Re: O.K. Heres one.

On Aug 27, 3:40 pm, spintronic <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 27 Aug, 16:09, Prof Weird <pol...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 27, 6:26 am, spintronic <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In the so called R.N.A-world hypothesis.

RNA ribozymes, are touted as the enzymatical saviours of abiogenesis &
evolution.

But you have 2 problems.

1) For this to occur. You need *REALLY-REALLY-SHORT* ribozymes.

Certainly less than 100 bases long.

Most of ones DEMONSTRATED to have function are about that size.

You then tout, about how such a ribozyme is possible.

SINCE THEY EXIST, they are indeed possible (researchers have developed
ribozymes, and isolated them from RANDOM SEQUENCE LIBRARIES), and
there are a few naturally occurring ones

I'll stop you right there.

Mainly because I've just shown spintwitty is full of sh*t - the FACT
that ribozymes about 100 bases long DO exist castrates his festering
argument.

He will now evade into a non-sequitor with :

What do you mean "naturally occuring"?

You make it sound as though you have witnessed abiogenesis as we
speak.

I WAS TALKING ABOUT RIBOZYMES, SIMPLETON. There are naturally
occuring ribozymes, and they have been created in the lab. They are
small - minimum useful size is about 70 or so bases; biggest (IIRC) is
a ribozyme that polymerizes DNA (at about 175 or so bases long). The
FACT that ribozymes exist shows quite readily that they are possible -
unless you'd like to gibber : "Don't let the FACT that they exist lead
you to believe that they exist !!!"

Here's a lesson for you. You haven't.

And *existance* is no more proof of abiogenesis than saying we have
CPU's therefore CPU's evolved.

Silly, Silly argument.

Yes, YOUR whining evasion is quite silly spintwitty. The FACT remains
that ribozymes are small, and so it is quite definite that ribozymes
exist.

 (IIRC, splicing in Tetrahymena, and viroids.  Viroids are RNA-based parasites of plants
with RNA based genomes 200-400+ base pairs long, and form hammerhead
ribozymes to cleave their own genomic RNA to become infective).

And?

The smallest Viroid has 220 nucleobase scRNA .

It's as inert as the Jabber you spout on a daily basis.

VIROIDS ARE INFECTIVE AGENTS SIMPLETON ! They catalyze their own
cleavage from linear to circular RNA.

(They are generated via the rolling circle mode of replication - the
RNA folds up and cleaves itself to form an INFECTIVE circular viroid
genome and a linear RNA with a free 5' end. And the cycle repeats).

Catalyzing specific cleavage VITAL FOR REPLICATION AND INFECTION is
not 'inert' as you desperately need to believe.

And has no enzymatical activity at all.

Cleaving itself at a specific location is considered an activity
simpleton.

The ones that cleave their own genomne are at least 2 thousand bases
long.

Cite for that ?

*ALL* are useless without a host RNA polymerase II.

RNA poly II merely makes them; CLEAVING THEMSELVES INTO THEIR
INFECTIVE FORM is a ribozyme activity.

But you then ignore 2.

2) mRNA is sometimes *thousands* of bp's long, and exhibits *NO*
enzymatical activity at all.

So ?

Yes. Another *over your head point*.

Screamed spintwitty at the face in the mirror.

Why, EXACTLY, would you expect very long mRNAs to have any sort of
activity (other than the fact that ribozymes and mRNA are both made of
RNA, and you have a pathological need to bellow about things you don't
understand ?)

You seem to be under the delusions that 1) your ignorant
opinions are somehow worth listening to,
and 2) that ALL RNA strings should have enzymatic activity.  Both
delusions are wrong.

Why would you expect mRNA to have enzymatic activity ?

Why doesn't it fold?

It does fold - BUT NOT ALL FOLDS GENERATE RIBOZYME ACTIVITIES.

So you now have to have;

1) mRNA that doesn't fold
2) mRNA that translates to some function.

All from RNA that was supposed to do the whole chebam.

Once again, simpleton : NOT ALL RNA FOLDS GENERATE RIBOZYME ACTIVITY.

So einstein, how do you go from a genome that is an enzyme, that codes
enzymes, that produces mRNA that has no function, that translates into
proteins that perform the function's the RNA is supposed to do in the
first place?

The first RNA genome most likely transcribed active ribozyme RNAs NOT
mRNAs, and so would NOT be making 'mRNAs with no function' as you so
stupidly claim it must have.

mRNA was a later add-on once the genetic code (which tRNAs paired up
with which amino acids) developed - mRNA is a processed copy of RNA
transcribed from DNA; and THUS HAD TO DEVELOP LATER.

And your 'explanation' is what again ?

"Shhh, pause for a brief silence.
Look, a tumbleweed passes by, as the churchbell rings."

Oh, right - you're a simpleton that noticed that since ribozymes and
mRNA are both made of RNA, then mRNA MUST
have enzymatic activity too.

Your the simpleton whose missing the point *again*.

Screamed spintwitty at the face in the mirror, once he realized he was
shown to be wrong and incompetent about yet another subject.

In much the same way that since all
apples are fruits, all fruits MUST be apples.

No.

Yes - not all RNA sequences are ribozymes.

The problem you have here is more akin to saying,

Only useful mathematics gets us from A -> B.

But B is mathematically useless.

Yet B gets us from C -> D.

Over your head I suspect.

Given that your verbal flatulence is completely irrational and a non-
sequitor at best, only a deranged simpleton with delusions of adequacy
would mistake the resulting confusion for profundity, then prance
about as if he were smart - much like what you're trying to do.

Once again, simpleton : not all RNAs are ribozymes. Only certain
folds produce activities, so there is no reason to expect mRNAs (which
are more vital as carriers of information between the nucleus and
cytoplasm) to have ribozyme activity.

According to R.N.A-World Hypothesis, every time DNA is transcribed,
that mR.N.A should in effect perform some enzymatical activity enroute
to being translated.

So I have a question.

Why doesn't it?

Because there is no reason to EXPECT a non-ribozymal RNA to have
activity.

How many mRNA's are there?

0 have activity?

None that anybody has detected (given the number of ways to NOT have
an activity compared to number of ways to have an activity, no real
impetus to look. But if you CLAIM an mRNA has ribozymal activity, it
would be up to you to back up the claim, not sit on your arse and
demand that everyone else try to prove you wrong).

So how did the *original RNA-world Genome* or & your DNA know to
choose only mRNA's that have 0 activity?

You are beginning to sound as deranged as Nando - ribozymes are small,
and their functions are derived from the specific ways they fold; mRNA
DOES NOT HAVE TO FOLD LIKE THAT, so there is no reason for it to have
functions; no 'choosing' required.

Ribozymes have been evolved from random sequence libraries - but they
required constant SELECTION for ribozymal activity (something mRNAs do
not have, as far as anyone can tell).

Since your DNA had no choice in the matter, and somehow has the
remnants of the RNA-worlds genome,
how did the RNA-worlds genome know to only encode RNA genomes that
would one day be transferred to
DNA, that would have to have mRNA that encodes 0 activity, that comes
from RNA that has activity?

how did it know?

SELECTION ON WHAT WORKS - sequences that enables the critters to live
were retained; those that didn't got lost or mutated. No 'choosing'
or 'knowing' required on the part of the proto-cells.

Because the RNA world hypothesis DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT mRNA;

Sure it does.

Only your deranged 'version' of it.

Every enzymatical activity that any RNA-World ribozyme had would have
to be stored in a genome.

An RNA-based genome that went extinct billions of years ago as DNA-
based protein systems took over.

That genome would have to be *COPIED* & transferred to a DNA genome.

Or just converted into a DNA genome (reverse transcriptase makes DNA
copies of RNA templates).

That DNA genome when transcribed *BACK* into the RNA it came from
*SHOULD* recode the original
RNA's activity into the mRNA it has been transcribed into.

So why doesn't it have the same activity as the original RNA?

Because those original RNA ribozymes mostly went extinct a few billion
years ago when proteins took over the job of catalysis.

DNA doesn't have the ribozymal capabilities of RNA - DNA is more
chemically stable, so makes a better storage medium.

it only states that RNA did the work of enzymes until proteins could take
over the job, relegating most RNA to a messenger role.

But how could proteins take over?

Start as cofactors to help ribozymes fold. Useful way to tag a tRNA
as available or other ways. Given there are more amino acids than
nucleotides, the proteins' versatility gave it a selective advantage.

Proteins mostly come from DNA genomes.

Which are supposed to come from RNA's (from the RNA-world).

How could you have the *switchover* since, when you do, and transcribe
the DNA into mRNA.

In effect you are recreating the *original* RNA, (Which was suppose to
have activity).

Yet no mRNA's have activity. Or they would never get translated.

Actually, mRNA of any sort can be translated (the ribosomes and such
DON'T KNOW OR CARE what the mRNA they are translating 'means' - they
just catalyze chemical reactions). So there is no requirement that
mRNA have ribozyme activity.

RNA polymerases with make an RNA copy of DNA WHETHER OR NOT THE DNA
CODES FOR ANYTHING OR NOT - all the polymerase does it catalyze
reactions.

Ribozymes are NOT mRNAs. Once proteins took over catalytic functions,
ribozymes mostly went extinct.
(selection would work on optimizing protein mRNAs, which tolerate more
ambiguity - there are many different codons
for one amino acid, so there is no selection to retain a specific RNA
sequence like there was for ribozymes).

And your 'explanation' is what again ? "An unknown being with
unknowable abilities somehow did stuff for some reason sometime in the
past !!" ?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: O.K. Heres one.
    ... RNA, and you have a pathological need to bellow about things you don't ... Since the RNA genome encodes functional RIBOZYMES, then any mRNA ... BECAUSE IT ISN'T BEING TRANSLATED INTO PROTEIN. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: O.K. Heres one.
    ... ribozymes to cleave their own genomic RNA to become infective). ... Why would you expect mRNA to have enzymatic activity? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: O.K. Heres one.
    ... RNA, and you have a pathological need to bellow about things you don't ... Since the RNA genome encodes functional RIBOZYMES, then any mRNA ... when transcribing this *ORIGINAL* DNA. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: O.K. Heres one.
    ... all RNA over a certain length be a ribozyme, ... That RNA genome is then converted yo DNA. ... That DNA encodes the *ORIGINAL* Ribozymes. ... Now when you transcribe the DNA into mRNA. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Protein Takeover. PNs scenario
    ... later replacement of one of those ribozymes with another enzyme ... all the mapping between amino acid and tRNA occur via A and C ... Recycling RNA with ribozyme ribonucleases is in fact ...
    (talk.origins)