Is there really information being conveyed within a cell?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@theaz101

Your whole spiel falls apart because you’re wrong about this.

No I’m not. You’re irrelevantly citing literature referring to the the biosynthesis of organismal ribosomes, rather than the PT fragments used in this experiment (which are not taken from some living organism, but bought from a biotech company that literally synthesizes the nucleic acid sequence specified by the customer).

The paper says:

The 5′-biotinylated ptc1b RNA and ptc1a RNA molecules are purchased from IDTDNA. The 3′-ends are labeled with the “3′ EndTag™ DNA End Labeling System” from the Vector@Laboratories.

And just to stave off your confusion, 5’-biotinylation and 3’- labeling are synthetic methods used in molecular biology to facilitate adherence and immobilization of the molecule to specific surfaces and to aid detection of the molecules in various assays, they normally don’t have any implications for the functional capacity of the molecules in questions.

@theaz101

The papers that you linked to don’t support translation at all because

I never claimed they support translation, at least at this early stage of the evolution of the translation system. They do support the concrete empirical reality that RNA can catalyze peptide bond formation in the absense of protein. I would greatly appreciate it if you spent some time trying to remember and comprehend the context of the discussion we’re having.

@theaz101

Your papers only show that ribozymes have catalytic function which is something that I’ve never denied.

And yet you clearly didn’t believe the PT center can catalyze peptide bond formation without either the help of proteins, or without being post-transcriptionally modified by proteins. Which that 2nd quote of yours you like to ignore shows.

@theaz101

You described Darwinian evolution (mutation + natural selection) without providing for replication. Without a method of replication, you’re just waving your hands.

Already answered literally in the quote of my words you respond to. Your reponses are just getting stupid, honestly.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@theaz101

This is why I think the prediction of RNA World is pointless.

How does the prediction (a ribozyme performs a role of translation) confirm the hypothesis (“RNA did everything”)?

How is this even a question?

The idea is that RNA constitutes a plausible and simpler precursor to the present system where DNA and protein are co-dependent. With RNA performing the roles of both genetic information storage and chemical catalyst.

Since for this hypothesis to be viable RNA must have the functional capacity to actually carry out at least some of these functions, finding empirically in experiments that RNA has the functional capacity to actually carry out these functions is therefore support of that hypothesis.

Since the alternative hypothesis—that RNA never did these functions in the past—does not require that RNA nevertheless can do them, then the observation is more expected on the reality that the RNA world hypothesis is true than it is on the alternative that it is false, and it is therefore evidence that supports the RNA world hypothesis.