Re: RNA World

In message <46whi.5118$vi5.1163@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Perplexed in Peoria <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes

"spintronic" <spintronic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1183218670.685290.255730@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 30, 4:29 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> "spintronic" <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in >messagenews:1183213769.078576.16960@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > On Jun 30, 3:05 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > > "spintronic" <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in > > >messagenews:1183208767.225277.118850@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Any ardent "RNA World Hypothesis" adherents still around in > > > >here these
> > > > days?
>
> > > The Wiki article
> > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis>
> > > begins with the sentence:
> > > The RNA world hypothesis is a theory which proposes that a
> > > world filled with RNA (ribonucleic acid) based life predates
> > > current DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) based life.
>
> > > I guess I qualify as an adherent of that much, though I disagree
> > > with a lot of the other ideas mentioned in that article. I would
> > > be an *ardent* adherent if the definition instead stated that
> > > heritable RNA catalysis (ribozymes) predate heritable protein
> > > catalysis (enzymes). IMO, the case for that is overwhelming.
> > > I remain a bit agnostic as to whether RNA predates DNA.
>
> > > But my main problem with the Wiki article is that it mixes up
> > > the "RNA World Hypothesis" with the "RNA First Hypothesis".
> > > See this article by Shapiro
> > > > > > > >><http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=B7AABF35-E7F2-99DF-309B8CE...>
> > > for a clear statement of the difference between the hypotheses.
>
> > > I agree with "RNA World". I strongly disagree with "RNA First".
> > > If you wish to argue against "RNA First", you have my approval,
> > > but please call it that.
>
> > > I also request, in a sense of fairness, that if you are going to
> > > attack a hypothesis, you state clearly what alternative hypothesis
> > > you support. I request this without the faintest hope that my
> > > request will be granted. I may be an optimist regarding abiogenesis,
> > > but not regarding human nature.
>
> > Your right, in that a "RNA First" hypothesis is untenable. So what
> > alternatives are there?
>
> There are several ideas out there.
> - Metabolism first.
> - Some other kind of naked gene first
> - PNA
> - Clay (Cairns-Smith)
> - Intelligent design of the whole shebang (DNA, RNA, ribosomes, proteins)
> in a single step.
>
> I notice, without surprise, that you have failed once again to say what
> ideas you support.

Oh, I didnt come here to spout theories. Only to identify holes where
I see them!

I see. And why do you think that is useful, or even interesting?

Identifying problems is a useful activity. (Reiterating already known problems less so.) The question is whether he has the visual acuity and necessary knowledge to do so. That he earlier wrote "No matter; you all know many human ancestry fossils have been proved to be humans with genetic diseases." does not inspire confidence that it is so.

--
alias Ernest Major

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: RNA World
    ... world filled with RNA (ribonucleic acid) based life predates ... But my main problem with the Wiki article is that it mixes up ... I also request, in a sense of fairness, that if you are going to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: RNA World
    ... world filled with RNA based life predates ... I remain a bit agnostic as to whether RNA predates DNA. ... But my main problem with the Wiki article is that it mixes up ... I also request, in a sense of fairness, that if you are going to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: RNA World
    ... world filled with RNA based life predates ... But my main problem with the Wiki article is that it mixes up ... I also request, in a sense of fairness, that if you are going to ... in that a "RNA First" hypothesis is untenable. ...
    (talk.origins)