Evidence for the integrity of the Discovery Institute

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

@Mercer

We still live in the RNA World.

No! You are misusing the term.

No. You are.

@Eddie

It was originally coined to name a hypothesis about the origin of life, in which life started before the DNA-RNA-protein system even existed.

And that hypothesis predicted that constraints on evolution would prevent all ribozymes from being replaced by proteins, but Meyer simply lied about that:

p. 298:
According to this model, these RNA enzymes eventually were replaced by the more efficient proteins that perform enzymatic functions in modern cells.

The bolded bit is a lie. The most important evidence is that some were not replaced. Meyer also easily concealed a second, still-existing class of RNA enzymes from you. The chapter is utterly dishonest.

@Eddie

Your science scholarship is really lousy.

@Art explained this to you very clearly:

@Art

@Eddie

If you live in an RNA World

No, I don’t. I live in a protein-DNA world in which RNA plays an important ancillary role. You need to learn the terminology. “RNA world” refers to a hypothetical world, allegedly prior to ours, in which RNA, not DNA, was the key player.

Eddie, you can say this over and over, all you want. Your ill-informed assertions do not change the fact that you live in an RNA World. The raison d’être for protein and DNA is to make RNA, specifically to make ribosomal RNA. RNA sits at the center of the goings on in the cell - the most important catalysts, the most important regulators, the most important communicators, are all RNA, or they derive directly from primordial mechanisms that center on RNA.

@Art

@Eddie

“RNA World” does not mean “any world, including today’s, in which RNA is an important part of life”; it means “a hypothetical earlier state of organic life, in which the modern DNA-protein system had not yet evolved, and RNA ran the whole show.” But since you seem obtuse on this point, I will let it go. You can read the origin of life literature, or you can ignore it, as you please.

With all due respect, @Eddie, I am much more familiar with the OOL literature than you. The fact that you cling to assertions and ideas that ignore the fundamental nature of life - today and at the beginnings of life - tells me that 'tis you who are ignoring things.

Getting back to the matter of Tour’s ill-conceived assertions in this regard - in ignoring that RNA even exists, Tour misses out on the identity of the central player, the key onto which any and all OOL scenarios must converge. No matter how one may spin things, the identification of the central feature of life (an accomplishment that is firmly grounded in the RNA World hypothesis) constitutes a huge achievement, one that puts the lie to Tour’s claims about the supposed futility of OOL research.

@Eddie

Read up on the history of the term before you argue about it.

I’m well aware of it. Perhaps you should have read up on the identity of peptidyl transferase before arguing about it for months.

@Eddie

The rest of your reply is just nit-picking pedantry (as it typical of your contributions on all websites I’ve seen you on), so I ignore it.

No, you “ignore” it because you can’t offer a cogent defense of Meyer’s and your dishonesty in this matter. And mentioning it means that you aren’t ignoring it.