/sci/ - Science & Math

DNA doesn't

the molecules that formed basically made air bubbles around chemicals which formed RNA

the RNa then later evolved into DNA, which caused the cambrain explosion

dna is only specific to our planet, as far as we know

>molecules that make up DNA are present in the same area.

the atoms that make up DNA.

DNA is one molecule. Well, two molecules if your being picky.

>>4286243
and when you ask "then why does RNA do that"

it also doesn't, things just combined in a way for it to happen that way.

it's pretty much random.

>life is 100% random and only arose on this planet and universe in general by luck
no
>Darwin fans will correct me in some way on this statement
yes
>that's basically what the theory says.
no

>So, simply put, Darwin's theory of evolution states that life is 100% random and only arose on this planet and universe in general by luck.

No, it doesn't. Why don't you go unfuck your awful understanding of what the theory of evolution actually says before you come here with your stupid questions.

>>4286243
>dna is only specific to our planet, as far as we know

Not true, there have been many cases of bacteria with near identical structure of DNA have been found on comets and space dust.

>http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20010631230243data_trunc_sys.shtml

>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6660045/Bacteria-from-Mars-found-inside-ancient-
meteorite.html

>>4286247

what?

maybe one molecule per DNA pair and you will sound less retarded

>>4286252

no, their hasn't

those claims can easily be attributed to local contamination.

we have no strong evidence yet for life anywhere else.

not to say it isn't out there.

but that shit you just spouted is dumb.

go read a book about where dna comes from.

>>4286252
>can't into local contamination

people like this make me cry

>>4286253

You can't make a helix without 2 molecules, jackass. Their complementarity doesn't mean shit.

>>4286247
DNA is made 4 molecules you fucktard

>>4286228


"why does DNA, one of the most complex molecular structures know to man, automatically assemble itself (under the right conditions of coarse) when the molecules that make up DNA are present in the same area."

>electromagnetism
>chemistry

notmagic.jpg

>>4286258
>>4286258
>>4286258


GO


READ


A


FUCKING


BOOK


YOU


DUMBASS

>>4286259

You're fucking dumb.

>Basically what im asking is how does DNA assemble itself without intelligence or a pre-determined blueprint encoded in the atoms?
Via the laws of physics and chemistry. Think of life as a machine that's been consistently running for billions of years. Don't ask how the machine got started though, because I don't know. I don't know if anyone knows, either.

>>4286255
http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2008/08/galactic_panspermia

HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU GUYS NOT UNDERSTAND DNA!?

IT'S FOUR FUCKING MOLECULES PER NUCLEOTIDE.

THIS IS NOT FUCKING COMPLICATED


HERE'S SOME FUCKING LINKS YOU READ JACKASSES

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_individual_molecules_make_up_human_DNA

FUCKING FIRST RESULT ON GOOGLE ASSWIPES

YES! I FUCKING MAD!

>>4286267

We've got ideas bro

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models

also:

>still chemistry

>>4286259

No.

There are 4 monomers that polymerize to form a DNA molecule strand, which is stabilized through hydrogen bonding to a complementary strand of DNA.

>So, simply put, Darwin's theory of evolution states that life is 100% random and only arose on this planet and universe in general by luck.

Theory of Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with Abiogenesis, or how life first appeared on Earth.

>>4286269
>those were because of local contamination
http://www.universetoday.com/83785/claim-of-alien-life-in-meteorite-needs-further-review/


>pots link to some random guy saying nothing scientific and thinks that empty conjecture counts as "science"

GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE

DNA annealing is simple thermochemistry/electromagnetism, guys. When complimentary bases line up together, two or three hydrogen bonds are formed, greatly reducing the energy of the system.
Also, Darwin didn't have much to say about the origins of life on this planet; he focused on how the present diversity of life came to be, and the mechanisms responsible for speciation etc.

>MFW I just trolled everybody hard.

You guys take science way to serious.

>>4286277

>types in all caps
>provides link
>link proves him wrong
>he thinks he wins

DNA IS ONE LONG MOLECULE YOU DUMB FUCK. IT'S MADE OF OTHER MOLECULES BUT WHEN THEY'RE IN A CHAIN IT'S ONE MOLECULE.

ITT: people that do not understand DN FUCKING A

people that post links to pseudoscientific nonsense and think they are legitimate links "because some guy said so"

people who don't fucking understand FUCKING DNA

fuck. this. thread.


I am leaving fucking /sci/ over this

you bunch of retards

>>4286291
>lol i trol u

>>4286277

If they are fucking covalently bonded they are one large molecule you troglodyte.

DNA is a macromolecule. 2 molecules held together by hydrogen bonds to make a helix.

Christ you guys are way atop mount stupid.

>>4286291
Science is serious.

>>4286291

really?

>>4286297
Please stay on /sci/ and continue to fight the good fight. We must bring knowledge of evolutionary biology to the masses! Acritarch unrelated.

Making arguments originating from a false assertion or misrepresentation of an idea. I believe there's a term for that...

>>4286306

>op
>if only I had a brain

sus christ, folks, calm yo' tits. This guy came in here asking a legitimate question that he was curious about. God forbid we help people understand this shit. I know we got the sticky, but seriously, some of these questions are ones that need at least some kind of personal explanation. Let's just help him understand what kind of questions to ask in the first place.

>>4286228
Here's one solution to think about. Crystalline structures naturally form on their own. Provided no instructions, they are consistently able to attract chemicals and increase their size based only on the very atoms they're made out of.

While I'm not trying to say that the processes are the same, it still shows that assembly such as this is possible in nature on it's own, where organization can arise from chaos.

As it stands, there are essentially 3 structures that go into the process of producing DNA; Protiens (Which are both made by and interact with the RNA), RNA (Which are both made by and interact with the DNA), and DNA itself. In terms of structure and processing, DNA is essentially an upgraded version of RNA, and RNA is like an advanced protien.

Viruses tend to be RNA structures and will often modify the DNA/RNA within our cells. Occasionally, a protein (like mad cow disease) will do something similar. It's not fully understood, but there is a distinct communication between these three structures.

The order of events is not certain, but it's generally thought that RNA eventually transformed into DNA, and RNA's fate became eternally attached to DNA (we have yet to find RNA forms other than viruses). But the only problem is that RNA is very delicate, so building up to making DNA is a very hard thing to imagine.

Long story short, there are varying degrees of "intelligence" in the structures of creatures that slowly grow more advanced and create higher and stabler structures. While the evolution of intelligent life was "random", it's still a ordered process that has involved a lot of different stepping stones and constant recombination of these structures. The exact order of this process, however is up for debate. One of the other questions we have right now is how the cell wall formed a relationship with the DNA.

In truth, the relationship between viruses and life is still relatively new and we're only beginning to realize that these things are more than just simple diseases (One current application we're trying is using viruses as a means of genetic modification). Exactly how big was their role in the creation of life as it is today, and is the fact that they are so well adapted to us just coincidence or an indication of something more?

It might be a while, but we're still coming closer to reaching an overall truth. While evolution *is* fairly understood, the genetics and the process of abiogenesis themselves are still being investigated and applied more than ever.

www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/stories/scientist-creates-lifelike-cells-out-of-metal/

Here's something cool to check out.

>>4286334
Well, fuck your shit - OP is indistinguishable from the people making arguments in favour of the OP's misrepresentation of evolution

>>4286334
>In terms of structure and processing, DNA is essentially an upgraded version of RNA, and RNA is like an advanced protien.
ALL OF MY HATE.

>>4286334
10/10, would rage again.

>>4286341
No, fuck YOUR shit.

If he comes in here making a misrepresentation, would it be better if we told him to fuck off? Or would it be better if we gave him the information he needs?

If people don't understand these concepts, it is completely reasonable that we educate them when they come asking us questions. Telling them to go away doesn't encourage them to ask questions, it just makes them think we're assholes who aren't worth listening to.

In every person who makes these confrontations there are two sides; The guy who's trying to be a smartass, and the guy who is secretly curious. Let them know that even if you're not 100% sure of your answers that you still feel confident in them just because of what these discoveries have accomplished. Let them know that all contradictions we make are either just a simple confusion on their part or something that we're looking into. Give these people a reason to believe that science is a good thing and should be valued by all.

As long as we admit that we're not sure on certain things, people will be interested to go off and look on their own. Seriously, people love feeling like they're exploring new grounds. Treating science like it's private property may keep the riff raff out, but it still intimidates people. As long as they're coming to scientists to ask questions, they should always be encouraged.

>>4286368
No. Fuck YOUR shit for not even reading the part of my reply where I say arguments FOR OP's misrepresentation are indistinguishable from random fucks and the OP. So yeah, fuck your shit.

>>4286252

Neither article remotely mentions anything about DNA.

>>4286228
>how does DNA assemble itself without intelligence or a pre-determined blueprint encoded in the atoms?

Chemical ques, nigga

>>4286346
The capabilities of individual proteins are limited (though the number of them is enormous) and easily modified. The capabilities of individual RNA are higher and more rigid. A single strand of DNA's capabilities are huge and relatively difficult to modify. Additionally, all 3 of them are macromolecules which are essential to the creation of life.

Where exactly did I go wrong with my statement?

>>4286402
I'll give you that DNA can be considered an "upgraded" version of RNA; the lack of a 2' hydroxyl group makes DNA concatenations more stable than those of RNA. However, proteins are nothing like either nucleic acid in terms of their structure or their biosynthesis.

100% random, how? Natural selection is a major "selector" for life that is better suited to its environment.

>>4286410
How is natural selection not random?

>Basically what im asking is how does DNA assemble itself without intelligence or a pre-determined blueprint encoded in the atoms?

Electrochemical affinity.

Many, many different chemical compounds self-assemble in proximity to one another. Most are completely useless or even harmful to life. Amino acids happen to be one set of compounds complex enough to encode long transcription polymers.

>>4286415
For example, prey animals that can run faster are less likely to be caught by predators than their relatively slower companions.
The slow ones die, the fast ones escape.
It is not random because whether the prey lives or dies is not based on random chance, it is based on how fast they can run, which is governed mainly by genetics.
Obviously speed is not the only factor in survivability, but this is just for the sake of example.

>>4286409
>However, proteins are nothing like either nucleic acid in terms of their structure or their biosynthesis.
I'm not actually saying they are. In fact, I deliberately avoided saying anything about their role in evolution, regarding only the relationship between DNA and RNA.

When I was originally referring to structure, I was talking more about the roles they fulfill as opposed to their actual chemical nature. Some proteins do attach to RNA as well, so there are undeniable interactions between the two. I wasn't trying imply that proteins and RNA share the same level of similarity as DNA does with RNA. I just felt that it was important to mention them because they play an important role in the cell's nature regardless.

>>4286415
Okay, an easy example of this is how tropical forests are very much alike. Why is this? What could possibly be the factor here selecting for this sort of life?

Environmental pressures are selecting for life that can flourish in these areas. Natural Selection isn't the only selector either, but it is the primary one. The only possibly random(outside our current ability to predict), is the random changes that happen that make every tropical forest, that have similar types of ecosystems, still have different kinds of life running those ecosystems.

However even that is mostly predictable, female birds for example in general select for the prettiest male partners, or the best singers. Sexual selection is a obvious factor as well.

>>4286415

Your environment doesn't kill you off randomly. It kills you off if you're ill-suited for it or uncompetitive.

Mutations that can give rise to adaptations can perhaps be considered random (though they technically aren't) because of the difficulty of predicting them. Natural selection however is certainly not random.

How does a bunch of molecules tell some other molecules to be alive and grow and contemplate how it is a bunch of molecules?

>>4286415
Whether a mutation's nature is beneficial, detrimental, or indifferent is completely random (most mutations are completely unnoticed).

Because life forms are in constant competition with each other, mutations which are beneficial are less likely to fade away with time. Positive mutations have a slightly stabler reproduction rate while negative mutations have a higher chance of being eliminated. Mutations which are neither beneficial nor detrimental will simply exist.

While the types of mutations are random, nature still inherently favors beneficial mutations over detrimental ones. Additionally, "beneficial" is usually defined by the environment, so creatures will naturally adapt to their ecosystem because of it.