"Primordial Soup" theory vs. the Complex Structure of DNA

Primordial Soup Theory

The Primordial Soup Theory suggest that life began in a pond or ocean as a result of the combination of chemicals from the atmosphere and some form of energy to make amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, which would then evolve into all the species.

The Primordial Soup Theory states that Life began in a warm pond/ocean from a combination of chemicals that forms amino acids, which then make proteins. This is suppose to happen at least 3.8 billion to 3.55 billion years ago.

The Russian Chemist A.I. Oparin and English Geneticist J.B.S. Haldane first conceived of this idea. Both developed this theory independently in 1920.

In this theory, the basic building blocks of life came from simple molecule which formed in the atmosphere (w/o oxygen). This was then energized by lightning and the rain from the atmosphere created the "organic soup". The first organisms would have to be simple heterotrophs in order to survive by consuming other organisms for energy before means of photosynthesis. They would become autotrophs by mutation. Evidence now suggest the first organisms were autotrophs

DNA: The Code of Life

DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, has an elegantly geometric structure that allows it to play its crucial role as the chemical carrier of an organism's genes. Each DNA molecule is made up of two very long polymers connected by the bonding of hydrogen atoms and coiled in the shape of a double helix. Each of the two polymers contains many structures called nucleotides, which, in turn, may be further broken down into three parts: deoxyribose (a five carbon sugar), a phosphate group, and a nitrogenous base. There are four different nitrogenous bases that might be present: thymine, cytosine, adenine, and guanine. These four bases are the foundation of the genetic code. Sometimes represented as T, C, A, and G, these chemicals act as the cell's memory, instructing it on how to synthesize enzymes and other proteins. These four nucleotides encode everything an organism needs to live and protects this information with incredible accuracy. In a human being, each cell holds 46 separate DNA molecules, each containing, on the average, about 160 million nucleotide pairs, yet this massive amount of information is stored and replicated almost flawlessly.

So I ask this of ATS, with the provided above information, how can the "primordial soup theory" have a leg to stand on?

DNA is much too complex to have just been stirred up in my opinion. Now the question is, how was DNA, and the life that it encompasses, ultimately created?

I leave this conclusion to the masses of ATS, post your belief of creationism. The complex structure of DNA that makes up life had to come from somewhere. So what say you?

Primordial Soup, or Otherwise?

Be it religious, scientific, or other worldly, I am enthusiastic of your views.

The primordial soup theory is not strong but there are other possibilities.

Amino acids have been found in space and in meteors. It has been demonstrated that RNA synthesis is possible in certain clays. The natural evolution of DNA from RNA segments is not too far fetched.

www.newscientist.com...

solarsystem.jpl.nasa.gov...

reply to post by Phage

The natural evolution of DNA from RNA segments is not too far fetched.

I don't see this as being too far fetched... A fluke, in comparison to the vastness of the Universe. Is not by any means too far fetched imo. However, the complexities of said DNA, steer me to believe otherwise. The coincidence, of said soup, is just that, far fetched.

reply to post by UberL33t

You misunderstand. The synthesis of RNA from existing amino acids is a very different scenario from the "primordial soup". Primordial soup is an obsolete concept (it originated in the 1920's). It has been replaced by several as more has been learned.

Here is my take on DNA:

DNA is a considerably elegant way for coding the physical structure of a life form and transmitting this program or blueprint from cell to cell and generation to generation. It is obviously a product of intelligent design. I believe this is true of all matter. Intelligence came first. Matter and life forms came after. Evolutionary mechanisms also exist, but they are of secondary importance.

I concur with those who believe that the ancient symbol of two coiled snakes is in fact a depiction of the DNA structure and strongly indicates that genetic engineering was known to and practiced by ancient inhabitants of this planet.

My primary source for this viewpoint is human memory, which is weak evidence from a scientific perspective. Thus I am forced to call my beliefs "religious" though I believe they are much closer to the truth than what most of modern science has made available to us.

My secondary sources are all the persons who have come forward with various stories of extraterrestrial contact. These stories all strongly support the idea that genetic engineering has been known to other societies for millions of years, and is thus much more likely to be a creation of intellect rather than the other way around.

reply to post by Phage


DNA vs RNA

Predominant Structure:

DNA: Typically a double- stranded molecule with a long chain of nucleotides.
The helix geometry of DNA is of B-Form.

RNA: A single-stranded molecule in most of its biological roles and has a shorter chain of nucleotides.

Unique Features:

DNA: The helix geometry of DNA is of B-Form. DNA is completely protected by the body i.e. the body destroys enzymes that cleave DNA. DNA can be damaged by exposure to Ultra-violet rays

RNA: The helix geometry of RNA is of A-Form. RNA strands are continually made, broken down and reused. RNA is more resistant to damage by Ultra-violet rays.

So, RNA always was, and DNA was introduced after the fact, so to speak?

reply to post by UberL33t


Id say its likely were extraterrestrial.Turns out everyones looking for aliens and were probably it.

A 2008 analysis of 12C/13C isotopic ratios of organic compounds found in the Murchison meteorite indicates a non-terrestrial origin for these molecules rather than terrestrial contamination. Biologically relevant molecules so identified included uracil, an RNA nucleobase, and xanthine.These results demonstrate that many organic compounds which are components of life on Earth were already present in the early solar system and may have played a key role in life's origin. In August 2009, NASA scientists identified one of the fundamental chemical buildings blocks of life (the amino acid glycine) in a comet for the first time.

Originally posted by UberL33t
reply to post by Phage

 

DNA vs RNA

Predominant Structure:

DNA: Typically a double- stranded molecule with a long chain of nucleotides.
The helix geometry of DNA is of B-Form.

RNA: A single-stranded molecule in most of its biological roles and has a shorter chain of nucleotides.

Unique Features:

DNA: The helix geometry of DNA is of B-Form. DNA is completely protected by the body i.e. the body destroys enzymes that cleave DNA. DNA can be damaged by exposure to Ultra-violet rays

RNA: The helix geometry of RNA is of A-Form. RNA strands are continually made, broken down and reused. RNA is more resistant to damage by Ultra-violet rays.

So, RNA always was, and DNA was introduced after the fact, so to speak?

This is called RNA world hypothesis, which proposes that first life did not use DNA and proteins, but only RNA. RNA is capable of both information storage like DNA, and works like a catalyst like proteins do (one of the oldest and most basic enzymes - ribozime, which constructs proteins, is mostly RNA).

These RNA only organisms then evolved DNA, which is more stable for information storage (but cannot act like a catalyst), and proteins, which are much more potent catalysts, but cannot store information. To this day, RNA is a link between DNA and proteins.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...(biology)

Originally posted by UberL33t
DNA is much too complex to have just been stirred up in my opinion.

Well, it wasn't. It evolved from RNA, which is much less complex.

Now the question is, how was DNA, and the life that it encompasses, ultimately created?

Abiogenesis followed by evolution.

I leave this conclusion to the masses of ATS, post your belief of creationism. The complex structure of DNA that makes up life had to come from somewhere. So what say you?

Primordial Soup, or Otherwise?

Primordial soup -> RNA -> DNA.

something cannot come from nothing. that law is true of information. if you have zero genetic information, you cannot get any through random attempts.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
something cannot come from nothing. that law is true of information. if you have zero genetic information, you cannot get any through random attempts.

RNA formed from pre-existing molecules, it did not appear from nowhere.

This is an excellent video on the subject.

Ever heard of symbiotic relationships? Theres good evidence that complex organic strucures developed through the mutal cooperation of bacteria and other microorganisms. Through this cooperation some went specialised focusing on lets say by producing oxygen an other may have specialised in transporting that oxygen to others etc.. heres a link
Endosymbiotic theory

Originally posted by DarkSide
RNA formed from pre-existing molecules, it did not appear from nowhere.

From what I've read, and that is very little to say the least, in human anatomy RNA is a transcription of DNA isn't it? I mean, it usually goes DNA>RNA>Protein right? Even in reverse transcription, there still has to be DNA code to displace the original RNA template...

So we just 'happened' to lose an oxygen atom somewhere and in some 1/1,000,000,000,000,000 chance RNA created DNA? I don't follow...I'm not being hostile but tell me how this process works?

As I said, I haven't read much at all so I'm not challenging anything that's been said this far, but would someone explain how RNA comes before the DNA?

See I thought that everything originated from amino acids? If this is not true, then what other theory’s are there that says how DNA came about? I heard several theories, one theory that it came from space (but we still have to wonder how DNA was made if it came from space). It just seems like amino acids might of made up RNA then turned into DNA? Right?

This is a very interesting debate, hopefully this gets more attention

reply to post by rnaa




Thanks for that vid.