Abiogenesis - The Chicken or the Egg

Abiogenesis. Randall Niles examines the chicken and egg paradox related to first life.

One of the most fundamental problems confronting adherents to the theory of abiogenesis is the chicken-and-egg paradox. DNA depends heavily on proteins for functioning, yet protein relies upon DNA for correct sequencing. Protein cannot arise apart from DNA, yet DNA requires proteins in order to function. Thus, the difficulty is: how did two independent systems -- both of which are necessary for the sustaining of life -- arise simultaneously that rely on one another for survival and function?

Some origin-of-life researchers have suggested that proteins may not have been the first building blocks of life and that DNA may not have been the first information storage medium. In recent years, scientists have suggested an RNA-world model in which RNA serves as the precursor to both DNA and proteins. RNA has the capacity to store information (like DNA) and catalyze chemical reactions (like enzymes).

Abiogenesis and chicken and egg paradox
Yet no one has been able to demonstrate how RNA could have formed on the early earth in the absence of living cells. And besides, the sheer instability of the RNA molecule would render it unsustainable in the long-term.

Furthermore, there is no known naturalistic mechanism from the RNA world to the current DNA-protein world that fundamentally characterizes life as we know it.

For more on Abiogenesis and other questions of science and philosophy, please visit http://www.allaboutscience.org/abiogenesis.htm

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Abiogenesis
• RNA
• DNA
• Protein
• Origin of Life
• Chicken
• Egg
• First Life
• You Tube
• Video
• Randall Niles

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@fdasherv

But don't get me wrong, I COULD argue with the speed of light, Scientists have good reason to think it's subject to change under yet not well understood conditions.

But the dating systems seem to back up the ancient universe too so I don't see much reason to argue with it. Before God created the day and the night there was no measure of time that a human of 1500 BC would easily comprehend.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@fdasherv

I love the respect oozing from your comment, it's refreshing. >_>

I believe the universe and earth is billions of years old if that makes you happy, the speed of light is hard to argue with. I just don't fall for abiogenesis or the idea that all life came from evolution for all those scientifically valid reasons as said below.

[fdasherv]

@TheColaGoodfellow And your degree in genetics came from...? I thought so. You've mistaken me for someone who gives a shit about how stupid you choose to remain. Why didn't you just say you're a creationist? You should know I don't bother with such idiots.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@fdasherv

The problem with evolution is that most things can be equally good & bad towards survival, and yet there are still specific differences between all life.

If we had a common ancestor with chimps, we ought to be able to interbreed with chimps. Because the first step towards chimp/man hood and every step since then would have been able to breed constantly with the common ancestor.

We'd be connected by a living man-chimp ancestor who would survive better than us.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@fdasherv

Mountains of evidence? A few peices of bones don't necasserily show signs that we evolved. Yeah, they could be mutations alright, one-off mutations that have no relation between the two whatsoever.

Finding the compunds needed isn't the same as finding out how they would organise themselves on their own, or finding a force of nature that could do it. Or even finding out how they would survive despite the toxic right hand molecules which would be just as equally distributed.

[fdasherv]

@TheColaGoodfellow "the experiments that did produce anything close to what would be required for life, they only created some of the required compounds"

Therefore, there is evidence for the possibility of abiogenesis. That's all we can ask for so early in the investigative phase.

"There's no question that evolution can occur....But little solid to say it has been occuring for millions of years...and that we all have a common ancestor."

But that's what's the mountains of evidence shows.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@fdasherv

Even if there wasn't oxygen, there'd be no o-zone, the destructive ultraviolet rays from the sun would destroy the organic molecules.

An experiment they haven't tried because they know it wont work: Filling sealed glass apparatus with methane, ammonia, hydrogen AND Oxygen, striking it with electricity to represent thunder. Because it would produce nought. Yet, they were the conditions during that time.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@fdasherv

There's no question that evolution can occur, that's why I said there's evidence it is possible. But little solid to say it has been occuring for millions of years, or that it created all life completely from scratch and that we all have a common ancestor.

Dating systems could show the age of the earth, but not necasserily the life that lived on it.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@fdasherv

You're exaggerating the discoveries for abiogenesis, alot. They've never created life using conditions that actually existed 4 billion years ago.

And even the experiments that did produce anything close to what would be required for life, they only created some of the required compounds, and also some which are toxic towards the other kinds.

Consider, they have evidence that free oxygen (which oxidises and destroys all organic molecules needed for life) existed back then.

[fdasherv]

@TheColaGoodfellow "Well, abiogenesis hasn't even been proven possible yet."

Well, yes it has. Many experiments have resulted in abiogenesis in a lab. It is, therefore, possible. Evolution, on the other hand, is demonstrable fact. There is no question the process occurs.