The evolution of complex life

Cypress said:
I know a lot of PhDs,
Click to expand...

And they all think very little of you.

and I would be surprised if they were strutting around obscure message boards bragging to complete strangers about their PhD and brilliant research career
Click to expand...

I didn't though. I didn't say a thing about my PhD in this thread until just this second. The fact that YOU are OBSESSED with it indicates you carry a chip on your shoulder due to your general lackluster academic abilities. Just like Doc Dutch does.

In fact I've only ever raised the spectre of my PhD on a couple of occasions. YOU have talked more about it than I ever have.

But I understand. You and I both did geology, but only I could hack it all the way to a PhD and that galls you. Did you even TRY a Masters in the field? Too much for you?

Yeah, I understand. It would require you to actually understand the quotes you always post without comment.
 
Awwwww, Cypress (who knows a lot of PhD's) is not interested in his thread anymore. I guess he ran out of quotes.

And Doc isn't here to give him hugs.
 
Doc Dutch said:
There's a big difference between inevitable and likely. I've only heard "life is likely". Inevitable is more like creationism and God's finger sparking life in the Universe.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to keep an open mind to any of the possibilities: life is inevitable, life is likely, life is exceedingly rare. But I lean towards rare, absent more information.

The biggest hurdle is not that there isn't liquid water and organic molecules in the universe. There is, it's ubiquitous.

The main hurdle we don't understand is that there is a closed circular process in biological systems; DNA is translated into RNA; RNA is used in the production of proteins; but then proteins are needed for DNA management.

So you can't make proteins without RNA, you can't make RNA without DNA, and you can't maintain DNA without proteins. It's a chicken and egg conundrum, which came first, and how?

That has been an open question for half a century.
 
Cypress said:
I'm trying to keep an open mind to any of the possibilities: life is inevitable, life is likely, life is exceedingly rare. But I lean towards rare, absent more information.

The biggest hurdle is not that there isn't liquid water and organic molecules in the universe. There is, it's ubiquitous.

The main hurdle we don't understand is that there is a closed circular process in biological systems; DNA is translated into RNA; RNA is used in the production of proteins; but then proteins are needed for DNA management.

So you can't make proteins without RNA, you can't make RNA without DNA, and you can't maintain DNA without proteins. It's a chicken and egg conundrum, which came first, and how?

That has been an open question for half a century.
Click to expand...

Agreed about open to possibilities.

I didn't take BIO-102, but my understanding on the LUCA thing is that RNA showed up before DNA.

On the theory of life being exceedingly rare, that would answer a lot of questions...mainly "Where are the other life forms?".

"The Milky Way is an averagely large galaxy with a diameter of 100 000 light years and about 200 billion to 400 billion stars"

Even if life is so rare as to be One out of a Billion, that leaves 200 to 400 planets with life in our galaxy alone.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Agreed about open to possibilities.

I didn't take BIO-102, but my understanding on the LUCA thing is that RNA showed up before DNA.

On the theory of life being exceedingly rare, that would answer a lot of questions...mainly "Where are the other life forms?".

"The Milky Way is an averagely large galaxy with a diameter of 100 000 light years and about 200 billion to 400 billion stars"

Even if life is so rare as to be One out of a Billion, that leaves 200 to 400 planets with life in our galaxy alone.
Click to expand...

I think it's reasonable to expect primitive microbial life can exist in the galaxy, at least infrequently. I hope we find some on Enceladus!

RNA is constructed or transcribed out of DNA. So the question has always been a chicken and an egg conundrum. How could RNA exist before DNA? In theory, the RNA world hypothesis postulates that RNA came first. But that has yet to be demostrated under laboratory conditions.

If RNA is ever synthetically created under laboratory conditions, that will go a long way in substantiating the RNA world hypothesis.
 
Cypress said:
DNA is translated into RNA; RNA is used in the production of proteins; but then proteins are needed for DNA management.

So you can't make proteins without RNA, you can't make RNA without DNA,
Click to expand...

How do you come to the conclusion that you can't get RNA without DNA? Yeah, sure, RNA is currently made by DNA transcription but RNA is a simpler molecule so if you can hypothesize that DNA first arises it seems much easier to imagine RNA forming first.

You have never heard of "RNA World"? Interesting.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26876/
 
Cypress said:
How could RNA exist before DNA?
Click to expand...

Why do you think it would be impossible? If RNA is essentially just one side of a DNA molecule with one of the bases changed

Actually it seems rational to assume that RNA came about first and then DNA if only from a "complexity" standpoint.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
How do you come to the conclusion that you can't get RNA without DNA? Yeah, sure, RNA is currently made by DNA transcription but RNA is a simpler molecule so if you can hypothesize that DNA first arises it seems much easier to imagine RNA forming first.
Click to expand...
Now I know you've been lying your flabby ass off about being a 'geochem' PhD with a brilliant research career


I am not interested is discussing anything with liars, or nursing their petty grievances.

You have never heard of "RNA World"? Interesting.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26876/
Click to expand...
I have heard of it dummy, and I didn't even have to frantically google for tidbits of scientific information on RNA like you did -->

Cypress said:
How could RNA exist before DNA? In theory, the RNA world hypothesis postulates that RNA came first. But that has yet to be demostrated under laboratory conditions.

If RNA is ever synthetically created under laboratory conditions, that will go a long way in substantiating the RNA world hypothesis.
Click to expand...
 
Cypress said:
I think it's reasonable to expect primitive microbial life can exist in the galaxy, at least infrequently. I hope we find some on Enceladus!

RNA is constructed or transcribed out of DNA. So the question has always been a chicken and an egg conundrum. How could RNA exist before DNA? In theory, the RNA world hypothesis postulates that RNA came first. But that has yet to be demostrated under laboratory conditions.

If RNA is ever synthetically created under laboratory conditions, that will go a long way in substantiating the RNA world hypothesis.
Click to expand...
If life is found, it appears that the laws of evolution, specifically the Red Queen theory, kick in. How many millions of years did LUCA exist before evolving to a higher form?

Life was on Earth about 3.7B years ago as microbes.
cyanobacteria evolved at least 2.4 billion years ago.
The first animals 800 million years ago.

That's about 3B years of life on Earth before critters showed up. The progression may be long and slow, but the nature of life is to become more capable of survival, which usually means more sophisticated.
https://naturalhistory.si.edu/educa.../life-science/early-life-earth-animal-origins
 
Cypress said:
Now I know you've been lying your flabby ass off about being a 'geochem' PhD with a brilliant research career


I am not interested is discussing anything with liars, or nursing their petty grievances.


I have heard of it dummy, and I didn't even have to frantically google for tidbits of scientific information on RNA like you did -->
Click to expand...

You're a fool but that's not exactly a state secret.

Can RNA exist without DNA?

All the self-reproducing cellular organisms so far examined have DNA as the genome. However, a DNA-less organism carrying an RNA genome is suggested by the fact that many RNA viruses exist and the widespread view that an RNA world existed before the present DNA world.

Such a possibility is most plausible in the microbial world where biological diversity is enormous and most organisms have not been identified. We have developed experimental methodology to search DNA-less microorganisms, which is based on cultivation with drugs that inhibit replication or expression of DNA, detection of DNA in colonies with a fluorescent dye and double staining for DNA and RNA at a cellular level. These methods have been applied for about 100 microbial samples from various waters including hot springs, soils including deep sea sediments, and organisms. We found many colonies and cells which apparently looked DNA-less and examined them further. So far, all such colonies that reformed colonies on isolation were identified to be DNA-positive. However, considering the difficulty in cultivation, we think it possible for DNA-less microorganisms to live around us. We believe that our ideas and results will be of interest and useful to discover one in the future.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/220...oducing cellular,before the present DNA world.
 
serendipity said:
You're a fool but that's not exactly a state secret.

Can RNA exist without DNA?

All the self-reproducing cellular organisms so far examined have DNA as the genome. However, a DNA-less organism carrying an RNA genome is suggested by the fact that many RNA viruses exist and the widespread view that an RNA world existed before the present DNA world.

Such a possibility is most plausible in the microbial world where biological diversity is enormous and most organisms have not been identified. We have developed experimental methodology to search DNA-less microorganisms, which is based on cultivation with drugs that inhibit replication or expression of DNA, detection of DNA in colonies with a fluorescent dye and double staining for DNA and RNA at a cellular level. These methods have been applied for about 100 microbial samples from various waters including hot springs, soils including deep sea sediments, and organisms. We found many colonies and cells which apparently looked DNA-less and examined them further. So far, all such colonies that reformed colonies on isolation were identified to be DNA-positive. However, considering the difficulty in cultivation, we think it possible for DNA-less microorganisms to live around us. We believe that our ideas and results will be of interest and useful to discover one in the future.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/220...oducing cellular,before the present DNA world.
Click to expand...
^ Another frantic Googler.

Since you're brand new to the science of biochemistry and genetics, I'll take the time to tell you that RNA has never been synthesized out of prebiotic chemistry under laboratory conditions approximating a primordial Earth.

That is is exactly the research question being addressed by the RNA world hypothesis. And that is exactly the topic my posts were addressing.
 
Doc Dutch said:
If life is found, it appears that the laws of evolution, specifically the Red Queen theory, kick in. How many millions of years did LUCA exist before evolving to a higher form?

Life was on Earth about 3.7B years ago as microbes.
cyanobacteria evolved at least 2.4 billion years ago.
The first animals 800 million years ago.

That's about 3B years of life on Earth before critters showed up. The progression may be long and slow, but the nature of life is to become more capable of survival, which usually means more sophisticated.
https://naturalhistory.si.edu/educa.../life-science/early-life-earth-animal-origins
Click to expand...

The remarkable thing about the Cambrian and Ediacaran explosion of complex multicellular life is that they appeared on the evolutionary scene in the blink of an eye, geologically speaking. Single celled life had existed for three billion years, and then within a window of about 50 million years, the Earth was swimming in vast varieties of complex multicellular life.

Like you implied, that suggests there is some kind of catalyst that primes complex life, and we might only be able to find complex sentient life on old red dwarf and G and K-type stars
 
Cypress said:
The remarkable thing about the Cambrian and Ediacaran explosion of complex multicellular life is that they appeared on the evolutionary scene in the blink of an eye, geologically speaking. Single celled life had existed for three billion years, and then within a window of about 50 million years, the Earth was swimming in vast varieties of complex multicellular life.

Like you implied, that suggests there is some kind of catalyst that primes complex life, and we might only be able to find complex sentient life on old red dwarf and G and K-type stars
Click to expand...

While I do not believe life is inevitable, I do believe that once life starts, that increasingly more complex forms of life will evolve up through the point of self-awareness.

What happens next remains to be seen since we only have one example. :)
 
Cypress said:
Now I know you've been lying your flabby ass off about being a 'geochem' PhD with a brilliant research career


I am not interested is discussing anything with liars, or nursing their petty grievances.


I have heard of it dummy, and I didn't even have to frantically google for tidbits of scientific information on RNA like you did -->
Click to expand...

Why do you lie? I never said anything about my "research career".

I know you are pained by someone who has actual geologic knowledge because you seem to lack any.

But I see you are also a LIAR so it is clear why you do what you do.
 
Doc Dutch said:
While I do not believe life is inevitable, I do believe that once life starts, that increasingly more complex forms of life will evolve up through the point of self-awareness.

What happens next remains to be seen since we only have one example. :)
Click to expand...

Hey Cypress. Everyone likes to see you talk to yourself. Maybe some day you'll be able to talk to other people.

But this whole Cypress-Dutch love ecosystem is getting kind of sad to watch. The fact that you are so insecure you have to make up a sock (who doesn't appear to know anything more than you do on any topic) is just sad.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
Why do you lie? I never said anything about my "research career".

I know you are pained by someone who has actual geologic knowledge because you seem to lack any.

But I see you are also a LIAR so it is clear why you do what you do.
Click to expand...

You lied about your PhD. You lied about your sock. You lied about being a troll. You lied about others on this thread.
 
Cypress said:
The remarkable thing about the Cambrian and Ediacaran explosion of complex multicellular life is that they appeared on the evolutionary scene in the blink of an eye, geologically speaking. Single celled life had existed for three billion years, and then within a window of about 50 million years, the Earth was swimming in vast varieties of complex multicellular life.

Like you implied, that suggests there is some kind of catalyst that primes complex life, and we might only be able to find complex sentient life on old red dwarf and G and K-type stars
Click to expand...

Lots of googling there! (I know this because Cypress thinks EVERYONE is a "frantic googler", but you can actually tell Cypress is. Remember how Cypress used to just list names of people he liked? Now he's googling other words to sprinkle in.

Just like the GOP: all accusations are confessions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top