the primary soup contained both amino acids and nucleotides. More likely small RNAs and peptides were formed from them. Then these small RNA molecules interacted together and formed more complex RNAs with enzymatic activity (the ancestors of actual ribozymes). Peptides did the same thing together and formed more complex proteins. proteins and RNA interacted. From these interactions emerged some kind of memory preserved by these interactions that can assemble amino acids together (the ancestors of ribosomes). Then the complexity goes exponential and leaded to a more elaborated form of memory (information storage): the DNA. :)

According to the dogma, DNA is the first, then it become RNA and finally Protein. But, if your question about the term of DNA or Protein Origin, then this question like the origin of an egg vs a chicken.

Back to the question, it seem that DNA comes first, from simple compound to more complex compound. ..... To be continue

you have given the title origin of living being and asking the question about DNA or PROTEIN ? Is it about evolution of man or about DNA ?. my answer is protein is the first component which then the content with long chain of amino acid sequences form a DNA .according to the breaking up concept a chain of base pairs or base analogs form ATCG .....by watson and cricks model of DNA etc .and for origin of living being it has been evolved from homosapiens that is MONKEY. .

the primary soup contained both amino acids and nucleotides. More likely small RNAs and peptides were formed from them. Then these small RNA molecules interacted together and formed more complex RNAs with enzymatic activity (the ancestors of actual ribozymes). Peptides did the same thing together and formed more complex proteins. proteins and RNA interacted. From these interactions emerged some kind of memory preserved by these interactions that can assemble amino acids together (the ancestors of ribosomes). Then the complexity goes exponential and leaded to a more elaborated form of memory (information storage): the DNA. :)

Totally agree with Ahmed, that is how our theory says. You can also read "Miller–Urey experiment".

Thanks for your outstanding posting

I am satishfied with the ahmed essaghir answer because the rna is 1 component which gone for replication within self

and due 2 the most accepted and successful replication further and further rise to dna .

Ahmed summed it up pretty good. But in regard to Ananda, it seems that some would argue that a better source of energy than lightning in the "warm little ponds" on the earth' surface (e.g., Miller - Urey) are the deep thermal vents on the ocean floor. Those present a continuous source of incredible heat... and clearly the vents also provide a massive and continuous source of important nutrients for chemoautotrophs... Interesting to consider that "life" might have evolved at incredible depths under tremendous pressures and temperatures... and DNA replication occurring at 37 degrees actually evolved from replication that occurred under those "extreme" conditions.

Fresh news in this topic.

http://www.biotechniques.com/news/biotechniquesNews/biotechniques-327981.html?utm_source=BioTechniques+Newsletters+%2526+e-Alerts&utm_campaign=e5415f9387-Daily_03122012&utm_medium=email

I am working on fish genetic diversity in stream fishes particularly on the Puntius tambraparaniei, the species is endemic to southern western ghat in India and no genetic study has been conducted so far. I surveyed the entire distribution range of the species and recorded several morphological variations but to my surprise i did not get any haplotype in cytochrome b, 16S RNA and COI gene. I wish to study the phylogeography of Puntius tambraparaniei in the entire distribution range. I need the experts comments and further advice to look forward in this direction.

Interesting theories about the origins of life. But there are questions that are harder to answer. DNA contains its base sequences information that is both classified and specific. The code language that's most clearly understood by computer scientists, in their case strings of ones and zeroes but ACGT for DNA is both specific and classified. From the theory of information, natural processes are never known to have generated that kind of information that's both specific and classified.

Natural processes have however been shown to generate info that's specific e.g patterns in a snow flake but not classified so that it will need some form a decoding machinery to write back the info contained therein into another with subsequent expression of the intent supposed to be portrayed.

There are other issues that have not been addressed e.g within DNA is contained information that codes for another machinery i.e the repair system. The chicken and egg paradox comes back again. DNA and the repair system for maintenance of integrity, which came first? Now if there occurs a repair system how can you reconcile that with natural selection in simple terms? In fact, presence of a repair system impacts negatively on mutations that are supposed to further evolution.

So here is a system that is trying to maintain its integrity, to preserve information in it as intact as possible.

In conclusion, Information scientists state that information that is classified and specific can only come from a mind, a mind that created the information within DNA to contain in itself info for decoding into one for a decoding system and a repair system.

A closer look at molecular biology causes the evolution of DNA/RNA a remote thing. Someone must have designed life some how and was able to leave a signature.

According to ur question my reply is protiens containing amino acid sequences arises first than DNA which has coding system with several amino acid chains to form a structure of DNA compactly by bonding with one another .

Ahmed provided a nice summary.If you want to do some reading, just search on RNA world and you should find an extensive literature and a number of review articles.

In making proteins, the cell must first manufacture various amino acids. Ribosomes link the amino acids in a precise order to form a specific protein. Each protein must shape itself precisely or it can damage the cell. DNA is the “brain” that governs any cell's functions and instructs the ribosomes. A “simple” cell contains thousands of different types of proteins. (Each protein molecule can be made from as few as 50 amino acids or as many as several thousand – all must be in a very specific order.) Here's the sticky problem: RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. Enzymes are needed to produce ATP, but the energy from ATP is needed to produce enzymes. DNA is required to make enzymes, but enzymes are required to make DNA. Some of the proteins can only be made by the cell, but a cell can only be made with proteins. Outside the cell, molecules break down. Inside the cell, they cannot reproduce without the help of other complex molecules that have to be there at the same time.

To sum up: One simple living cell can only survive if it contains all the proper elements – DNA (which is impossibly complex by itself), RNA, proteins, amino acids, ribosomes, ATP, etc. Each one of these living components had to evolve individually from non-living matter – all at the same time and all inside the cell - or the cell would not survive. Further, they all had to “hit the ground running” - they needed to know how to synchronize immediately and to replicate, before the environment would destroy the cell.

If all of these components could individually evolve at the same time within that one cell, they didn't have millions of years to make a go of it. They didn't even have a day. With the first spark of life, it was sink or swim. Even if one living cell could evolve, before it dies, this whole scenario would need to be replicated unassisted and unhindered over and over and over again.

both evolved simultanously.

Thanks for the comment