• This area is a closed archive from PF2 which did not abide by the same quality standards as the current main community.

What is the origin of DNA's complexity in the beginnings of life?

In summary, the origin of DNA's complexity in the beginnings of life is linked to the gradual evolution of molecular systems through processes such as chemical selection, self-replication, and the emergence of cellular structures. Early life forms likely utilized simpler nucleic acids that evolved into the more complex DNA we recognize today. This complexity arose from interactions between environmental factors and molecular evolution, leading to the development of sophisticated genetic systems capable of encoding and transmitting biological information.
  • #1
lifegazer
DNA is the code of life - the blue-print of life. Somehow (and its irrelevant to this discussion), small mutations of this code have allowed life to 'evolve' over time... so that DNA has also evolved through time with the life it instigates.I don't know the exact details, but suffice to say that DNA is extremely complex and comprised of many-many different complex-molecules... even for a small organism. There is more 'information' encoded in even simple DNA than can be comprehended by the human mind... and probably most computers too.So, let's contemplate the absolute origins of life itself, close to 4 billion years ago. Now, even in the *first* organisms to have DNA, the information encoded within this simple organism must still be enormous. A 'simple cell' is not so simple as you might imagine. It is an ordered mechanism, comprised of precise and specific atoms/molecules throughout, which must do a specific job to maintain harmony throughout the organism, help sustain its existence through the absorption of energy, move (perhaps), excrete, and reproduce a near perfect copy of itself. Now, this still may sound simple to you, but when you realise that mankind does not yet have the technology/intelligence to create such a thing himself, you'll realise that the design of even this simplest of things is extraordinarily complex. This is highly relevant to what I eventually aim to say, because it shows how complex DNA actually is - EVEN AT THE ORIGINS of life itself. The complexity of DNA is astronomically mind-blowing. The information encoded within even the smallest of strands is beyond human comprehension.Now the crunch question. Where did this initial complexity come from, nearly4-billion years ago?We're talking about ultra-complexity here, which even at the onset of life, had the information encoded within itself to create a singular mechanism that could reproduce itself, eat (absorb sunlight, etc.), excrete, and which must do all of these things within a specific environment (water; temperature-range, etc.).There was very little time between the formation of water on Earth, to life itself. DNA had very little time to come together (evolve), and anyway, without actually existing in life itself, DNA cannot reproduce itself, which means that DNA could not have evolved prior to life.I think that there may be sufficient proof here to show that the creation of life was a creation of *instant* order and complexity (the DNA). I believe that there may be an argument here to prove that life did not 'evolve' on this planet - it was either 'introduced' to this planet, or was created by a being of supreme intelligence.This means that we're either aliens, or children of a God.What say ye?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It is believed that other self-replicating things came before DNA. The idea is that self-replicating substances occured before they developed into what we call life. They were less complex and ordered than DNA. RNA is believed to come before DNA. My high school biology book gave a simplified version of a hypothesis. It had something to do with bubbles that form in the ocean that eventually pick up self-replicated stuff similar to a simplified form of RNA.-----------------------------------------------------If I'm politically correct, it's probably just a coincidence.
 
  • #3
How about being the creation of aliens, not of a supreme being? How about the fact that the staggering amount of time and material available, at the beginings of life, make the "astronomical" possible?
 
  • #4
quote:Originally posted by Audacity Dan:It is believed that other self-replicating things came before DNA.The idea is that self-replicating substances occured before they developed into what we call life. They were less complex and ordered than DNA. RNA is believed to come before DNA.Perhaps you're right. I don't know. But 2 things can be stated here about what you say:-1) RNA is also very complex, and my argument can also be applied to it.2) DNA still 'pops up' at or close-to the origins of life itself, so my argument is still credible, despite what you've said. Where's the DNA come from, considering its enormous complex-order?Remember, the complexity and order of even a simple-celled organism is beyond human comprehension. We cannot create such a thing ourselves, even though, supposedly, it is a 'simple thing'. From what I've written, you must realise that a 'simple cell' is a total misnoma.Whatever is responsible for the formation of life at its origins is a very complex thing indeed... RNA, DNA, whatever. So, where did this complexity come from?quote:My high school biology book gave a simplified version of a hypothesis. It had something to do with bubbles that form in the ocean that eventually pick up self-replicated stuff similar to a simplified form of RNA.I am not sure about the exact details here... maybe they'll come out in the discussion... but I believe that the oceans only formed on Earth within a couple of hundred thousand years before life evolved... maybe less.I do know that even a single protein (of which there are many varieties), is a very complex-chain of over a hundred amino-acids (which come in several different varieties), which must be arranged in precise order along the protein chain for that protein to evolve.And of course, RNA and DNA are astronomically more complex than a protein.Blind physical processes had no time to create such complex order.
 
  • #5
quote:Originally posted by lifegazer:quote:My high school biology book gave a simplified version of a hypothesis. It had something to do with bubbles that form in the ocean that eventually pick up self-replicated stuff similar to a simplified form of RNA.I am not sure about the exact details here... maybe they'll come out in the discussion... but I believe that the oceans only formed on Earth within a couple of hundred thousand years before life evolved... maybe less.I do know that even a single protein (of which there are many varieties), is a very complex-chain of over a hundred amino-acids (which come in several different varieties), which must be arranged in precise order along the protein chain for that protein to evolve.And of course, RNA and DNA are astronomically more complex than a protein.Blind physical processes had no time to create such complex order.Well, the processes that led to self-replicating materials could have started occurring on land, and when the oceans came about, these bubbles could have absorbed some of this self-replicating material that had plenty of time to evolve on dry land as goo. These bubbles could then it give cel-like structure. Of course, this is just one hypothesis. There is also the possibility that our origins are alien to Earth. Maybe now-extince Martians put life on Earth, or (more likely) monocellular life came frozen on an asteroid, or came on some other body that crashed into the Earth.-----------------------------------------------------If I'm politically correct, it's probably just a coincidence.
 
  • #6
quote:Originally posted by Audacity Dan:Well, the processes that led to self-replicating materials could have started occurring on land,Actually, I think that the land was formed AFTER the ocean. From what I know, the Earth was a hot ball of molten material which gave off steam as it cooled... the steam condensed and covered the whole globe.quote:There is also the possibility that our origins are alien to Earth. Maybe now-extince Martians put life on Earth, or (more likely) monocellular life came frozen on an asteroid, or came on some other body that crashed into the Earth.Well, I did actually state that this was a possibility at the end of my first post.The only thing I would dispute is that if life came from another planet, then it wasn't from within this solar-system, since all of our planets were practically new-born, having 'evolved' at the same time.I definitely think that there's no chance that life 'evolved' here, for the reasons already given. This is obviously significant, whether it was aliens or 'God' who was responsible.
 
  • #7
Lifegaizer, where did you get the idea that DN is very complex or has a lot of information? Even all 2x23 human DNAs can easily fit into ordinary CD because they have less than a 1 Gigabyte information. You probably even can buy this human genome CD now and enjoy browsing it. Basicly all your genes together are not more complex than the last album of songs of you favorite rock group.Life is chemistry,chemistry is quantum mechanics,quantum mechanics is math.To learn how natural laws,natural forces and natural objects originate from math,click:
 
  • #8
quote:Originally posted by alexander:Lifegaizer, where did you get the idea that DN is very complex or has a lot of information? Even all 2x23 human DNAs can easily fit into ordinary CD because they have less than a 1 Gigabyte information.That's strange Alex. If human beings are so simply built, why haven't we actually been able to build one yet, from scratch? Or, failing that, a simple-celled amoeba? Nobody who observes the complexity of life - especially humanity - is going to be fooled by notions that it only takes a tiny ammount of information to create one.What you are discussing, above, is OUR representational mapping of the DNA - our short-hand denotion of what DNA looks like. Please note that our short-hand methods for describing the universe do not reveal the ultra-complexity that is involved with every single event that ever occurs in this cosmos.You are comparing DNA to the detailed structure/map of a large city, and saying that you understand how to build that city because you have a detailed map of it. Well, that's all well and good Alex. But what do you know about the construction industry? What are you like at large scale logistics, organising the building economically and efficiently? What tools will you be needing for the job? What materials?You'll probably smirk at the above example, but my point is that the information required to build a complex structure requires more than a map!!quote:You probably even can buy this human genome CD now and enjoy browsing it. Basicly all your genes together are not more complex than the last album of songs of you favorite rock group.The absurdity of your argument is blatantly obvious here. You see, according to you, the information required to create a few songs on a CD is greater than the information required to create a human-being. Do you really believe that? Come on Alex, accept that you're wrong, for a change.
 
  • #9
Actually I am 20 times more right, because about 95% of DNA is noise - garbage left over from not working errors of evolution (and once working traits but no longer needed - like tails, claws, wool, etc. So, human design is even much more simple than one CD - only 50-100 kilobytes of DNA info is nesessary to build a homo sap.And no special tricks or tools are needed - chemistry does it by itself. Just supply nutrients and keep temp around 100 F.Life is chemistry,chemistry is quantum mechanics,quantum mechanics is math.To learn how natural laws,natural forces and natural objects originate from math,click:
 
  • #10
quote:Originally posted by alexander:So, human design is even much more simple than one CD - only 50-100 kilobytes of DNA info is nesessary to build a homo sap.LOL. You do make me laugh. How can you blatantly say that the information required to construct a human-being, is less than the information which would construct a recorded song? Are you saying that it requires more information to replay a track of Mozart, than it does to construct a human organism - with his unfathomable brain, et al?You obviously refuse to accept that 'mapping' is just a short-hand representation of what we are observing, rather than the actual instruction which produces that map. It's like when you buy something from a DIY-store... the short-hand pictoral-instructions are always accompanied by worded explanation, because each singular representation/mapping/drawing of the building-sequence requires detailed explanation of how to do it. Also note that the sequence of events within any DNA code, MUST be in the correct order. When building a house, for example, you do not build the interior first. You build the outside walls, ensuring that you have already built foundations before you begin these walls.Do not overlook the complexity of the order inherent within the DNA codes, based upon how we've managed to denote it with short-hand language that fits upon a CD. Each 'pictoral representation' fails to address a countless number of hows & whys, which still remain unknown by scientific analysis to this date. There are many processes which we cannot fathom yet. All we know, is that they are happening. Hence, we can denote this transformation via short-hand, despite the fact that we don't even know what's going on.Take another example: v = d/t. This is a short-hand representation of the way things are. There is no way that this equation tells you how things manage to be like this. There is no explanation of how to create a reality like this. Nay. This is just a short-hand 'map' of things... and not the actual instruction required to build the real thing.quote:And no special tricks or tools are needed - chemistry does it by itself. Just supply nutrients and keep temp around 100 F.Chemistry turns a chaotic no-boundary system into 'life'? You really have to contemplate the meaning of these laws Alex. Where would laws come from, that could turn indifferent chaos into purposeful order (life)? What sort of laws are these except divine laws?You must be totally brainwashed if you think that a singular complexity of order, inherent in life, can arise from such indifferent chaos in less than a couple-of-hundred thousand-years. Do your math Alex. The odds are astronomically preposterous.
 
  • #11
There are only 4 nucleic acids.-----------------------------------------------------If I'm politically correct, it's probably just a coincidence.
 
  • #12
quote:Originally posted by Audacity Dan:There are only 4 nucleic acids.And?There are only 3 basic particles, if we forget the quarks which make them up.I'll tell you what - I'll give you 3 different 'lego bricks' (as many as you need), plus energy/light... which will all act according to the known laws of physics. There ya go - enough information to create a universe for you there. I'll give you 6 days to do it, and then you can have a well-earnt rest. See you next weekend. By the way, don't make any flies.You're trying to tell me that you only need 4 bits of information to build a living organism? No way Dan. You've fallen into Alexander's map-trap. Think about it.
 
  • #13
I realize that these 4 can be combined to form a larger number of patterns, however, having only 4 does make the number of possibilities (for a given length of a nucleic acid chain) much smaller than having 16 or 100 different acids.-----------------------------------------------------If I'm politically correct, it's probably just a coincidence.
 
  • #14
quote:Originally posted by Audacity Dan:I realize that these 4 can be combined to form a larger number of patterns, however, having only 4 does make the number of possibilities (for a given length of a nucleic acid chain) much smaller than having 16 or 100 different acids.No... you're still falling for OUR simplified 'mapping' (a short-hand representation) of what DNA actually is.Think about the complexity of life, even at the smallest scale. Think about the base processes occuring within the organism, all in harmony with each other, to sustain the life of that creature, and enabling it to reproduce another copy of itself. Indeed, think about the complex proteins which are being MANUFACTERED to enable the organism to grow or reproduce itself.The information inherent within the DNA code, unseen by our eyes and clouded by our short-hand mapping of that code, is enormous.Think about the complexity of the human brain, and then contemplate the absurdity of Alexander's statement that the information required to create a human-being is LESS than the info required to create a music album!!And don't forget what I said about building a house - it must be done in the correct order (foundations first, etc.). This equally applies to the creation of a life. To have so much information in a DNA code is remarkable. What is especially remarkable, is that the information is in the correct sequence, even at the origins of life itself!
 
  • #15
I agree with you that there is more to DNA than the representation that we have in computers.It could be that some self-replicating substance came about before all the other processes of life that we know. It just formed and kept replicating and replicating, and eventually it started turning into DNA, and other processes started joining in. I'm not saying that this is definitely how it is, though. I'm not conceited enough to say that I know how life started.-----------------------------------------------------If I'm politically correct, it's probably just a coincidence.
 
  • #16
quote:Originally posted by Audacity Dan:It could be that some self-replicating substance came about before all the other processes of life that we know. It just formed and kept replicating and replicating, and eventually it started turning into DNA, and other processes started joining in. I'm not saying that this is definitely how it is, though. I'm not conceited enough to say that I know how life started.Saying 'how' it started is beyond any man's knowledge. Saying what was responsible for its origins is within our grasp. The clues are all there. It doesn't take a genius to see these things.
 
  • #17
quote:Originally posted by lifegazer:It doesn't take a genius to see these things.No, just someone so desperate to see patterns .... that they dont care whether or not the patterns really do exist(sorry, couldn't resist that !)- Sivakami.*****************************************************************' ... but I also can't prove that mushrooms could not be intergalactic spaceships spying on us. ' - Daniel Dennett
 
  • #18
Ruthless, Siv!!The idea of complexity from simplicity seems miraculous, but it really isn't. Its all pretty ordinary, things like DNA...so lets not get out bunches in a wad, ok? Heck, if I had a swimming pool the size of the Pacific, and a billion years or so, I'll bet I wouldn't have to do much to produce something like DNA.
 
  • #19
quote:Originally posted by Zero:Ruthless, Siv!!The idea of complexity from simplicity seems miraculous, but it really isn't. Its all pretty ordinary, things like DNA...so lets not get out bunches in a wad, ok? Heck, if I had a swimming pool the size of the Pacific, and a billion years or so, I'll bet I wouldn't have to do much to produce something like DNA.This is garbage. You've given no thought to anything that's been written. To think that blind chemical processes would yield a complex 'chain of information' (in a few hundred thousand years - check age of the Earth), sufficient to create a living organism, and that this information would be in the correct sequence, is as naive as believing in the tooth fairy.Remember, DNA itself does not evolve until life is created. Sure, the molecules along its chain can extend and become more numerous. But natural selection doesn't apply to a molecule, so that there's no way for sequential 'information' to actually evolve.SIVA. Your short little post needs some justification. Address what has been written before you make scorn of the issue.
 
  • #20
quote:Originally posted by lifegazer:SIVA. Your short little post needs some justification. Address what has been written before you make scorn of the issue.Thereisno issue. Its very clear that degree of complexity varies greatly even among all living species present today. From very simple, single-celled replicators to dolphins and primates and homo sapeins.There is no sudden jump of complexity at all. There's only a very gradual evolution of complexity.- Sivakami.*****************************************************************' ... but I also can't prove that mushrooms could not be intergalactic spaceships spying on us. ' - Daniel Dennett
 
  • #21
quote:Originally posted by ssivakami:Thereisno issue.There certainly is, and you've completely ignored it.quote:Its very clear that degree of complexity varies greatly even among all living species present today.Of course there are degrees of complexity between different species, but this has got nothing to do with the topic.quote:From very simple, single-celled replicatorsHERE lies the issue. There is no such thing as a "very simple" organism. They may look 'simple' and they certainly are when compared to us, but the information required to reproduce an organism which can absorb energy, manufacture proteins and other necessary molecules, excrete waste, and reproduce another copy of itself, is not simple in the slightest. And it must do these things in harmony with the whole. Plus, the organism must be 'designed'in accordance with the environment it finds itself in. If such a thing is so simple to create, then why is it that we have no idea how to manufacture life ourselves, from base chemicals? Think about it. Use your brain.Don't forget, we are actually talking of the ORIGINS of life and DNA here.At the origins of life, nearly 4 billion years ago, and very little time after the oceans had formed, this information was INSTANTLY available. Not only that, but the information was in the correct sequence, so that 'the foundations would be built before the walls', so to speak.quote:There is no sudden jump of complexity at all. There's only a very gradual evolution of complexity.I rather suspect that you actually refuse to contemplate what has been said here, for the purpose of sustaining 'Saganism'. This is quite obvious by your two posts, which have not even addressed a single thing I have said. You might be able to fool yourself, but you cannot fool me in the slightest.
 
Back
Top