Abiogenesis

[Jimmy]

So DNA first came on the scene 1 billion years after the earth formed. To me that seems like to short of a time frame. So the only thing that would make sense is that the evolution of DNA started at the time of the Big Bang theory. That would make DNA's evolutionary time frame 10 billion years which seems more plausible.

 

[ChristineM]

The chemicals needed for dna did not exist until the first suns began to die. Prior to that the universe consisted of hydrogen and helium.

The suns are the chemical factories of the universe

 

[Jimmy]

The chemicals needed for dna did not exist until the first suns began to die. Prior to that the universe consisted of hydrogen and helium.

The suns are the chemical factories of the universe

Eh

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So DNA first came on the scene 1 billion years after the earth formed. To me that seems like to short of a time frame

A billion years - a million millennia - feels like a long time when you're watching the clock.

So the only thing that would make sense is that the evolution of DNA started at the time of the Big Bang theory.

It did. The first step in the formation of all matter was symmetry breaking, which generated the fundamental particles and forces.

That would make DNA's evolutionary time frame 10 billion years which seems more plausible.

Which is about one billion years after the earth formed.

 

[F1fan]

So DNA first came on the scene 1 billion years after the earth formed. To me that seems like to short of a time frame.

Why? Based on what facts does your thinking form this opinion?

So the only thing that would make sense is that the evolution of DNA started at the time of the Big Bang theory.

How does that make sense? Explain your thinking here in detail. Use facts.

That would make DNA's evolutionary time frame 10 billion years which seems more plausible.

Based on what facts? What is your level of expertise on this matter of science? Are you a graduate in biology from a university?

 

[setarcos]

So DNA first came on the scene 1 billion years after the earth formed. To me that seems like to short of a time frame. So the only thing that would make sense is that the evolution of DNA started at the time of the Big Bang theory. That would make DNA's evolutionary time frame 10 billion years which seems more plausible.

The first appearance of DNA as a functional linear molecule is at best pure speculation. However, if you believe the so called "Big Bang" was a purely random natural happenstance then the event did not happen with the intention of evolving DNA. So take a multitude of generated molecules accompanying forces and their eventual development into atoms and elements and we might say that every material thing that exists began its evolution with the Big Bang AND nothing began its evolution with the Big Bang to be both correct depending on how you view the beginning of a particular evolving entity.
When did DNA begin its evolution? Did it begin in the primordial dispersal of elementary particles with as yet no discernible accumulation of coherent function or did DNA's evolution begin with enough supposedly random events happening which produced a functional molecule from which other coherent linearly related functions accumulated?

 

[setarcos]

Why? Based on what facts does your thinking form this opinion?

How does that make sense? Explain your thinking here in detail. Use facts.

Based on what facts? What is your level of expertise on this matter of science? Are you a graduate in biology from a university?

I think your being a little harsh here. This is a curious individual with questions and proposals about the workings of the universe. Like most of us on here. Nothing wrong with beginning with broad strokes and then teasing out the details as the conversation develops.

 

[F1fan]

The first appearance of DNA as a functional linear molecule is at best pure speculation. However, if you believe the so called "Big Bang" was a purely random natural happenstance then the event did not happen with the intention of evolving DNA. So take a multitude of generated molecules accompanying forces and their eventual development into atoms and elements and we might say that every material thing that exists began its evolution with the Big Bang AND nothing began its evolution with the Big Bang to be both correct depending on how you view the beginning of a particular evolving entity.

I disagree. The evolution of everything that exists today began at the Big Bang event. If the material of the universe was not created (as many myths suggest) then there was no actual beginning, rather cycles of the material.

When did DNA begin its evolution?

Big Bang. That's when the four forces started working on the material, about 2 seconds after the event if I recall. Then the material started doing it's thing as governed by the laws of physics, including the sperm and egg than ended up as you.

Did it begin in the primordial dispersal of elementary particles with as yet no discernible accumulation of coherent function or did DNA's evolution begin with enough supposedly random events happening which produced a functional molecule from which other coherent linearly related functions accumulated?

That would be an arbitrary step in the process. I'm not sure why you are trying to put a pin on the timeline as some "beginning". You might as well put a pin on the timeline when your parents had sex and you were conceived. That was a beginning. But that beginning came after many steps, each that had their own beginning in a lineage of beginnings.

 

[setarcos]

A billion years - a million millennia - feels like a long time when you're watching the clock.

Perhaps from the standpoint of a human with an expected lifespan of no more than 120 years + or - a few years at most.
Start looking at the probabilities involved in some of these events and a billion years on a cosmic scale isn't even the span between the closing and opening of eyelids of a cosmic eyeblink....so to speak

 

[ChristineM]

Eh

Any element that exists in this universe (except hydrogen and helium) up to iron are created in the furnace of suns. Once a sun begins creating iron it is the death of the sun. Creating iron requires more energy than is available. The sun dies, depending on how it dies it creates different heavier elements with the supernova creating the heaviest.

 

[F1fan]

I think your being a little harsh here. This is a curious individual with questions and proposals about the workings of the universe. Like most of us on here. Nothing wrong with beginning with broad strokes and then teasing out the details as the conversation develops.

Not harsh. He has been down this road before, and has been given answers before. Asking again is, to my mind, harsh and a bit of an abuse of the forum. Seriously, why keep asking the same questions in new threads as if the facts and science has changed?

 

[setarcos]

It did. The first step in the formation of all matter was symmetry breaking, which generated the fundamental particles and forces.

How can you say it did when absolutely no intention was made in this symmetry breaking to evolve DNA?
DNA didn't have to evolve...did it? At some point you trace DNA's supposed evolution back to a point before which no discernable evolving process inevitably has to produce the beginning's of the components leading to an identifiable DNA molecule with accompanying functions. So the components at some point long after the expansion weren't there and then they were there. A random event placing the beginnings of DNA long, long, after the Big Bang not at the Big Bang or even from the Big Bang.
Make sense?

 

[setarcos]

Not harsh. He has been down this road before, and has been given answers before. Asking again is, to my mind, harsh and a bit of an abuse of the forum. Seriously, why keep asking the same questions in new threads as if the facts and science has changed?

Okay, didn't know that, guess their not getting the answers they want....or need, or even understand they answer the question.‍

 

[Ella S.]

Eh

Stars create new elements through a process known as hot fusion.

Essentially, they get so hot that they create a new stage of matter. Rather than solid, liquid, or gas, the core of stars burn so hot that matter becomes plasma. Rather than dancing around rapidly as whole atoms like they do as gases, atoms now begin to be sort of ripped apart into smaller particles and smash into one another.

This means that the atomic nuclei (composed of neutrons and protons) are ripping apart and smashing back together inside of stars, which means that they're constantly forming and destroying atoms. Due to the chaotic nature of this process, many of these new atoms have a greater number of particles than the helium and hydrogen atoms the star formed from.

Elements are defined by the number of neutrons and protons you find in the atomic nucleus of that element. So new elements are made when helium and hydrogen atoms fuse together, combining the neutrons and protons they already have because the intense heat of the stars sort of "melts" them together.

I am oversimplifying a little bit here, but this is the general process that creates new elements within stars.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How can you say it did when absolutely no intention was made in this symmetry breaking to evolve DNA?

Intention is irrelevant. I don't know why you think otherwise.

DNA didn't have to evolve...did it?

I don't see the relevance there either. I'm assuming you had a reason for posting that, but I can't tell what it would be. Maybe you should articulate your points with more words to connect them to the topic at hand. OK, there was no intention for DNA to evolve, and perhaps its existence is contingent.

At some point you trace DNA's supposed evolution back to a point before which no discernable evolving process inevitably has to produce the beginning's of the components leading to an identifiable DNA molecule with accompanying functions.

Same answer. Why are you making this point? Also, we don't know when in the evolution of our reality the advent of DNA became likely or inevitable. It could very well be at T=0+. It may well be that once quarks and electrons and their properties were defined by symmetry breaking that the rest was inevitable.

A random event placing the beginnings of DNA long, long, after the Big Bang not at the Big Bang or even from the Big Bang.
Make sense?

Same answer. What difference does it make when or if such an event occurred, or whether it was necessary or contingent? It would just be another step in the evolution of matter and then DNA either way.

 

[Jimmy]

Any element that exists in this universe (except hydrogen and helium) up to iron are created in the furnace of suns. Once a sun begins creating iron it is the death of the sun. Creating iron requires more energy than is available. The sun dies, depending on how it dies it creates different heavier elements with the supernova creating

Any element that exists in this universe (except hydrogen and helium) up to iron are created in the furnace of suns. Once a sun begins creating iron it is the death of the sun. Creating iron requires more energy than is available. The sun dies, depending on how it dies it creates different heavier elements with the supernova creating the heaviest.

Maybe there were suns and dying suns before the Big Bang that were integrated in the Big Bang.

 

[F1fan]

Maybe there were suns and dying suns before the Big Bang that were integrated in the Big Bang.

LOL, no. You don't understand the basics. The material of suns came AFTER the BB event. The material of the BB was a super dense singularity where all the material of the universe was compressed. There was no other material for suns.

You need to do some 7th grade level science homework.

 

[Jimmy]

LOL, no. You don't understand the basics. The material of suns came AFTER the BB event. The material of the BB was a super dense singularity where all the material of the universe was compressed. There was no other material for suns.

You need to do some 7th grade level science homework.

There’s no evidence for that.

 

[Jimmy]

LOL, no. You don't understand the basics. The material of suns came AFTER the BB event. The material of the BB was a super dense singularity where all the material of the universe was compressed. There was no other material for suns.

You need to do some 7th grade level science homework.

All the material? All? All the way to infinity? And beyond?

 

[ChristineM]

Maybe there were suns and dying suns before the Big Bang that were integrated in the Big Bang

The standard model does not indicate that possibility.