Neat question. The origins of early molecular life are an exciting issue among researchers. It is not likely that the house evolved before the occupants.
In the early evolution of molecular entities, the only thing else around was other molecules. A speculation is that it was random recombination (in varying energy levels) and the more stable molecules with capacity for recombination persisted better.
RNA and DNA molecules maintain identity and are replicated well compared to other molecules. A personal bet is these then evolved a simple molecular coat for better persistence, like viruses. Or they operated in communities that included varied molecular species and these communities eventually evolved a shared molecular coat like cells.
Nobody knows yet.
Hi all
The argument for 'randomness' seems to suggest that multiple points of randomness acted in exactly the same way with the same result.This appears a little far fetched. it is more likely that similar environments produced similar results within a given radius of each other.
If point 'a' had a set result then point 'b' would be likely to have a closer relationship than point 'x'. (if you are using the alphabet as scale). Therefore , given the size of DNA, moving an inch from point 'a' would be very hard to see the variance. But moving a mile wouldn't get you to point 'b' . Over billions of years the distances between 'where DNA birthed" have increased and the pot has been well mixed, but to have two species with the same genetic code, the DNA was created at the same place, within a given distance.
I am not a fan of life changing from apes to man. Not because of religious belief, but because evolution doesn't need to be one species changing into another. The DNA can have been altered all at the beginning to reflect diversity via the environment that it first formed in.
When we look back we can only see animals that are no longer here. We DON'T see them changing into something else.....only changed. That doesn't mean that evolution is wrong, just not tidied up. it clings to the mantra of physical change when this is neither evident nor provable.
Initial DNA variances CAN be proven. Every inch of the earth OR the universe is unique. it must produce a differing result according to relativity. Even if that difference is one point in a million billion, The difference can be as great as man verses monkey when you add billions of years but begins with one point of difference. The initial variations MUST take a different path to each other, meaning if Man DNA were formed in position 'A', then Monkey DNA can be formed in position 'B' , Pig DNA in 'C' and outwards you go.
Creating a time line only evolution is very limiting to the science since evolution doesn't stop in it's variation. If universal evolution is correct then extra changes should be evident apart from what we observe. But what we see is more of what was there "no matter when you looked".
so the universe has not evolved into 'many different things' according to a random theory, but has remained consistent with what was available to it at the beginning.
Our DNA pool could be seen similarly. Given a close , or nearly closed environment. Measurable variation via distance can put the original components in to differing environments measured out from center. At it's point of origin.
Cheers
Iseason
buttershug
30th May 2009 - 11:52 AM
QUOTE (iseason+May 30 2009, 10:20 AM)
Hi all
The argument for 'randomness' seems to suggest that multiple points of randomness acted in exactly the same way with the same result.This appears a little far fetched. it is more likely that similar environments produced similar results within a given radius of each other.
Cheers
Iseason
Try and learn about randomness in this context.
Your two sentences don't contradict themselves.
It would be like saying I don't think there is any randomness in casinos. I think it's the way the games are set up that make them profitable.
And do you understand that reality is what reality is independent of what you are a fan of?
And evolution does not say one animal turned into another.
Show me anywhere it says that.
iseason
30th May 2009 - 11:54 PM
QUOTE (buttershug+May 31 2009, 12:52 AM)
Try and learn about randomness in this context.
Your two sentences don't contradict themselves.
It would be like saying I don't think there is any randomness in casinos. I think it's the way the games are set up that make them profitable.
And do you understand that reality is what reality is independent of what you are a fan of?
And evolution does not say one animal turned into another.
Show me anywhere it says that.
My sentences do not contradict unless you want them to.
In a single pool I can give each position a value. The positions closest to a said point are likely to be most similar. This means moving out from center can be seen as varying by one measure cumulatively. It matters not that The point we measures is one million and the variation is one. Over time the difference will be immense.
The chances that two pools exist with enough similarity to create 'similar things' is staggering. So it is more likely that DNA for man and Monkeys were birthed very close to each other in the pool. Certainly closer than man and crocodiles which shared a similar association to other reptiles.
But did Man "evolve" from Monkeys? As I said, I think they were both part of the same "birthing of DNA". I have never heard the discussion of DNA/evolution ACTUALLY consider the first environment that DAN found itself in. Certainly if it came to earth via a vehicle like a comet, then it would cover vastly differing environments which would result in varying degrees of mutation.
Since mammals weren't even here for millions of years, Where does science think they were all that time While dinosaurs ruled the earth? Certainly the DNA was here but not active.
Cheers
Iseason
buttershug
31st May 2009 - 01:42 PM
QUOTE (iseason+May 30 2009, 11:54 PM)
Since mammals weren't even here for millions of years, Where does science think they were all that time While dinosaurs ruled the earth? Certainly the DNA was here but not active.
Cheers
Iseason
They weren't anywhere.
Their DNA wasn't anywhere.
It did not yet exist.
The only thing that existed was the potential of their existance.
Why do you say "certainly the DNA was here but not active"?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.