Re: O.K. Heres one.
- From: spintronic <spintronic@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:51:21 -0700 (PDT)
On 28 Aug, 00:19, Prof Weird <pol...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 27, 3:40 pm, spintronic <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The ones that cleave their own genomne are at least 2 thousand bases
long.
Cite for that ?
Mistake.
But it's *off topic* anyways.
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 ?)
Well at least you're getting closer to *on-topic*.
Easy simpleton.
RNAgenome gets converted to DNAgenome at some crossover point in the
past.
Since the RNA genome encodes functional RIBOZYMES, then any mRNA
transcribed off that original DNA, would encode for the *ORIGINAL*
ribozymes *from* the RNA-world.
It's not hard.
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.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10075987
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.
My question *simpleton* is why do *ALL* mRNA's have 0 functionality.
*IF* your RNA -> DNA genetic takeover hypothesis were correct.
mRNA's *SHOULD* fold.
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.
Why would it transcribe mRNA's at this point simpleton?
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.
Now were getting somewhere.
*AFTER* the *SUPPOSED* RNA ->DNA genome crossover.
The original DNA-genome, would have had to encode the *ORIGINAL*
Ribozymes.
Now, when transcribing this *ORIGINAL* DNA. You would be transcribing
to mRNA's that are exact *COPIES* of the *ORIGINAL* ribozymes.
Now why did they *SUDDENLY* lose their enzymatical ability?
And your 'explanation' is what again ?
God did it.
"Shhh, pause for a brief silence.
Look, a tumbleweed passes by, as the churchbell rings."
I always pause for God. & find your own jokes, plagarist.
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.
Your the idiot, who doesn't know what subject we're on about.
Your as on topic as a:
Jockstrap salesman in a nunnery.
In much the same way that since all
apples are fruits, all fruits MUST be apples.
No.
Yes - not all RNA sequences are ribozymes.
And?
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.
Another paragraph that flew over his head.
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.
But now you have another problem.
Your *randomly* generated mutated gene must not only have a new use,
but also be a useless mRNA.
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
I could have told you that without moving from the couch.
Oh, I did.
(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 why are you trying?
And I never *claimed* mRNA's are active, I asked "why they aren't".
Again your as on topic as a:
Cricket bat salesman on a thalidomide ward.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: O.K. Heres one.
- From: Prof Weird
- Re: O.K. Heres one.
- References:
- O.K. Heres one.
- From: spintronic
- Re: O.K. Heres one.
- From: Prof Weird
- Re: O.K. Heres one.
- From: spintronic
- Re: O.K. Heres one.
- From: Prof Weird
- O.K. Heres one.
- Prev by Date: Re: Earthquakes
- Next by Date: Re: did man walk on the moon...and creationism.
- Previous by thread: Re: O.K. Heres one.
- Next by thread: Re: O.K. Heres one.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|