|
|
Re: Question regarding evolution.
Keith Norris (keith@gecko.biol.wits.ac.za)
Thu, 17 Oct 1996 09:55:25 LOCAL
lemnitz@sim.zipnet.com (lemnitz) writes:
>Assuming that a form of life, however simple, could be spontaneously
>created from it's chemical components, how would it reproduce? As far
>as I can tell, the first organism would have had to posess these
>attributes:
>- A DNA system, or perhaps a precursor to DNA - necessary for storing it's
> genetic makeup.
>- A system to transmit this information to its offspring, however simple.
>- Some apparatus capable of building a new organism based on the DNA.
>- A system for absorbing from its surroundings the energy necessary for
> reproduction.
The first 'life' (i.e.self replicating 'thing') would most probably have been
DNA itself, RNA, PNA (protein nucleic acid), or some other chemical reaction.
Many have been hypthesised, including clay crystals...its a very good
argument, don't laugh!! Well thought out. If you like e-mail me and I'l dig
up the reference. The point is, nothing needed to be built using the DNA (or
whatever) as the original was not a cell, but merely a self-replicating
molecule.
>Obviously, were these not in place, the organism would eventually die, and
>earth would be back where it started - lifeless. Looking back on what I've
>just written, I suppose my real question is this: Am I to believe that a
>spontaneously produced creature could possibly be as complicated as I've
>loosely detailed here,
No you are not. No creature could ever possibly be spntaneously created, but
a could chemical process could evolve more and more complexity.
Keith Norris
|