Evidence for the integrity of the Discovery Institute

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

The mere invocation of the name of a Nobel winner proves nothing.

There was no mere invocation of a name.

@Eddie

Please show me where Tom Cech denies the description of the “RNA world” hypothesis that is given in the Encyclopedia of Evolution.

In the linked article, literally in the title, supporting it throughout the article with a massive amount of evidence. Invocation of an encyclopedia on a scientific matter is absurd, but that’s all you’ve got.

@Eddie

I never denied that RNA had catalytic properties.

Ah, but the point is that you were conned into believing that RNA isn’t doing major catalysis TODAY. That’s Meyer’s whole con.

It’s not that it CAN, it’s that it STILL DOES; we’ve learned all of that since the RNA World hypothesis was first advanced. That’s why we obviously live in the RNA World today.

@Eddie

t doesn’t follow from the fact that Cech worked on RNA’s catalytic properties that he uses the term “RNA world” differently from others.

Good grief. You will write pages of drivel, but can’t even click on an obvious link. It’s the entire theme of Cech’s article:

Within the past few years, RNA research has reached new heights. It’s now clear that RNA catalysis has a much more central role in biology than many would have guessed. Furthermore, RNA often controls the expression of genes, another role that had been thought to be at least mostly the domain of proteins called “repressors” and “transcription factors.” [omitted by Meyer]

Very recently, however, this issue has been revisited. In another branch of the bacterial kingdom, RNA elements built into messenger RNAs can directly sense the concentration of small metabolites and turn gene expression on or off in response. These riboswitches fold into intricate structures that can distinguish one metabolite from another (5). [omitted by Meyer]

@Eddie

As for Art Hunt, he has not yet spoken on the meaning of the phrase “RNA world,”

Wow. That’s utterly false. Do you have early-onset dementia?

@Art thoroughly schooled you on this very point almost three years ago:

@cwhenderson

@Eddie

Certainly, if you aren’t aware of how the phrase “RNA world” is generally used, I would say that you aren’t familiar with the OOL literature at all .

Slow down, Eddie. I strongly suspect @Art was exactly familiar with how the term was used over 30 years ago after Altman and Cech. The term isn’t very popular anymore because it tends to ignore the central role of RNA in living organisms today. You are fighting an irrelevant fight with someone that outclasses you in this particular area. Please give it a break.

@Art

@Eddie

If you could just admit that you were stretching the phrase beyond its normal meaning,

LOL. @Eddie dreams he is more an authority than say, Tom Cech:

There are two RNA worlds. The first is the primordial RNA world, a hypothetical era when RNA served as both information and function, both genotype and phenotype. The second RNA world is that of today’s biological systems, where RNA plays active roles in catalyzing biochemical reactions, in translating mRNA into proteins, in regulating gene expression, and in the constant battle between infectious agents trying to subvert host defense systems and host cells protecting themselves from infection. This second RNA world is not at all hypothetical, and although we do not have all the answers about how it works, we have the tools to continue our interrogation of this world and refine our understanding. The fun comes when we try to use our secure knowledge of the modern RNA world to infer what the primordial RNA world might have looked like.

My usage of the term is well, well within its normal meaning.