It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Xtrozero
As alien as they are, they still share commonality with the rest of life on the planet
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Xtrozero
Oy ignoring the DNA swaps. The very fact we are using DNA or RNA implies a common ancestry.
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut
Cite or recant. As a bioinformaticist I really want to see your evidence
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Xtrozero
Oy ignoring the DNA swaps. The very fact we are using DNA or RNA implies a common ancestry.
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Xtrozero
Show me the proof that life forms else where use DNA or RNA. Just because life HERE uses DNA and RNA (guess what we use both), there is no guarantee they will. There is no guarantee that they will be carbon based either. The only life we have evidence for is interstitial born,thus that is the only life we can comment on. Anything else is .... Science Fiction or Science Fantasy. Sorry but if you are going to use science, you have to play by sciences rules. IT would be like saying you are going to play chess, then whip out a Dungeons and Dragons rules book on how to play.
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut
No I mean where that that implies anything beyond 25 different genetic coding. It certainly does not imply that life formed somewhere else. They all use the same nucleic acids to code those amino acids, they all use the same amino acids (the proteogenic ones). So while the codes may be different, they are still terrestrial.
As for Venter? A comment does not a theory make. I'm not against that idea, but it is unproven. WE still share a large percentage of commonality with every other thing on this planet. For example arund 50% with the banana. Mind you it is the epigenetic which matter here, it is what makes the difference on how a protein is expressed.
So I return to my point, on the OP. It is not unlikely we evolved from a "virus" (well more likely a bacteria).
Like I said, I've got bioinformatics training. Sure its more in the area of synthetic lethals for cancer treatment and my main area of expretese is Process Development inf Pharmaceutical Chemistry. But I do understand Bioinformatics, especially genomics.
originally posted by: Noinden
I am not denying there is a chance life is else where, I fully believe there is. But I also believe in a multitude of deities as well not just one or none.
originally posted by: Noinden
It is insular, and unimaginative to assume that all life is DNA or RNA and amino acid based.
It is interesting that you are changing the topic away from the debate, to "type life does not really matter". It is NOT what this thread is about. No type of life probably does not matter, except, when one is talking about evolution. It really does, if one wants to talk about a historical relationship between say different hominids, or a virus, and humans. We are certainly not going to have evolved from something which encodes its instructions for existence in a manner different than our own.
originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut
Proteogenesis/abiogenis is something separate from evolution however. What about the fact that they all use the same bloody chemicals, nucleic acids, which code (somewhat but not overly differently) for the same 21 amino acids. This implies a commonality of start.
Now I ask this in all seriousness, what is your background? We could get into the nitty gritty of the Biochemistry and Chemistry here OR we can leave it as low level. Like I've said, I've got a back ground in those sciences, and an interest in the origins of life, genetic archaeology, etc (even if my research in biochemistry was into synthetic lethals for stopping breast cancer, and my research in Chemistry was altering amino acids chemically for Pharmaceutical applications).