Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Exegesisme

5 The Reproduction of The Earliest And Simplest Life

Recommended Posts

5 The Reproduction of The Earliest And Simplest Life, My Scientific Work​​

By Exegesisme

1 more than four billion years ago, a small peace of DNA was the earliest and simplest life.

2 the first small peace of DNA was formed naturally in grace of god, which means the natural conditions were created directly or indirectly by god.

3 god also created a natural mechanism similarly as the polymerase chain reaction of human science.

4 the day for high temperature, in which the double chains separated into single chains; the night for low temperature, in which new single chains were formed on the model of existed single chains, and paired with them to form new double chains; this process in cycles as day and night, and slightly different with weather and climate on seasons, years and other less regular factors.

5 such small double chains might be the earliest and simplest form of life on earth. From then to now, weather and climate are important to lives on earth.

Edited by Exegesisme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

more than four billion years ago, a small peace of DNA was the earliest and simplest life.

Do you have a cite for this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have a cite for this?

This is my judgement on my inspiration from my sleep meditation with scientific common sense.

Just now I looked for and found some information for you.

Now, two long-time University of North Carolina scientists - Richard Wolfenden, PhD, and Charles Carter, PhD - have shed new light on the transition from building blocks into life some 4 billion years ago.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-06-evidence-emerges-life.html#jCp

Edited by Exegesisme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my judgement on my inspiration from my sleep meditation with scientific common sense.

Just now I looked for and found some information for you.

That article doesn't say anything about DNA being the original form of life.

This is why science isn't done by meditation. That's called "pseudo-science" at best... seems more like "faith", believing in something with no good reason. Hogwash might be a better term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, researchers say they may have solved these paradoxes. Chemists report today that a pair of simple compounds, which would have been abundant on early Earth, can give rise to a network of simple reactions that produce the three major classes of biomolecules—nucleic acids, amino acids, and lipids—needed for the earliest form of life to get its start. Although the new work does not prove that this is how life started, it may eventually help explain one of the deepest mysteries in modern science.

“This is a very important paper,” says Jack Szostak, a molecular biologist and origin-of-life researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was not affiliated with the current research. “It proposes for the first time a scenario by which almost all of the essential building blocks for life could be assembled in one geological setting.”

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum

One more information. My hypothesis is more advanced than theirs, and answers the origin of the earliest life directly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That article doesn't say anything about DNA being the original form of life.

This is why science isn't done by meditation. That's called "pseudo-science" at best... seems more like "faith", believing in something with no good reason. Hogwash might be a better term.

You should discuss on my major reason. I did not say "DNA being the original form of life", what my proposition is "a small peace of DNA was the earliest and simplest life". Their works are just some material for my proposition.

And even my proposition is not the major topic of this thread. The major topic of this thread is the title: The Reproduction of The Earliest And Simplest Life. I believe I accounted the major topic contributively to scientific knowledge, and no one else accounted this form of life, and this form of reproduction at the very beginning of life on earth.

You forget science always grows from hypothesis. I believe I provided a new and sound theory for scientists to discuss, and finally they will agree with me, for this is the most likely way of the origin of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think scientists will be discussing anything that you come up with....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not a scientist if your opinion is reasonable.

Of course this is an absurd statement. I have a feeling what you meant to say was something more like;

"No new understanding is can be made if you don't think outside the box"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course this is an absurd statement. I have a feeling what you meant to say was something more like;

"No new understanding is can be made if you don't think outside the box"

As you said, that is just your feeling!

Could you show any evidence of the same theory before my theory about the origin of life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh...DNA as a molecule alone is useless.

It'd be like having a hard drive alone, without a computer to use it. More specifically it'd be a hard drive alone full of all the knowledge of the universe, but the concept of a computer had even been thought of yet.

If you are looking for a chicken or the egg....DNA is neither.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh...DNA as a molecule alone is useless.

It'd be like having a hard drive alone, without a computer to use it. More specifically it'd be a hard drive alone full of all the knowledge of the universe, but the concept of a computer had even been thought of yet.

If you are looking for a chicken or the egg....DNA is neither.

What you said is your problem, and also is very common thought.

My theory transcends your thought too much. What I reason is for the beginning of life four billion years ago.

1 Could you think anything before a chicken and an egg, and made chicken and egg possible?

2 Do you know anything before the first modern computer and made modern computer possible?

Edited by Exegesisme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...