RNA thoughts -- Ben's Message Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Monday, May 19, 05:23:43am

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: RNA thoughts

Author:
Damoclese

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10/16/04 6:00pm
In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "RNA world" on 10/16/04 3:35pm

. For instance,
>while some RNA strings have catalytic properties (one
>of the reasons why DNA requires enzymes) the vast
>majority don't.

Assuming that RNA strings that have deoxyribozymes in them are small, approximately how many would it take in order to bring about evolution so that other RNA strands could evolve?

High-fidelity replication is also a
>problem.

I'm not sure "high fidelity" replication is a problem in the beginning. So long as it was close enough, it would seem that time would be enough to help refine the replication techniques.

Also the RNA-world hypothesis certainly it
>doesn't solve the problem of biological information
>necessary to code the relevant enzymes for DNA.

So you think that given enough time, RNA that self replicates leading into proteins which produce DNA could NOT have lead to enzymes for DNA?

So
>you still have the problematic jump to the DNA-enzyme
>relationship. In any case, the paper I looked up
>didn't address the problem it was allegedly supposed
>to.

Honestly, I'm not a biologist up to date on all the literature out there, but it would seem to me you are making a rather bold claim that RNA that self replicates leading to DNA could NOT then make the appropriate enzymes. Is that accurate?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
More thoughts.	Wade A. Tisthammer	10/31/04 1:53pm