QUOTE(thesupertramp @ Jan 4 2010, 05:15 PM)
One in a million, or billion, chance, is still a chance. The chemical that interacted with one another that ultimately led to the formation of DNA had not one interaction, but a few hundred, maybe million billion interactions. So the formation of the first DNA (or RNA) is not actually surprising.
Comparing it to a pen, paper and novel is not appropriate because the DNA did not form from a one off reaction. It most likely formed one after the other. Eg: Bases formed, then other bases, then the Hydrogen bond, then the helix etc.
The more appropriate analogy would be to drop the pen on a different paper several trillion times, then rearranging those strokes created in several trillion different ways, and there ought to be at least one or two of those arrangements where there is a recognised word formed.
But then, why right now, there was no new forms of DNA?Comparing it to a pen, paper and novel is not appropriate because the DNA did not form from a one off reaction. It most likely formed one after the other. Eg: Bases formed, then other bases, then the Hydrogen bond, then the helix etc.
The more appropriate analogy would be to drop the pen on a different paper several trillion times, then rearranging those strokes created in several trillion different ways, and there ought to be at least one or two of those arrangements where there is a recognised word formed.
I mean, there's no prove in the real world that chemical reaction can create a new DNA for a primitive cell.
Jan 5 2010, 12:51 PM

Quote
0.0240sec
0.11
5 queries
GZIP Disabled