[scottyiu]

Which came first the DNA, RNA or protein? i know there is no answer but can anyone give their thoughts on this? I am interested to know.

[cool A-level student]

well 1st off the molecules and elements which make it up would build up i guess.
and then form molecules, the smaller stuff at first like amino acids and RNA ect…
and would later develop into more complex molecules like DNA and proteins, i would GUESS that DNA came 1st as its the instructions to build proteins in the first place, but then again how did the ribosomes be built in which make proteins? its a rather confusin issue like which came 1st teh chicken or the egg, they need eachover to exist.

what do the rest of you think?

[Jelanen]

Speculation is that RNA was first since RNA does all the really cool RNA things and it can also be information storage like DNA.

-Jelanen

[Avalbane]

It had to start somewhere…even though RNA makes the proteins I’d say protein came first, because protein is the building block for organisms. Or, DNA, RNA, and protein all came into existance at once.

[canalon]

quote Avalbane:

It had to start somewhere…even though RNA makes the proteins I’d say protein came first, because protein is the building block for organisms. Or, DNA, RNA, and protein all came into existance at once.

Well the problem is that you are thinking using analogies, and not a good one at that… There are many building blocks for living organisms, ans proteins are not the only one. As for the “DNA, RNA, and protein all came into existance at once”, i would just suggest that you imagine how likely it is that such a thing happened. I certainly do not agree with Behe’s irreducible complexity argument (simply an admission of intelectual if you ask me), but I am sure that the complexity was built one block at a time.
Then even though there is no proof that DNA came first (some suggested mineral crystals) we know for sure that we are looking for a self replicating molecules, and RNA which has the same replicating ability than DNA plus some catalytic activities really looks like the best candidates. Until proven wrong that is…

[scottyiu]

I have put a poll in the off topic section. So if you want to poll, go to the off topic section…

[nddionne]

any reference, anyone? need something for my thesis

[MrMistery]

Check any molecular evolution book(but of course, you won’t find biochemistry books that detail opinions about the beggining of life at every street corner)

[victor]

I can think that the existance of DNA as our genetic information now is because of RNA’s positive-feedback process..

[Jumpshooter]

*This is no longer a topic of debate, consideration,or experimentation amongst the modern research community–mainly because it does not matte which came first. The key Questons these days are: how do we reglate mutation in DNA? How can we inhibit RNA synthesis Reverse Transcriptase? This is mainly for drug discovery like herpes, HIV, and bird flu. At this point in our History of Science no one is really concerned about what came first. Sorry

[fleu]

maybe it isn’t today the main topic but it is still useful to give some thought for the question. In our school we got this topic as a homework and it forces as to think about dna, rna and proteins in general. and I think it is useful….
😉 Could someone tell me why protein didn’t came first?

[fleu]

I mean if it didn’t.. 😆 some arguments for protein?!

[Nite]

i would think that it’s protein since amino acid has smaller structure than nucleotides…
if it were to be protein, perhaps earliest form of entity to exist are something similar to prions??

[Ultrashogun]

The Hypercycle theory explains this, it says that Nucleotids formed because of organic molecules in the primordial atmosphere combined to form small RNA molecules which catalysed, like ribozymes, the formation of more RNA.

So I guess it was the RNA because it can function as an enzyme on top of storing information.

[victor]

quote Nite:

if it were to be protein, perhaps earliest form of entity to exist are something similar to prions??

For Prions, you forget one thing….it’s "infectious" word…Prions are kind like an infectious proteins that synthesized by the cell itself…

[reem]

well……….
i think after the discovery of a human cell (old one 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 years ago 😯 )

evolution is not longer considerd any more ! 🙄

[MrMistery]

what human cell? i don’t know of anyone that old..

[alextemplet]

I think someone forgot to take his finger of the "0" button . . . 😯

[Dr.Stein]

Viewed from the protein synthesis – DNA is a template for RNA, then RNA will initiate the protein synthesis

Viewed from the evolution – amino acid was created at the first time as a major component of organism (Oparin) but this still a theory since none able to prove on creating a organism from ancient components as mentioned by Oparin.

So…?

[reem]

will i dont think my molecular biology doctor was lying to the whole class 😕

they found this cell and measure its radiation and found out that its a very old cell ❗

and researches are still on it !

🙂

[victor]

I also have some difficulities finding the related references in my Microbiology book: cell’s ancestor.

[MrMistery]

a human cell that old? where did they find it? and how did they decide it was human and how did they decide it was that old? Tell your professor to give a reference or people will probably think he is insane

[reem]

i will as soon as he come back from France 🙂

[pitch]

My opinion is that the first wich appeared necessarily need to have at the same time an informative fonction and a catalic fonction, although RNA hasn’t a high stability, it is for me the most serious candidate. 😉

If the subjet interest you I advice you to read, a conceptually marvellous book: The Selfish Gene,2nd Ed. by Richard Dawkins

[pitch]

I forgot to say that there is another possibility in an atmosphère composition wich was completely different. Maybe some other kind of molecules wich support life were be present and stable, and it is after that all the organic molecule that we know appeared.

[victor]

quote MrMistery:

a human cell that old? where did they find it? and how did they decide it was human and how did they decide it was that old? Tell your professor to give a reference or people will probably think he is insane

I don’t think it’s the human cell because human cell is the type of cell that can live if supported by the tissue which surrounding it…while cell’s ancestor is believed kinda live solitary (I mean without tissue support..)

@Pitch
ancient atmosphere is different from now because at that time, there’s not much oxydator like Oxygen..

[reem]

quote :

Tell your professor to give a reference or people will probably think he is insane

i think its crazy that u would be a monkey if u were born befor 100000000000000000000000000000 years 😯

any way every one have its own opinions u dont have to believe mine and i dont have to believe urs but we have the right tell !!!!!!!!! 🙄

[victor]

Hey, you have to differ between monkeys and primates..

[MrMistery]

Don’t be rude please. We are scientists, civilised people not primates(not monkeys either 😉 )

[Dr.Stein]

quote MrMistery:

Don’t be rude please. We are scientists, civilised people not primates(not monkeys either 😉 )

Who said we are NOT primates? We ARE! Human, monkeys, and apes ARE primates! 🙂 Check your taxonomy book 8)

[victor]

quote Dr.Stein:

Who said we are NOT primates? We ARE! Human, monkeys, and apes ARE primates! 🙂 Check your taxonomy book 8)

see highlighted…till what level? because in the molecular level, DNA sequence from those three are different about 8%..according to one of my bio lecturer..

[Dr.Stein]

OF COURSE their DNA IS different to each other because they ARE different species 🙂

This is the taxonomy of Primates: (click the figure to view it in full-sized)

For further information, click here: http://imgt.cines.fr/textes/IMGTreperto … mates.html

[victor]

Ach so..

[Dr.Stein]

Ja, das ist so 😉 Aww somebody could ask me to stop speaking german (again) 🙄 😛 😆

[MrMistery]

Ok Ok you know what i meant when i said we are not monkeys. I said it metaphorically, not taxonomically

[Dr.Stein]

Yaa, there is always a reason for a thing 😆

[victor]

Yup, everything is relative..you should said that its relative to…:lol:

[Dr.Stein]

Ahahahahaha Vic, I love your new names. It inspired me to get a new name for myself. What about this… Dr.Stein: Smallus sweeticus, L.F. or this one… Dr.Stein: Smarticus sillicus crazynensis, L.F. 😆

[victor]

I get inspired from one cartoon (wile E.coyote and road runner)..and later, I make the name of myself…I think everyone should have one..:lol:..um, just call it a bio-nickname..:mrgreen:

[Dr.Stein]

Yeah agree 😀 But you don’t give a comment on mine yet 🙄 😆

[2810712]

About who came first: who [u]came first on earth [/u]is the question , so imust not confuse it with who was first incorporated with the living system or who first formed lining systems. Now as Oparin got nitrogen bases i think it might be RNA or DNA but RNA is my opinion as it has U which is less complex. But we can’t say as DNA might have come on earth due to an astral body.

good names vic. and Dr.
two years ago i and some of my froends classified the students in the class on diff basis like and used binomial[nomenclature]
some geni [ pl. genus]

-Lipidobombus [ lipid bombs]another was Stickata [ sticklike] [ nobody normal, as everybody felt that others are abnormal 😆 ]

I was Stickata complexus due to my complex thinking as some say.

Shrei

[Dr.Stein]

quote 2810712:

some geni [ pl. genus]

Shrei

It is "genera" 😉

[2810712]

thanks… i kind of forgot it…scientists are used to forget simple things… :Pso my journey towads a great scientists has begun 😆

Shrei

[beams]

Reading the following argument someone put forth is typical of so many darwinist responses:

Avalbane wrote:
It had to start somewhere…even though RNA makes the proteins I’d say protein came first, because protein is the building block for organisms. Or, DNA, RNA, and protein all came into existance at once.

Well the problem is that you are thinking using analogies, and not a good one at that… There are many building blocks for living organisms, ans proteins are not the only one. As for the "DNA, RNA, and protein all came into existance at once", i would just suggest that you imagine how likely it is that such a thing happened. I certainly do not agree with Behe’s irreducible complexity argument (simply an admission of intelectual if you ask me), but I am sure that the complexity was built one block at a time.
Then even though there is no proof that DNA came first (some suggested mineral crystals) we know for sure that we are looking for a self replicating molecules, and RNA which has the same replicating ability than DNA plus some catalytic activities really looks like the best candidates. Until proven wrong that is…

=== That last line is what gets me. Evolution isn’t fact simply because it’s not disproven. The odds of even a single strand of DNA forming on it’s own are astronaumical due to it’s simple make up, yet; complex ORDER of composition. What’s more you would need hundreds of thousands if not millions of strands to form and survive to replicate. There are still way too many questions remaining unanswered for me to go with adaptation of single species (and remember there are millions) as the foundational origin of all life. What ‘catalytic activities’ is he refering to? A man and woman hanging out in a garden, talking to God? He may as well present that from a scientific stand point. Evolution is taught as fact because we have no other apporixmation of solid evidence. You know, a fat man could fit down my chimmney with gifts on Christmas, but he couldn’t do it 250 milliion times in one night and that’s why I stopped believing in Santa in Kindergarden.

[canalon]

quote beams:

That last line is what gets me. [… snip, look above …] Evolution is taught as fact because we have no other apporixmation of solid evidence. You know, a fat man could fit down my chimmney with gifts on Christmas, but he couldn’t do it 250 milliion times in one night and that’s why I stopped believing in Santa in Kindergarden.

First, please use the quote function, it makes things clearer to understand, thx.

Second and more important, if you want to discuss that, we have a topic just about that in the evolution and darwinism. In this forum, we will tolerate only the accepted scientific explanation. So unless evolution is disproven, we will accept it as a fact in all forums but the evolution one. You expressed yourself, I won’t delete your post, nevertheless all further posting here about ID will be deleted. Thanks

[Sepals]

quote scottyiu:

Which came first the DNA, RNA or protein? i know there is no answer but can anyone give their thoughts on this? I am interested to know.

I don’t have time to read through all the replies so someone may already posted this. It is widely believed that the precursors to actual life were replicating clays. This gradually evolved into replicating oragnic molecules and then bits of RNA and than actual RNA within bacteria like life forms in what was called a RNA world. Cells evolved by lipids forming about this molecules. DNA (more complex as is regulated by more complex enzymes and is double stranded etc) evolved afterwards.

[canalon]

quote Sepals:

I don’t have time to read through all the replies so someone may already posted this. It is widely believed that the precursors to actual life were replicating clays. This gradually evolved into replicating oragnic molecules and then bits of RNA and than actual RNA within bacteria like life forms in what was called a RNA world. Cells evolved by lipids forming about this molecules. DNA (more complex as is regulated by more complex enzymes and is double stranded etc) evolved afterwards.

It is NOT widely believed or accepted (which would be more correct) at all. This model has been offered, but is full of problems. The model still prefered, although not complete either is the RNA world hypothesis.

[Sepals]

quote Canalon:

quote Sepals:

I don’t have time to read through all the replies so someone may already posted this. It is widely believed that the precursors to actual life were replicating clays. This gradually evolved into replicating oragnic molecules and then bits of RNA and than actual RNA within bacteria like life forms in what was called a RNA world. Cells evolved by lipids forming about this molecules. DNA (more complex as is regulated by more complex enzymes and is double stranded etc) evolved afterwards.

It is NOT widely believed or accepted (which would be more correct) at all. This model has been offered, but is full of problems. The model still prefered, although not complete either is the RNA world hypothesis.

Really? That’s what I was taught at uni and it’s in my recommanded text. What are the pot holes?

[beams]

quote Canalon:

quote beams:

That last line is what gets me. [… snip, look above …] Evolution is taught as fact because we have no other apporixmation of solid evidence. You know, a fat man could fit down my chimmney with gifts on Christmas, but he couldn’t do it 250 milliion times in one night and that’s why I stopped believing in Santa in Kindergarden.

First, please use the quote function, it makes things clearer to understand, thx.

Second and more important, if you want to discuss that, we have a topic just about that in the evolution and darwinism. In this forum, we will tolerate only the accepted scientific explanation. So unless evolution is disproven, we will accept it as a fact in all forums but the evolution one. You expressed yourself, I won’t delete your post, nevertheless all further posting here about ID will be deleted. Thanks

Ok,

I’ll quote from now on. I just came here to seek possible answers to questions concerning our origins. I need clarification. What is accepted scientific explanation? I’ve heard strong and credible scientist propose all kinds of theories but they range from DNA occurring from a chemical reaction caused by commentary gases coalescent with Earth, to repressive proteins that would normally obstruct replication, but somehow gave rise to areas in replication that created new strands. I’m not into religion but I have a sneaking suspicion that perhaps there are more complex answers seldom visited, but equally plausible. DNA requires RNA and proteins, but proteins also require RNA and DNA . There’s also something else I’m wondering about: Genetic markers show (seemingly) irrelevant – ‘junk’ DNA, held over from previous evolutionary changes or adaptations – the thing that I don’t understand is that alterations in DNA are almost always fatal. We are so genetically different from Neanderthal that we couldn’t have produced offspring with them, and the fossil record shows that they abruptly ceased and Cromagdon was introduced, rapidly – much too rapidly for the known chronological scale of development required for evolution. What I’ve been taught since high school is that there was some anomaly resident to the proteins and RNA that ignited self replication – but again, any changes to genetic architectures are usually fatal to the organism. It’s as if everything I think of in explanation is paradoxical, hence negated by what (or which) came first. Sorry to ask so much. By the way, these questions aren’t challenges, I’m sincere and I’m just wondering if you or someone else could give me some insight.

[Khaiy]

quote beams:

I’ll quote from now on. I just came here to seek possible answers to questions concerning our origins. I need clarification. What is accepted scientific explanation? I’ve heard strong and credible scientist propose all kinds of theories but they range from DNA occurring from a chemical reaction caused by commentary gases coalescent with Earth, to repressive proteins that would normally obstruct replication, but somehow gave rise to areas in replication that created new strands. I’m not into religion but I have a sneaking suspicion that perhaps there are more complex answers seldom visited, but equally plausible. DNA requires RNA and proteins, but proteins also require RNA and DNA . There’s also something else I’m wondering about: Genetic markers show (seemingly) irrelevant – ‘junk’ DNA, held over from previous evolutionary changes or adaptations – the thing that I don’t understand is that alterations in DNA are almost always fatal. We are so genetically different from Neanderthal that we couldn’t have produced offspring with them, and the fossil record shows that they abruptly ceased and Cromagdon was introduced, rapidly – much too rapidly for the known chronological scale of development required for evolution. What I’ve been taught since high school is that there was some anomaly resident to the proteins and RNA that ignited self replication – but again, any changes to genetic architectures are usually fatal to the organism. It’s as if everything I think of in explanation is paradoxical, hence negated by what (or which) came first. Sorry to ask so much. By the way, these questions aren’t challenges, I’m sincere and I’m just wondering if you or someone else could give me some insight.

It likely was protein that came first, as it’s a more simple structure, but I’m not going to recap the whole thread (nobody wants that).

The experiment you’re describing specifically (the Miller-Urey experiment of gases in the atmosphere) is no longer the "dominant" theory, but it shares the same basis as the current one: that amino acids necessary for life formed from components and conditions already found on Earth at that time. No one (at least not from any theory I’ve ever heard) has posited that DNA or RNA suddenly formed before amino acids, or anything of the sort.

Proteins don’t require DNA and RNA, they could potentially just form from amino acids, which can form from their component bases. However RNA may have arisen, it doens’t have to be a circular paradox with DNA.

And you’re providing the explanation to your question right along with it. The changes to genetic architecture are usually fatal; that means not always. It’s exactly the same along with evolution. Most mutations aren’t expressed, and of the ones that are the results are often irrelevant or crippling or fatal. But the ones that work spread into a population, because they benefit the organism. So no matter how many fatal changes there may have been, it only would take one change that worked to create a new mechanism.

As for the ‘junk’ DNA, it’s not necessarily a holdover from previous generations. It’s called a teleomer, and it’s non-coding DNA, essentially it does nothing. Every time that DNA is replicated, it cuts off a small amount of DNA on the teleomer, slowly moving towards the coding DNA at the top of the strand. As long as there is DNA on the teleomer it’s fine, but once you run out of it you start to lose coding DNA, and some proteins suddenly stop being produced. So it does serve a purpose, just not the same purpose as the rest of your DNA.

I’m not 100% sure specifically what you mean about the Cromagdon, could you clarify this?

I hope I helped with some of your questions. Oh and one minor thing, could you break up your posts a bit, so it’s not just one huge lump of text?

[canalon]

Not Much to add to what Khaly said, but …

There is nodefinitive conclusion on how life appeared on earth, you can read the thread on abiogenesis in this forum for more detail. But the RNA world seem definitely to have the lead for the most likely. Until a more convincing hypothesis come out, of course.

I guess Cromagdon stand for Cro-Magnon. As far as I know (but I am not a specialist of human paleontlogy) they are 2 branches of the human family. And Cro=magnon, our ancestor, wiped out the neanderthal. Why? who knows…

Junk DNA is definitely a misnomer, we don’t know why it’s here, but it may not be such a junk. Telomere are a good example but account for only a part of its role. Other roles have also been suggested such as spacer between genes allowing a regulation of expression.

As for the danger of mutation, the neutralist theory was suggesting that most of the mutation are indeed silent. not fatal, and even if this theory is loosing its appeal, this still stand true. And some other work suggest that some chaperone proteins could buffer some of the more significant mutations (not the stop one though, but the one changing proteins structure). This allow some interesting speculation about a molecular mechanism for punctuated equilibrium too.

Cheers

[Nithin]

Hey Hi,
I put this question to my lecturer and we were lost in this topic for nearly 2 hours. We also could not decide which actually came first since one requires the other for formation. We just came to the conclusion that, initially there was a giant pool or chemicals from which simpler stuff like amino acids, sugar molecules etc were formed with the help of some processes. maybe lightning or something, then the next simpler one RNA and then DNA and proteins.

We also came to another interesting solution that proteins came first. From the great pool already discussed, enzymes were formed which were required for various process like transcription, translation, replication and maybe reverse transcription. And according to someone (I do not remember) all enzymes are proteins, and so thus proteins came first.

Either way we hopelessly contradicted ourselves and we decided it was not important what came first, and it ended there.
😕

[12345]

Either this Nithin must be a really the most intelligent fella or the most dumbest guy on this earth.

[Nithin]

I admit i am a very slick guesser. But i discussed the topic with my lecturer

[Mjhavok]

Central Dogma is RNA –> DNA — PROTEIN.

Truth be told we don’t really know for sure at the moment.

[2810712]

Lot good things told here…

‘which came first?’ even if we know it , we be rarely applying or using it except our test on evolution topic! BUT the process of finding out answer, even if much slow, would give many intellectual insights and lot of knowledge about "the earth earlier" & these qualities and knowlede is not only useful in predicting future but also in any field which requires intelligent thought as getting answer to this question is a really a great exersise to out tinanimous brains!!!
But finding the past seems "the exersize unending" because there is always a yesterday to a yesterday 🙄 …i.e. yesterday always lies there behind…

hrushikesh

[Homeostasis]

one-celled organisms came first and had all three inside them.

[david23]

when you guys keep on saying protein came first, do you mean peptide chains? Cause a fully functional protein has to fold with the tertiary structures. Only a few simple proteins will just form on their own. The complex enzymes usually need other enzymes and chaperone proteins and perhaps a working ER to do this.

The reason behind RNA being the first is because RNA can also form into ribozymes, simple enzymes that can catalyze peptide synthesis.

[Homeostasis]

I really dont think protein came first, because since the world was so hot back then, the proteins would have easily denatured.

[Chemist84]

I have been thinking about this thing too.. In a biochemistry course we must write an essay about which one of these three came first. The essay should be 2 sides of a A4 paper, not longer than that.. It’s just hard to think what to write. Our instructions say there is no wrong or no right answer. But as I just said it’s still hard to know what to write and where to start from.. Any ideas? Maybe I find some ideas by reading through this thread?

[Dov Henis]

On RNA Cell Faring Programs

The chicken and egg story…
RNAs are still Earth’s primal organisms, who made the genome as their functional working templates…(BTW, they also made the cell enclosing membranes as their functional organs…)

Cell Faring Programs Involve Transcription Factors,
Made By RNA Genes From DNA Templates Made By The Genes,
Transcription Factors That Activate Genes,
The RNA genes.

A. TGF-beta acts as a transcription factor
http://www.answers.com/topic/tgf-beta
Transforming growth factor beta (TGF-beta) is a protein synthesized by skeletal cells, found in most species, that controls proliferation, cellular differentiation, and other functions in most cells.

B. Myc produces DNA binding protein
http://www.answers.com/topic/myc-2
myc = Any of a group of vertebrate oncogenes whose product, a DNA binding protein, is thought to promote the growth of tumor cells. Possibly from my(elo)c(ytomatosis virus).

C. From "How Cells Protect Themselves from Cancer"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 101653.htm

– Two protection programs work together, through an interaction with normal immune cells, to prevent tumors.

– The oncogenes themselves can activate these cell protection programs in an early developmental stage of the disease. They trigger apoptosis (programmed cell death), and senescence (biological aging) is triggered by another oncogene, the ras gene. Senescence stops the cell cycle, and the cell no longer divides.

– First Myc oncogene triggers apoptosis in the lymphoma cells. The dying cells attract macrophages of the immune system, which devour and dispose of the dead lymphoma cells. The thus activated macrophages secrete messenger molecules (cytokines), including the cytokine TGF-beta, which can block the growth of cancer cells in the early stage of a tumor disease, by switching on the senescence program.

D. From "Red and white blood cells come from different sources" ???
http://www.sciencenews.org/index/generi … tem_cells_
Researchers (in mice) distinguish two different types of blood stem cells??? All stem cells are not created equal???

– In the blood, millions of diverse cells die every second. To keep up with this loss, stem cells continually divide to create the correct balance of cell types, which include oxygen-carrying red blood cells and a menagerie of immune cells.

– The hitherto thought was that one single type of blood stem cell in the bone marrow continually replenish the blood system throughout a person’s life. Recent studies hinted that blood stem cells have distinct behaviors, but the different kinds of cells were pinpointed only now, using different dye stain markers.

– While each type of stem cell was able to produce every kind of blood cell, the team found a clear difference in end-products ratio: One type of stem cell produced many more red blood cells than immune cells, and vice versa.

– What’s more, as the mice aged, the relative amounts of these stem cell types shifted. As mice got older, the stem cells that create more red blood cells made up a larger proportion of all stem cells, beating out the immune-cell–biased stem cells.

– The researchers also observed that TGF-beta1 spurs red blood cell–producing stem cells to divide and at the same time represses division of their immune cell–producing counterparts. They suggest that these different actions of TGF-beta1 may allow fine-tuning of the ratio of different stem cell "subtypes".

Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
03.2010 Updated Life Manifest
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/ … .page#5065
Genomes Are RNAs-Made Patterns-Manuals
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/ … .page#4819

[iBioLogist]

check out Stanley miller experiment and you will find out! its your assignment 😉

[Dov Henis]

New Era For Science Including Genomics ???

From: Dov Henis
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 10:43 PM
To: genome biologists
Subject: A new era for science including genomics ??? Please examine carefully…

Yesterday, SN , after many years of refusing my similar postings, SN posted my following statement-comment:

http://www.sciencenews.org/index/generi … rs_and_out
Biorhythms Schmiorythms
Circadian Schmircadian sleep origin?

Life sleeps because RNAs genesized, evolved from inanimate nucleotides into self-replicating nucleotides, organisms, of course long before metabolism evolved. They were then active ONLY during sunlight hours. Thus sleep is inherent for RNAs, even though, being ORGANISMS, they later adapted to when/extent sleep times are feasible just as we adapt to jetlag or night work time.

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
Apr. 12, 2012 at 9:10am
===========================

From: Dov Henis
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2012 9:05 AM
To: genome biologists
Subject: FW: A new era for science including genomics ??? Please examine carefully…

Unbelievable?! Here’s another one…

From: Dov Henis
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2012 9:06 PM
To: ‘editors@sciencenews.org’
Subject: On Pavlov and genes…

Fatty Diet Leads To Fat-Loving Brain Cells
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic … rain_cells

Learn from Pavlov:
Fatty diet lead to fat-loving RNA-nucleotides genes, Earthlife base primal ORGANISMS.
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/2011/12/22/rna … organisms/

===================

Since the above two statements are basis for the following statement, may it also soon pass the SN “peer review”… ?!

USA Science? Re-Comprehend Origins And Essence

• Higgs Particle? Dark Energy/Matter? Epigenetics? All YOK!
• Earth-life is just another, self-replicating, mass format.
• All mass formats follow natural selection, i.e. intake of energy or their energy taken in by other mass formats.
• Evolution Is The Quantum Mechanics Of Natural Selection.
• Quantum mechanics are mechanisms, possible or probable or actual mechanisms of natural selection.
• Life’s Evolution is the quantum mechanics of biology.
• Every evolution, of all disciplines, is the quantum mechanics of the discipline’s natural selection.

See:
Update Concepts-Comprehension…
http://universe-life.com/2011/12/13/21s … d-whither/
Earth life genesis from aromaticity-H bonding
http://universe-life.com/2011/09/30/ear … h-bonding/
Universe-Energy-Mass-Life Compilation
http://universe-life.com/2012/02/03/uni … mpilation/
Seed of human-chimp genome diversity
http://universe-life.com/2011/07/10/see … diversity/

============

Respectfully,
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)

[JackBean]

What I see is only comment on another article, not publication of your nonsense.

[JorgeLobo]

Well said, jack.

[Author]

Posts