if amino acids formed RNA and that's how evolution started. can we see it happening now.?

Question

we see mico evolution happening becuz its fast. but can we see this stage of it happening. logic would tell me that that stage would be fast to becuz its even smaller. or does'nt it go on that logic. does that stage take the longest time of all? or what?

whats wrong with texting one word. its a simple word to understand. i think it says more about you than it does me when you write that.

whats wrong with texting one word. its a simple word to understand. i think it says more about you than it does me when you write that.

Answer 1

Write this without texting and maybe I'll read the question.

Answer 2

You're unlikely to see it happening *now* mostly because there's already life forms all over the planet. Back a billion and a half years ago, there were just some amino acids and nothing was consuming them other than breakdown due to heat, ultraviolet light from the sun, and so on. So concentrations could build up until they got high enough for something interesting to happen. Most estimates are that it wasn't fast at all, but that it took on the order of hundreds of millions of years before a bunch of amino acids got lucky and formed something resembling an RNA molecule.

These days, there's very few places where amino acids are being formed that doesn't *already* have a microbe or two living there, eating the amino acids as fast as they form. The amino acids never get a chance to spend millions of years trying chance combinations, because they're usually gone by lunchtime.

Answer 3

maybe you're talking about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegelman_Monster

but i don't think that anyone thinks that that's how evolution started. the system doesn't self assemble, it requires rna replicase and an rna template at the start to initiate replication. what it does demonstrate is that error-prone replication and evolution by natural selection are basically chemical processes. this does suggest that life could have formed from simpler chemical systems, but doesn't demonstrate it.

according to the RNA world hypothesis, amino acids and proteins are late inventions in the system of life:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis

Answer 4

Not that fast, and unprotected proteins, RNA or DNA get eaten in the wild.
The fastest evolvers at the moment are retroviruses like HIV.
They mutate faster because they work by writing their DNA backwards from their RNA into the host cell's chromosomes.
The RNA to DNA method makes lots of mistakes.

RNA (retro) viruses evolve so fast that they can change even as they are being treated in one patient.

Answer 5

Too slow for me. Evolution takes place within thousands to millions of years. Thats why only a few notice changes in the following generations.

Answer 6

There is no such thing as micro evolution, it's evolution period. Christians have separated the term to fit their needs because they can't deny the faster form of evolution in smaller organisms, but they deny the longer form of evolution which takes several years.

Answer 7

The logic of the layperson (who can't spell or capitalize properly) is not the same thing as the informed opinion of the expert.

Answer 8

you know that kinda makes me wonder.
I've always heard that a bowl of red beans and rice is, nutritionally, a complete amino acid.

Does that mean if red beans and rice were planted in the same field, we'd start a new species?

Answer 9

Computer simulations put the odds of observing it directly at 1,000,000,000,000 to 1, but the same simulations put the odds of it happening within a billion year time period somewhere on earth, at near certainty.

Are the models accurate enough? i don't know, but they tell us something about what we should expect to observe nonetheless.

Answer 10

And to populate the earth in all its complexity it would have had to happen how many times? I believe that changes the odds a little, thank GOD. lol