Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9027 total)
47 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 43 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,427 Year: 1,073/14,102 Month: 65/411 Week: 86/168 Day: 3/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Simultaneous Evolution?
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1488 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(2)
Message 9 of 42 (574189)
08-14-2010 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sac51495
08-14-2010 2:38 AM


Hi, Sac.

sac51495 writes:

But DNA (information) is completely useless, that is unless it has RNA (the language interpreter).

This part of your argument is plausible. I'm not sure how accurate it is, but let's assume you're right that DNA cannot function without RNA.

-----

sac51495 writes:

But RNA serves no function unless there is DNA (information) to be interpreted.

This part or your argument, however, is clearly inaccurate.

RNA and DNA both do pretty much exactly the same thing. RNA stores information just like DNA does, and it stores that exact same information. Dividing the two "roles" of the molecules into "information storage" and "information interpretation" is just playing with words, like Mr Jack said.

RNA does not really require the presence of DNA to function. RNA can store information in the same way that DNA does. In fact, there is a common type of virus that uses RNA to store information: the retrovirus.

The "RNA World Hypothesis" is the idea that RNA was doing its thing long before DNA came on the scene. And, RNA seems fully capable of living up to the hype. With such a hypothesis as this, Abiogenesis proponents have essentially discredited this entire issue of simultaneous evolution/irreducible complexity that you raise here.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sac51495, posted 08-14-2010 2:38 AM sac51495 has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1488 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 21 of 42 (575852)
08-21-2010 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by sac51495
08-21-2010 12:55 AM


Re: RNA World?
Hi, Sac.

sac51495 writes:

Typically, mRNA gets information for amino acid sequencing (this is slightly generalized) from the DNA, and then tRNA and rRNA may act as catalyzers [sic] for the process of protein synthesis.

Since marking your own mistakes with “sic” is rather inexplicable, and since I can’t find the word “catalyzer” anywhere else on this thread, I'm curious as to whether this is actually your own writing.

-----

sac51495 writes:

...but please notice something about all of this: besides from some difficulties with the actual steps, one must realize that the steps are mere possibilities (if that), and really only serve as an escape device for evolutionists.

When other valid possibilities are brought onto the table, your assertion that RNA and DNA must have evolved simultaneously loses its automatically-assumed-as-true status, and becomes nothing more than one of the mere possibilities itself.

When autocatalytic ribozymes are known to exist, it’s difficult to take seriously your argument that RNA can’t function without DNA.

-----

sac51495 writes:

Dr. Adequate mentioned that "a lot of the most basic nuts and bolts of the process of making proteins consist of RNA enzymes such as tRNA and rRNA". This is indeed true, but it does not support the notion that RNA, in and of itself, can carry out all of the necessary functions for life, including reproduction.

You’re missing the basic point. What “necessary functions of life” did RNA have to carry out on its own other than self-replication?

A “ribo-organism” would have been nothing more than an autocatalytic ribozyme, a molecule that replicates in a pool of water. Such an “organism” did not have to do anything but self-replicate. It could become intermingled with DNA and proteins later.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by sac51495, posted 08-21-2010 12:55 AM sac51495 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by sac51495, posted 08-24-2010 9:40 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021