Is there really information being conveyed within a cell?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@theaz101

@Rumraket

@theaz101

I think that the fact that rRNA and tRNA are post-transcriptionally modified by proteins is better explained by the hypothesis that “all parts of the system were created at the same time”.

Explain why!

I said earlier that I believe a naturalistic origin of life has to be a “bottom-up” process vs the "all parts

This isn’t an explanation for why rRNA or tRNA being post-transcriptionally modified is supposedly more expected/more likely on the hypothesis that “all parts of the system were created at the same time”, than on the hypothesis that the translation system evolved.

Evolution is in it’s most basic form a theory of descent with modification. It says that things change over time, over generations, and therefore will gradually appear more and more different from however they looked in the past. Post-transcriptional modification is neither unexpected, nor unlikely, nor unexplained on evolution. So why is it somehow a piece of data favoring your idea? What leads you to think creationistm raises our expectation of post-transcriptional modification over and above that of evolution?

It’s just blatantly obvious you’ve never truly thought all that deeply about any of this, and couldn’t defend any of these shallow, mostly-based-on-a-feel, never-truly-considered ideas you have.

@theaz101

If you’re going to use peptidyl transferase or other rRNA as evidence for RNA world, then you have to show how it can be produced and function without any involvement with DNA or proteins.

No I don’t have to show any such thing. This demand that I am required to show what might have occurred in the ancient past, in order to say that some data point is evidence favoring hypothesis A over hypothesis B, is both logically false (a data point can be evidence of a hypothesis even if I can’t show, empirically, the truth of every entailment of that hypothesis), and also fundamentally a hypocritical demand since you are entirely incapable of showing the thing you think really occurred to give rise to life, the translation system, or whatever (creation by divine fiat).

In other words you are demanding of me what you cannot do yourself, and you don’t even truly believe is required to be rationally convinced of the truth of some proposition. Because here you are believing life was divinely created and you have never seen such a thing occur. As such it simply cannot be the case that you require such a thing in order for something to be reasonably believed.

@theaz101

If you want to say that peptidyl transferase can catalyze the bond between amino acids without the help of proteins, you also have to show that it can perform that catalytic action without first being modified by proteins.

That I can show:

Landmark achievement in RNA world experiments:

So apparently researchers have succeeded in finding a highly reduced RNA-only ribosomal core capable of catalyzing multiple successive rounds of peptide bond formation, resulting in 9-mers of polylysine: Abstract Ribosomal protein synthesis is a central process of the modern biological world. Because the ribosome contains proteins itself, it is very important to understand its precursor and evolution. Small ribozymes have demonstrated the principle of “RNA world” hypothesis, but protein free peptide ligase remains elusive. In this report, we have identified two fragments in the peptidyl transfer center that can synthesize a 9-mer poly-lysine in a solution contains Mg2+. This result is deduced from isotope-shifting in high resolution MS. To our best knowledge, this is the longest peptide oligo that can be synthesized by a pure ribozyme. Via single molecule FRET experiments, we have demonstrated the ligase mechanism was probably by substrate proximity via dimerization. We prospect th…