Early RNA Life

UACCGGAUGGCAUUGCGACCGGCCGDo you consider this complicated? This is an estimate of the complexity of the first RNA replicator at the genetic code level. That's it. It may have been even simpler. I think I see your misconception here. No "first life" "thing" made or nurtured the first RNA replicator.The RNA replicator was the first life.It would NOT take eons to "become viable". The RNA replicator would have the activity ("viability") the moment it appeared, immediately. Short RNAs without "viability" would simply be degraded; those with "viability" would persist and proliferate. We are NOT discussing evolution, we are discussing abiogenesis. Thus, the laws of evolution do not apply until after the first replicator exists. No "thing" made the first RNA replicator. The first RNA replicator arose randomly from chemical reactions.The RNA replicator had no "use" other than to make copies of itself.

quote:

---

"The abiotic synthesis of RNA remains the most enigmatic step in the evolution of the first life, for no one has yet succeeded in creating RNA."

---

They said evolution.Just like when the Frog said prions were life. I am again being played. I would post a few links, but i'm tired of doing your homework. Next you'll be wanting my lunch money.

"Evolution" as in "development" or "change over time", you know, like the "evolution of the automobile."Not "evolution" as in "the scientific framework that explains the diversity and history of life on Earth as a function of natural selection and random mutation working to change allele frequencies." No, you just don't know the definitions of the words you're reading.

RNA is routinely "created" in my lab and countless others, so this quote is either dead wrong or needs proper context. In fact, here is a commericial lab that will abiotically synthesize RNA for you for a small fee. Who is "they"? Don't be so rude and childish.I put together two lengthy posts complete with references to try to help you understand current abiogenesis theory.Now you call me a liar because an author used the word "evolution" in a general sense, separate of the "theory of evolution". See Crashfrog's post above - the word "evolve" and its derivatives do not exclusively refer to the theory of evolution.It would probably be appropriate for you to apologize at this point.

Sasquatch beat me to most of the punch. I'd like to emphasize one point s/he made (sorry PS, I haven't been around enough lately to know which), however. You said, This statement isn't entirely accurate. In the first place, Cech's autocatalytic RNA was something on the order of 570 bp. Makes that simple phage look positively gigantic. Secondly, RNA has some issues of its own, including stability etc. There may have been one or more precursor "genomes" that were even simpler. Examples include PNA (peptide nucleic acid) and pRNA (pyranosyl RNA - basically has an extra carbon atom). Both of which are inherently more stable than RNA. PNA is especially interesting as a possible precursor because a very few peptides have been discovered with autocatalytic properties (see, for example, Lee DH, Granja JR, Martinez JA, Severin K, Ghadri MR, 1996, "A self-replicating peptide", Nature 382:525-8, or Saghatelian A, Yokobayashi Y, Soltani K, Ghadiri MR, 2001, "A chiroselective peptide replicator", Nature, 409:797-801, as well as dozens of others). Whether or not these can form under plausible pre-biotic conditions remains to be tested.The point is, as PS noted, there is no quantum leap between verified prebiotic chemistry (like the natural formation of various nucleotide bases, amino acids, and other biologically significant macromolecules) and a fully autocatalytic system with more complexity. There remain some steps that we can't yet account for. However, that's what makes the field interesting - not all the questions have answers at this point.Getting back to my question - at what point are YOU defining "living" vice "non-living" systems?

I've been doing my homework, did you know you can't synthesize RNA.

What do you mean by "synthesize RNA"?I would take it to mean "set up a chemical process that has RNA as an output".What do you mean by the phrase?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-05-2004 08:08 PM

The fuck you can't - this company will synthesize RNA to order for you, and ship it to you in the mail: No webpage found at provided URL: http://ssl.lilac.co.jp/hssnet/e/2/2_1_1_6.html#2

Apparently, "doing your homework" didn't include reading my previous response to you above.RNA synthesis is commonplace, daily activity in the lab. Both Crash and I have given you links to labs that synthesize RNA commercially.

But I did, though you can buy synthesized RNA, RNA cannot be synthesized I posted this little riddle to see if you had been doing your homework.

No one has guessed my little riddle. I would think anyone that knew very much about genetics would have the answer immediately."You cannot synthesize RNA," Wimmer said. I should not have to tell you who Wimmer is.

He's that guy that was wrong about not being able to synthesize RNA.

Wimmer is Bob's guru. I googled Wimmer and went five pages deep without finding anything. Could be there's someting under the bridge.

He's probably talking about Eckard Wimmer from SUNY Stony Brook. He was quoted as using that phrase in a Rueter's article back when he announced they had succeeded in creating a Polio Virus in the lab. Since it appears that the whole article was based on a short telephone interview it's impossible to be sure of either the accuracy or context of the statement. Here is a link to the Rueter's article.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, I'm not an expert like some of the others so I sure don't understand how I can buy something (synthesized RNA) that can't be made.Would you care to explain?(added by edit)
Ah, perhaps I understand. You seem to be saying that you can not synthesize RNA directly. However, clearly using indirect means you certainly can synthesize RNA, or so it seems.Therefore I conclude you like to play little word games. You would rather play than actually discuss in a straight forward fashion.Meanwhile I'll wait for the real experts to clear things up.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-07-2004 01:25 PMThis message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-07-2004 01:29 PM