Which came first the DNA, RNA or protein

[victor]

Yup, everything is relative..you should said that its relative to...

[Dr.Stein]

Ahahahahaha Vic, I love your new names. It inspired me to get a new name for myself. What about this... Dr.Stein: Smallus sweeticus, L.F. or this one... Dr.Stein: Smarticus sillicus crazynensis, L.F.

[victor]

I get inspired from one cartoon (wile E.coyote and road runner)..and later, I make the name of myself...I think everyone should have one....um, just call it a bio-nickname..

[Dr.Stein]

Yeah agree But you don't give a comment on mine yet

[2810712]

About who came first: who [u]came first on earth [/u]is the question , so imust not confuse it with who was first incorporated with the living system or who first formed lining systems. Now as Oparin got nitrogen bases i think it might be RNA or DNA but RNA is my opinion as it has U which is less complex. But we can't say as DNA might have come on earth due to an astral body.


good names vic. and Dr.
two years ago i and some of my froends classified the students in the class on diff basis like and used binomial[nomenclature]
some geni [ pl. genus]

-Lipidobombus [ lipid bombs]another was Stickata [ sticklike] [ nobody normal, as everybody felt that others are abnormal ]

I was Stickata complexus due to my complex thinking as some say.


Shrei

[Dr.Stein]

some geni [ pl. genus]

Shrei

It is "genera"

[2810712]

thanks... i kind of forgot it...scientists are used to forget simple things... so my journey towads a great scientists has begun


Shrei

[beams]

Reading the following argument someone put forth is typical of so many darwinist responses:

Avalbane wrote:
It had to start somewhere...even though RNA makes the proteins I'd say protein came first, because protein is the building block for organisms. Or, DNA, RNA, and protein all came into existance at once.


Well the problem is that you are thinking using analogies, and not a good one at that... There are many building blocks for living organisms, ans proteins are not the only one. As for the "DNA, RNA, and protein all came into existance at once", i would just suggest that you imagine how likely it is that such a thing happened. I certainly do not agree with Behe's irreducible complexity argument (simply an admission of intelectual if you ask me), but I am sure that the complexity was built one block at a time.
Then even though there is no proof that DNA came first (some suggested mineral crystals) we know for sure that we are looking for a self replicating molecules, and RNA which has the same replicating ability than DNA plus some catalytic activities really looks like the best candidates. Until proven wrong that is...

=== That last line is what gets me. Evolution isn't fact simply because it's not disproven. The odds of even a single strand of DNA forming on it's own are astronaumical due to it's simple make up, yet; complex ORDER of composition. What's more you would need hundreds of thousands if not millions of strands to form and survive to replicate. There are still way too many questions remaining unanswered for me to go with adaptation of single species (and remember there are millions) as the foundational origin of all life. What 'catalytic activities' is he refering to? A man and woman hanging out in a garden, talking to God? He may as well present that from a scientific stand point. Evolution is taught as fact because we have no other apporixmation of solid evidence. You know, a fat man could fit down my chimmney with gifts on Christmas, but he couldn't do it 250 milliion times in one night and that's why I stopped believing in Santa in Kindergarden.

[canalon]

That last line is what gets me. [... snip, look above ...] Evolution is taught as fact because we have no other apporixmation of solid evidence. You know, a fat man could fit down my chimmney with gifts on Christmas, but he couldn't do it 250 milliion times in one night and that's why I stopped believing in Santa in Kindergarden.

First, please use the quote function, it makes things clearer to understand, thx.

Second and more important, if you want to discuss that, we have a topic just about that in the evolution and darwinism. In this forum, we will tolerate only the accepted scientific explanation. So unless evolution is disproven, we will accept it as a fact in all forums but the evolution one. You expressed yourself, I won't delete your post, nevertheless all further posting here about ID will be deleted. Thanks

[Sepals]

Which came first the DNA, RNA or protein? i know there is no answer but can anyone give their thoughts on this? I am interested to know.

I don't have time to read through all the replies so someone may already posted this. It is widely believed that the precursors to actual life were replicating clays. This gradually evolved into replicating oragnic molecules and then bits of RNA and than actual RNA within bacteria like life forms in what was called a RNA world. Cells evolved by lipids forming about this molecules. DNA (more complex as is regulated by more complex enzymes and is double stranded etc) evolved afterwards.

[canalon]

I don't have time to read through all the replies so someone may already posted this. It is widely believed that the precursors to actual life were replicating clays. This gradually evolved into replicating oragnic molecules and then bits of RNA and than actual RNA within bacteria like life forms in what was called a RNA world. Cells evolved by lipids forming about this molecules. DNA (more complex as is regulated by more complex enzymes and is double stranded etc) evolved afterwards.

It is NOT widely believed or accepted (which would be more correct) at all. This model has been offered, but is full of problems. The model still prefered, although not complete either is the RNA world hypothesis.

[Sepals]

I don't have time to read through all the replies so someone may already posted this. It is widely believed that the precursors to actual life were replicating clays. This gradually evolved into replicating oragnic molecules and then bits of RNA and than actual RNA within bacteria like life forms in what was called a RNA world. Cells evolved by lipids forming about this molecules. DNA (more complex as is regulated by more complex enzymes and is double stranded etc) evolved afterwards.

It is NOT widely believed or accepted (which would be more correct) at all. This model has been offered, but is full of problems. The model still prefered, although not complete either is the RNA world hypothesis.

Really? That's what I was taught at uni and it's in my recommanded text. What are the pot holes?