dna evolution

[jfoldbar]

im a layman so please feel free to correct me here, but simply. but i am under the impression that the 'missing piece' in the theory of evolution is a transition from simple amino acids, to dna. is that right?

so we have the miller-urey experiment in 1952 showing where amino acids came from. then once the first life sprang up, we can show it evolving. but it seems to me we cant show where dna came from. we can only hypothesise. 

so i wonder, are there scientists now frantically trying to show how dna could have come about?  are there "miller-urey" experiments going on, but for dna?

and i dont mean computer modelling, i mean actual real experiments.

if not, why not. and if there are, then after more than 50 years why cant they come up with anything yet.

[Phi for All]

There is no missing piece in the theory. What's missing is the need to stretch the theory to cover abiogenesis. It wasn't ever supposed to be about how life began. It's about the changes in allele frequency within a population over time.

[Roamer]

46 minutes ago, jfoldbar said:

'missing piece

I thought it was the half-monkey-half-human.

Anyway there is plenty of pieces missing, probably some predators ate it.

 

48 minutes ago, jfoldbar said:

so i wonder, are there scientists now frantically trying to show how dna could have come about?

Probably.

However, we know DNA exists and is being created, and that is roughly enough;

The creation of the first DNA is most likely coïncidence, and proving it could be created by accident does not prove it DID get created by coïncidence, so it would hardly solve any question.

 

 

[Endy0816]

3 hours ago, jfoldbar said:

im a layman so please feel free to correct me here, but simply. but i am under the impression that the 'missing piece' in the theory of evolution is a transition from simple amino acids, to dna. is that right?

so we have the miller-urey experiment in 1952 showing where amino acids came from. then once the first life sprang up, we can show it evolving. but it seems to me we cant show where dna came from. we can only hypothesise. 

so i wonder, are there scientists now frantically trying to show how dna could have come about?  are there "miller-urey" experiments going on, but for dna?

and i dont mean computer modelling, i mean actual real experiments.

if not, why not. and if there are, then after more than 50 years why cant they come up with anything yet.

 

Main issue is that there is no way to be sure of how everything started. We know of various forms of self assembly that can occur naturally, but we will never be able to say for sure what happened in what order.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-assembly

 

Like Phi mentioned Evolution doesn't actually cover the start of life, abiogenesis. Evolution itself is rock solid.

 

I think more focus is going into decoding existing genetic material and synthetic biology at this point. If the specifics of abiogenesis haven't been nailed down yet, then at least we have a good outline.

[Itoero]

17 hours ago, jfoldbar said:

im a layman so please feel free to correct me here, but simply. but i am under the impression that the 'missing piece' in the theory of evolution is a transition from simple amino acids, to dna. is that right?

so we have the miller-urey experiment in 1952 showing where amino acids came from. then once the first life sprang up, we can show it evolving. but it seems to me we cant show where dna came from. we can only hypothesise. 

It's of course not proven to be possible but it seems like DNA developed from single stranded RNA. DNA can be considered as a modified form of RNA, since the “normal” ribose sugar in RNA is reduced into deoxyribose in DNA, whereas the “simple” base uracil is methylated into thymidine. The first step in the emergence of DNA has been most likely the formation of U-DNA (DNA containing uracil). Some modern viruses indeed have a U-DNA genome, possibly reflecting this first transition step between the RNA and DNA worlds.  This paper concerns the origin and evolution of DNA, I found it very interesting! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/

18 hours ago, jfoldbar said:

so i wonder, are there scientists now frantically trying to show how dna could have come about?  are there "miller-urey" experiments going on, but for dna?

DNA developed probably from RNA so first they imo need to theoretically know how RNA developed.

 

18 hours ago, jfoldbar said:

and i dont mean computer modelling, i mean actual real experiments.

I don't think it will ever be possible to form DNA in an experiment like the miller-urey. If there is ever a model that explains abiogenesis then they can hopefully experimentally proof certain processes in that model.

[Anthony Morris]

On ‎10‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 4:59 PM, jfoldbar said:

im a layman so please feel free to correct me here, but simply. but i am under the impression that the 'missing piece' in the theory of evolution is a transition from simple amino acids, to dna. is that right?

so we have the miller-urey experiment in 1952 showing where amino acids came from. then once the first life sprang up, we can show it evolving. but it seems to me we cant show where dna came from. we can only hypothesise. 

so i wonder, are there scientists now frantically trying to show how dna could have come about?  are there "miller-urey" experiments going on, but for dna?

and i dont mean computer modelling, i mean actual real experiments.

if not, why not. and if there are, then after more than 50 years why cant they come up with anything yet.

Considering how little funding science gets for this sort of research I think we've come quite a long way for just 50 years. Earth developed life over a longer period of time than that I'm sure. There is nothing frantic about efforts to discover the origins of life. This sort of research doesn't have much of an incentive for most investors to bother with it. Federal grants are the usual income source for it I believe. And yes, there are still attempts to find chemical pathways to RNA and to DNA from there. Chemical experiments are not the only valid method for arriving at the answers. Computer modelling is very useful and can potentially lead us to actual chemical demonstrations of RNA production or DNA production in the lab.