The question of how such an extraordinarily designed molecule as DNA originated is one of the thousands of impasses evolutionists reach. Seeking to explain life by means of "coincidence", the theory of evolution can never explain the source of the extraordinary information so perfectly and meticulously encoded in DNA.\nMoreover, the question is not only that of how the DNA chain originated. Even the existence of the DNA chain with the extraordinary information capacity it contains, means nothing by itself. In order to refer to life, it is essential that the enzymes that read this DNA chain, copy them and produce proteins, also exist. (Enzymes are large molecules that have certain functions in the cell which they carry out with the precision of a robot.)
213986
ask god...haha i dont think your going to get a very precise answer to that question...theres too many theories out there..its like asking what came first, the chicken or the egg
592006
You seem to have answered your own question there. Nobody knows exactly how the first living cell formed, of course, but it is generaly thorized to have begun with self-replicating molecules (RNA&DNA, like you said, though, belive RNA is belived to be the more ancient). These molecules reacting in a dense enough solution with the nesesary ingridients and enough energy thrown itno the mix, and hey persto -Life!
521846
Hi Naveen,\nThat question is interesting, and requires some basic knowledge of evolutionary genetics to answer.\nI shall try  to make this simple:\n\nThe basic unit of life according to the latest views, is the gene. This is bcoz Gene or the genetic material, whether it be RNA or DNA or any other non carbon material for that matter,is the one that posess the most funbamental quality of life- that is to "make a replica of itself and thereby immortalise its own kind" . \nEarlier, the ability to respire, the ability to grow in size, the ability to store and handle or transform energy and the ability to interact with the environment were all considered as basic and essential qualities of life. Now the view has changed and what i mentioned earlier holds true.\n        The genetic material as i told you has only one "aim"and that is procreation! All the interactions we see among living organisms around us is a result of the Genetic Material(gene) trying to create a copy of it successfully and make it survive.  "The cell is a way of the gene to make another gene" as Richard Dawkins told once. And when the cell becomes useless on its own to help genes procreate, the gene finds ways to make cells co-operate. Thats how multicellular organisms evolved. \n\nThis evolution was very very gradual, i need not stress upon that part. In this view of the living world, Animals, or for that matter Humans are the pinnacle of the gene's experiment for cooperation! Not only does each cell in an animal body work in close harmony with its neighbours, the organism(animal or human) as a whole works and lives in total harmony with others of the same group.\n         The mechanism of this cooperation is seen in pack-hunting strategies of many social animals like jackal, hyenas, wolves, lions, or the colony of ants , termites ,bees or wasps, or the farmlands of humans or in a modern factory..! This genetic cooperation has evolved innumerable mechanisms to identify common goals, common genetic makeup, and common ideology. This is why in a country, people of the same religion/ political ideology unite for common purposes.This is why,people of the same state unite in the name of language; people of same district unite in the name of region; people of same family unite in the name of blood relation ;brothers or sisters unite in the name of common genes, and finally an individual himself or herself becomes selfish when it comes to his/ her bodily demands...! \n         How does the one gene identify the presence of another of its own kind in another individual? This is called  "green beard effect"..! The concept is simple: A gene has two functions in the body: the first is its true function- to synthesize some protein that the body needs. The second function is that the gene produces some visible character in the body of the individual so that another individual can identify this character and extend its cooperation. A gene can thus make a person's mind more inclined to accept religion as a way of brotherhood/cooperation \n (like we see in some terrorist and racist groups) or it can simply tell the individual to cooperate for food. \n       The lowest level of this sort of cooperation is seen in symbiotic and parasitic relationships in animal or plant or even microscopic world of unicellular organisms. Bacteria live in our gut and help us digest cellulose from veg-food, we provide them a congenial environment to survive and reproduce. This is symbiosis. Parasites usually harm the host and eventually destroy them.Eg: fungi. \nTherefore all life forms on earth have likings for some or the other kind of organism. In social animals, the liking is towards individuals of the same species. In other groups, it may be towards a parasite or a symbiont. Some plants in the amazon provide "food" for ants that colonize among their roots, and in turn the ants provide protection to these plants from external animals. Som
18228
DNA \n\nThe molecule that carries genetic information in all living systems (see genetic code). The DNA molecule is formed in the shape of a double helix from a great number of smaller molecules (see nucleotides). The workings of the DNA molecule provide the most fundamental explanation of the laws of genetics.\n\nDNA acts in three important way. First, when a cell divides, the DNA uncoils, and each strand creates a new partner from the surrounding material — a process called replication. The two cells that result from the cell division have the same DNA as the original (see mitosis). Second, in sexual reproduction, each parent contributes one of the two strands in the DNA of the offspring. Third, inside the cell, the DNA governs the production of proteins and other molecules essential to cell function. \n\n\nmedical:\n\nDeoxyribonucleic acid; a nucleic acid that consists of two long chains of nucleotides twisted together into a double helix and joined by hydrogen bonds between complementary bases adenine and thymine or cytosine and guanine; it carries the cell's genetic information and hereditary characteristics via its nucleotides and their sequence and is capable of self-replication and RNA synthesis.
123217
The short answer is natural selection - once these "simple molecules" attain the ability to self replicate (there are multiple theories on how this came about because there are many ways this could have happened), the replicons with the best ability to survive and make copies of themselves make the most copies.  These then can mutate - these mutated versions then undergo the same type of natural selection for the versions most able to make copies that have a high ability to replicate.  Every novelty in evolution is made in a similar way:\nRandom differences in a population followed by\nNatural selection for the organisms best able to propogate their DNA.  \nIn this way we get cells (hold in the replication machinery and templates better)\nTissues (ability to tolerate new environments)\nSensory organs (reaction to new stimuli)\netc. \nGood luck, though fairly intuitive, this can be a very complicated topic once you try to get into specifics!
638972
this is exactly why i am a creationist. i've studied microbiology and i cannot see how RNA or DNA could have invented itself.
508987
These are two good reasons for believing in evolution instead of these silly notions. We come from earlier life, through the familiar process of selection, reproduction, and variation. That earlier life comes from even earlier life. At some point in the distant past there was some primitive first life. It came from inorganic matter. \n\nWhere that matter came from is not clear, but we're making progress on understanding that. The leading contender, I believe, is that it DID simply pop into existence. I think that someday we may even understand how that is possible, but I'm confident that no-one today understands it.
246421
Ok, your question is very interesting and i think many people are thinking that you are jocking or crazy. Ok I will explain you some points:\n\n1.Fracis Crick, co-descovered ot the DNA structure says" The ADN structure could not have evolutioned in the earth in only 300 million of years, is very structured and developed to have been evolutioned in the eart in so short time."\n\n2.Probably the most certain theory about the origin of the life and the species in the earth is the Creation theory. This theory dont have contradictions and is very complete and let us explain everything about the origin of the life in the earth.\n\n3.There are a lot of evidence that the brain from the monk until the brain of the sinhantropus neede 15 million of years, but the brain with the homo sapiens appeared only 1 million of years after. This so Big Jump is impossible and the expert are not agree about what happened.\n\n4. The conlcutio is: We are aliens, because our DNA and our life is not from here, a Super Natural being created us, and this Being is our God. Now from the scriptures we can find many references about this Super Natural Being in the Bible and to him we should to feel respect because he has been with us from the fundation of the world.\n\n5.For this reason I think we are aleins and many reincarnation theories think that we have been in other lives in other planes and here is only one more that the planets where we can learn. For example, The asteroid belt, is considered by some clandestinity groups like a planet that was destroyed between the war between two races that are living in this planet today and they are having the same problems like there. Hopefully the eart will not finish like Traya de Maldek.\n\n6.Many conspiration theories says that the earth have a alien reaces from Z-Reticuli, and they are sharing technology with the American Goverment and it´s probably is a fact, but may be are rummors, the time will show us the true.\n\n7.And Like a Christian I think our Lord Jesus Christ is the most super natural being, our Master and opur Love, our example to Live and may be we will understand everything anbout this world because may be, like a old friend said me one day "The true is a Mirror Broken in thousand Pieces"
16655
In nature, living things evolve through changes in their DNA. In an animal like a chicken, DNA from a male sperm cell and a female ovum meet and combine to form a zygote -- the first cell of a new baby chicken. This first cell divides innumerable times to form all of the cells of the complete animal. In any animal, every cell contains exactly the same DNA, and that DNA comes from the zygote. \n\nChickens evolved from non-chickens through small changes caused by the mixing of male and female DNA or by mutations to the DNA that produced the zygote. These changes and mutations only have an effect at the point where a new zygote is created. That is, two non-chickens mated and the DNA in their new zygote contained the mutation(s) that produced the first true chicken. That one zygote cell divided to produce the first true chicken. \n\nPrior to that first true chicken zygote, there were only non-chickens. The zygote cell is the only place where DNA mutations could produce a new animal, and the zygote cell is housed in the chicken's egg. So, the egg must have come first.
194336
Absolutely, if you are talking theoretically-double stranded DNA has been made using any number of nucleotides, many of them not found in eukaryotic animals normally-there are also RNA/DNA double helices, which use 5 different nucleotides.  But, there is no reason to beleive life would be different just for this reason.  The DNA just encodes proteins, and using 4 or 5 nucleotides could encode the very same protein.  The compound that would have the greatest effect on alien life being different would be the proteins encoded by the DNA (the DNA could be just like ours, but code for radically different proteins).  Just look at how different humans are than bacteria, fungus, flowers, lobsters, octopi, earthworms....and yet all of that life uses the same DNA-its the proteins that are different, and the way the proteins are put together.\n\nPseudo-an RNA/DNA double helix would have 5 different nucleotides.
465799
Biogenesis is the fact that life only arises from life. \n\nId love to see what the evolutionists make of this. And I dont wanna see a bunch of links in the place of a proper answer too..
89908
While I believe in an intelligent design, (for scientific purposes) the first cell was believed to come about through chemical evolution.  Supposedly, our world use to be a rather hostile environment, composed of very few elements.  Through some process, these elements reacted together and formed chemical compounds, specifically nucleic acids, or genetic material.  As the environment continued to change, more chemicals were formed (amino acids, etc.) and began interacting until eventually, they organized in such a fashion they formed a cellular organism, capable of reproducing itself.  From this cell, more cells were produced, leading to evolutionary changes between the cells, eventually leading to different types/kinds of cells, and ultimately different organisms.  So while cells do come from other cells, supposedly there was a "first cell".\n\nI'm not sure if this makes sense or even answers the question.........?
137882
Actually it makes perfect sense.  Things naturally pair together, whether it be by gravity, magnetism, parasitism or whatever reason.  eventually enough atoms will link together for convienience to form a protein, enough protiens will link together to form a cell, then we have life.  cells will then pair together to form tissues, which will pair with other tissues to increase their survival rate giving us more complex organisms.  See the steps yet?  Following that we get to higher functioning organisms.  An organism's cells reproduce millions of times in that organisms lifetime and every time the DNA is replicated there is a chance for a mistake.  How many typos do you make typing a paper?  This is where variation comes from.  Evolution and extinction come from natural selection.  As the world changes things have to adapt those that don't die. If they didn't die we wouldn't call it evolution.
498139
Though you will ignore the answer, I'll try anyway.  \n\nYour question, with explanation was a classic straw man, so I'll answer your question.\n\nI do not support ID as per se, but, all they are saying is the following:\n\nStep 1:  dna exists.\nStep 2:  later, new dna exists which could not have been eluciadated from existing dna, because there is unquestionably new and unique information in this new dna, which did not exist before.\nStep 3:  how did it happen?  \nStep 4:  it either happened by some still unknown natural or biological mechanism, or it was caused, created.\nStep 5: the natural or biological mechanism seems unlikely as the cause for strictly reasonable and logical reasons.  However, if it could be discovered, it would be one of the most important discoveries ever, and would be communicated as such.  This is still one of the mysteries in biology.  \nStep 6:  new information is not created by natural and random processes.  This just does not occur in nature.  Based on experience and logic.  \nStep 7:  based on the above, it seems that design is involved.\n\nThis is not hard logic.  The point is that you have closed your mind to the issues the ID people are trying to consider, and ID people are fully engaged in science.  What happens if you are wrong?\n\nBasically, ID does not say design is perfect, however, it could very well be optimal, and that takes intelligence, and then it is not a flaw.  ID people have answered your question many times.  Many you need to do some reading.  I cannot say the retina is shoddely wired.  Your remark was a rhetorical and opinionated remark.\n\nNot trying to give you a hard time.  Just the facts.\n\nEdit:  Anything that is proven by science, I agree with.  Duplication is well known.  I hope I was clear.  The issue is:  Here is dna without a certain new function, like a lung, or kidney, or brain, or eye, or skin, of bone, or hair, of tear duct, or immune response, etc.  Later, a 100 lines, or millions of lines of new dna exist with this code.  Duplication is not the mechanism, for the function did not exist, and requires some pretty profound new engineering to create.  The unanswered question is:  how did it happen?  Randomness cannot be part of the solution, since the improbabilities are far too great.  \n\nCan this question be answered, or is it still open?  The answer I usually get is, well just because we do not know, does not mean we should accept the possibility of a creator.  I say, you should consider both, until we have an answer.  You may lean one way or the other, but both are still possibilities.  \n\nThe most knowledgeable scientists agree for example, in cosmology, the closer we get to the beginning of the universe, the more the questions become philosophical and theological.  You are discounting a vital side of the story.
367292
To understand life you could study organic chemistry \n\n Organic chemistry tells us that the first organic material is composed of "SPONCH" sulfer, phosforus , oxygen , nitrogen, carbon and hydrogen.\n\nIf this is how life is created, then the question becomes, how is it possible that all these atoms got together in such a complex way to create the first life.\n\nAtheist tend to say well it just happened randomly over time, but if you consider the improbobility of this happening it is infinitly small. \n\nAnd if we know that space has a time of origin then for life to form it would be comparable to having a quater land heads billions of times within about one week from one persons toss.
26858
I think what you're looking for has to do with replication. Every time the cell goes through mitosis to divide, it has to make an exact copy of all the DNA in the cell, so that there are two complete copies, one for each daughter cell. The process of replication and division is the cell cycle.\n\nIn replication, a complex of enzymes copies the DNA by unzipping the double helix to expose the single strands. Someone else mentioned A-T C-G bair pairing and that is correct. The four subunits in DNA are the bases, and they are abbreviated A,T,C and G. Just by the shape of the molecules, A will connect with T and C with G pretty much always (though there are exceptions that are beyond the scope of a general explanation). \n\nSo in replication, enzymes pull the two strands of the double helix apart in short regions, pulling apart the A-T C-G bair pairing. It is energetically unfavorable to have a single strand of DNA exposed and not base paired. Free nucleotides in the cell will come in and form hydrogen bonds with the exposed template strand (it will happen on both strands), and then enzymes will connect the newly deposited bases with phosphodiester linkages to form a new DNA molecule. This forms a new strand of what is called duplex DNA, meaning it is a new double helix. The complementarity of the base pairs drives replication to produce an exact copy of each part of the genetic code. The error rate is very low, but errors can and do occur, and there is proofreading machinery to check for mistakes and excise and replace incorrect base pairs.\n\nPictures are helpful...in the second link, scroll down to see the replication bubble. A replication fork and a replication bubble are essentially the same thing...it's the site where the double helix is open and replication is occurring.
517300
I don't know of any scientist who proposes that order.  You can't have cells, or metabolism, without replication (a cell that eats but doesn't replicate ... well ... isn't much of an ancestor).\n\nReplication is absolutely the first requirement.  Then replication with heredity (RNA, then DNA).  That is an absolute prerequisite for natural selection, which can do the rest.\n\nHowever, it is somewhat of a mistake to say that these things happened in a specific *order* 1, 2, 3.  \n\nFor example, proteins are good catalysts but terrible replicators.  And DNA is a phenomenal replicator (low error rate), but a terrible catalyst.  RNA is pretty good at both.  So the very earliest life forms were probably short strands of RNA that both replicated and catalysed (the beginnings of metabolism).  By the time full-scale replication with RNA or DNA was getting started, so was the synthesis and breakdown of proteins (metabolism) and this probably occurred in something resembling lipid droplets in water, the beginnings of cellular life.\n\nIn other words ... like almost everything else in life, these three things probably evolved *together*.