Early RNA Life

Unfortunately, the less technical, generally the less accurate the source. I will try to find something less technical...Keep in mind that, as jar has stated, a telephone interview interpreted by a reporter is not the best source for scientific info. I once gave a telephone interview on my findings, was very explicit regarding the limitations of the reasearch, and the resulting article misleadingly exaggerated many of the points anyway. I was also misquoted.Regarding Wimmer's statement "You cannot synthesize RNA. So we converted the sequence from RNA into DNA. And DNA you can synthesize." - it was likely taken out of context, or Wimmer was trying to simplify for sake of a lay audience.It would have been more accurate to state, "It is possible to synthesize RNA directly. However, it is easier and more efficient to work with DNA, and convert it to RNA at that last step of the synthesis." This was likely the actually case. A stylistic note; The first sentence was a direct quote from one of the sources I provided - make sure you indicate that in your posts, please.Unfortunately, you didn't finish the quote with the next line, as in: The first sentence was merely intro; the second describes their results - they produced an RNA molecule that catalyzes replication (that's what a polymerase is).That's why I posted this reference, since it provides what you are asking for... If you don't find this acceptable evidence, I can try to find something else...

Of course not! There is much, much more to be learned about abiogenesis. I would expect some decades before all the pieces are approximately put in place.In any case, it is unlikely that we could ever "prove" what process took place. Even in a very loose use of the word prove. There may be many paths from chemicals to "life". It is very unlikely that the evidence remains that will say which one was actually used.

It's a bit difficult - searching for laymen's articles on the abiogenesis theory yields mostly creationist websites against it. One design site included the sentence "RNA is difficult to produce chemically," thus even those against abiogenesis theory admit RNA can be produced chemically. If you end up reading from the creationist/design sites, and come up with something you think falsifies RNA world theory I'd be happy to discuss it with you - some things pointed out are gaps in knowledge, others are downright misleading.Also keep in mind that the majority of the detailed research in RNA synthesis and enzymatic activity has taken place in the past ten years or so - if you see a website only quoting from the eighties and prior it is severely outdated.The Wikipedia entry on the "RNA world" may be helpful, with lots of linked entries for terms you may be unfamiliar with...Here's (somewhat rambling) lecture notes on the history and theory of abiogenesis - I don't know if every detail is accurate.Or try here, and scroll down to the list of links subtitled "Origin of Life and Cells."Enjoy!Out of curiosity, are you convinced yet that RNA can be synthesized without DNA or protein?

Hey Nosy,Would it possible to change the title of this thread, perhaps to something like "Early RNA "life"; formerly Prions"?The "prions" title is far from accurate, and perhaps others will be interested in the RNA world hypothesis discussion.Thanks.