids, specifically glycine, could have been formed by comet impacts with the atmosphere of a planet. > > http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100326/full/news.2010.152.html?s=news_rss &... > One of the essential components for DNA.-I had seen this article. The work is well done although proof of glycine was not achieved. Analysis of the Murchison meteorite did reveal eight amino acids, but those eight are the only ones found in meteorites so far, and life here uses 20. I don't remember which eight but glycine is so simple, it should be one of the eight.