About That RNA World Hypothesis

_{Cornelius Hunter

January 21, 2018

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Given its widespread popularity and acceptance you might not have realized that the so-called RNA-World hypothesis suffers from some dramatic problems. At the top of the list is the rather awkward fact that there is, err, no evidence for it. While skeptics have pointed this out for years, we now see evolutionists coming clean on this inconvenient truth as well. To wit, here is how Peter Wills and Charles Carter open their recent BioSystems paper: Read more

Comments

chris Haynes @3: "Your upscale friends would call you a hick." That's really funny.Dionisio_{January 21, 2018
January
01
Jan
21
21
2018
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT}

THE RNA WORLD, AND THE ORIGINS OF LIFE http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2024-the-rna-world-and-the-origins-of-life The RNA world hypothesis, to be true, has to overcome major hurdles: 1. Life uses only right-handed RNA and DNA. The homochirality problem is unsolved. This is an “intractable problem” for chemical evolution 2. RNA has been called a “prebiotic chemist's nightmare” because of its combination of large size, carbohydrate building blocks, bonds that are thermodynamically unstable in water, and overall intrinsic instability. Many bonds in RNA are thermodynamically unstable with respect to hydrolysis in water, creating a “water problem”. Finally, some bonds in RNA appear to be “impossible” to form under any conditions considered plausible for early Earth. In chemistry, when free energy is applied to organic matter without Darwinian evolution, the matter devolves to become more and more “asphaltic”, as the atoms in the mixture are rearranged to give ever more molecular species. In the resulting “asphaltization”, what was life comes to display fewer and fewer characteristics of life. 3. Systems of interconnected software and hardware like in the cell are irreducibly complex and interdependent. There is no reason for information processing machinery to exist without the software and vice versa. 4. A certain minimum level of complexity is required to make self-replication possible at all; high-fidelity replication requires additional functionalities that need even more information to be encoded 5. RNA catalysts would have had to copy multiple sets of RNA blueprints nearly as accurately as do modern-day enzymes 6. In order a molecule to be a self-replicator, it has to be a homopolymer, of which the backbone must have the same repetitive units; they must be identical. On the prebiotic world, the generation of a homopolymer was however impossible. 7. Not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date from quadrillions (10^24) of artificially synthesized, random RNA sequences. 8. Over time, organic molecules break apart as fast as they form 9. How could and would random events attach a phosphate group to the right position of a ribose molecule to provide the necessary chemical activity? And how would non-guided random events be able to attach the nucleic bases to the ribose? The coupling of a ribose with a nucleotide is the first step to form RNA, and even those engrossed in prebiotic research have difficulty envisioning that process, especially for purines and pyrimidines.” 10. L. E. Orgel: The myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it should strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential. 11. Macromolecules do not spontaneously combine to form macromolecules 125. The transition from RNA to DNA is an unsolved problem. 13. To go from a self-replicating RNA molecule to a self-replicating cell is like to go from a house building block to a fully build house. 14. If two amino acids are located within the peptidyl transferase center, they will easily form a peptide bond. But as soon as you do that in the absence of the ribosome, the ends of the amino acids come together, forming a cyclic structure. Polymers cannot form. But if the ends are kept apart, by a theoretical primitive ribosome, a chain of peptide bonds could grow into a polymer. 30 15. Arguably one of the most outstanding problems in understanding the progress of early life is the transition from the RNA world to the modern protein based world. 31Otangelo Grasso_{January 21, 2018
January
01
Jan
21
21
2018
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

RNA World is "part of our most deepest, comprehensive understanding of physical reality" Top Scientists, including Nobel Prize Winners have been trying for 90 years to demonstrate your "deepest, comprehensive understanding of physical reality" with an actual experiment. All they needed to do is reproduce some reactions of simple chemicals in a lab. Here's what they got so far: A total flop. So nowadays, here's what the average Joe would conclude about your "deepest, comprehensive understanding of physical reality": Its wrong. Pure BS. But when you're an Atheist, and youre in a hole, you keep digging. I mean, what else can you do? Follow the evidence, give up on RNA world, and become a Creationist? Cant do that. Your upscale friends would call you a hick.chris haynes_{January 21, 2018
January
01
Jan
21
21
2018
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

@CH
Given its widespread popularity and acceptance you might not have realized that the so-called RNA-World hypothesis suffers from some dramatic problems.
Given their wide spread popularity and acceptance you might not have realized that our most successful theory, quantum mechanics, suffers from some dramatic problems as well. Specifically, they conflict with each other. Yet, both are part of our most deepest, comprehensive understanding of physical reality Your point? If not RNA, something like it will bridge the gap in the past because the gap is already bridged in current cells. The replications of cells can be modeled as network of construction tasks that eventually utilize generic, non-replication specific constructors.critical rationalist_{January 21, 2018
January
01
Jan
21
21
2018
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

Dr Hunter, you may find this bit of honesty from a Darwinist refreshing: For "RNA world" paper, Darwinian Nobel Laureate honestly confesses that,,, The errors were “definitely embarrassing,”,,, “In retrospect, we were totally blinded by our belief” and “we were not as careful or rigorous as we should have been.”,,,
”Definitely embarrassing:” Nobel Laureate retracts non-reproducible paper in Nature journal - December 5, 2017 Excerpt: The errors were “definitely embarrassing,” Szostak told us: "In retrospect, we were totally blinded by our belief [in our findings]…we were not as careful or rigorous as we should have been (and as Tivoli was) in interpreting these experiments." http://retractionwatch.com/2017/12/05/definitely-embarrassing-nobel-laureate-retracts-non-reproducible-paper-nature-journal/ 'RNA World' Paper Retracted - Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. - January 15, 2017 Excerpt: In 2016, research was published that seemed to provide a solution to this dilemma by showing that RNA could be partially replicated without protein enzymes.5,,, As fate would have it, the famous study also contained some major errors and could not be replicated. Thus, the famous—now infamous—paper had to be retracted. The authors—one of them a Nobel Laureate—later confessed, “In retrospect, we were totally blinded by our belief” and “we were not as careful or rigorous as we should have been.”6 http://www.icr.org/article/rna-world-paper-retracted
bornagain77_{January 21, 2018
January
01
Jan
21
21
2018
02:31 AM
2
02
31
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply