Biochemist: Is RNA world wrong after all?
| June 26, 2015 | Posted by News under News, Origin Of Life |
Remember when RNA world just had to be true, in that multiverse/global warming/Darwinism way? Where the observer soon realizes that evidence is superfluous—is even a threat? According to many origin of life researchers, RNA world (RNA preceded DNA and once did its job) has had that status for some time now among science writers. Well…
From New Scientist:
Why ‘RNA world’ theory on origin of life may be wrong after all
Note: We are told, “Registration is required to view the article.” Not only that, but one can’t now even preview the first two graffs from the article before signing up for something. That said, a friend who did sign up offers the salient point:
At some point, the idea goes, this RNA world ended when life outsourced enzymatic functions to proteins, which are more versatile. The key step in this switch was the evolution of the ribosome, a structure that builds protein molecules from genetic blueprints held in RNA.
But that would mean that RNA would not be acting as enzymes, while proteins would—and that is not said to be a simple model at all.
Williams has further reason to question the RNA world. His detailed study of the ribosome shows that its most ancient part, which is identical in every living thing, acts as an enzyme to link amino acids in a growing protein chain. But this ribosomal core works pretty badly, Williams told the Astrobiology Science Conference in Chicago last week, and so is unlikely to be the product of a long period of evolution by natural selection.More.
Other theories by which life could just somehow have got started randomly were kicked around and contested at the conference.
As noted before, if we really wanted researchers not to find out how life originated, we would urge that they continue with full-bore Darwinism: Natural selection somehow acted on random configurations to produce trillions of sophisticated little machines. In fact, we discourage that approach. But there is no stopping Darwin’s zealots. It is the air they breathe. Hope the food at the venue is good.
See also: Welcome to “RNA world,” the five-star hotel of origin-of-life theories
and
Creationists terrified again?
Follow UD News at Twitter!
8 Responses to Biochemist: Is RNA world wrong after all?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
So how should researchers continue if they do want to find out how life originated?
Bob O’H at 1 (but really this is addressed mainly to anyone who may actually be able to hear what is said): One can’t get anywhere with information-based problems like life unless one is prepared to take information and how it is generated seriously.
Cults in science that attribute magical qualities to randomness – such as natural selection acting on random mutations (Darwinism) – will provide some with a tax-funded living, publications, pop sci attention, etc. in pursuit of the speculation of the month. But will provide no answers.
Randomness simply does not generate the information level required. We’ve always known that. But so much now depends on not accepting it.
And why – come to think of it – should I suppose they are really looking for answers? The speculation-of-the-month racket isn’t that bad, as long as no one goes and pulls the plug or something.
Bob O’H:
1- Get rid of materialism
2- Adopt Intelligent Design
The problems with the “RNA World” hypothesis are too many to mention. But we could try.
As to:
Yes that would be a key step that evolutionists ‘got some serious splaining’ to do on:
George Church, whose team successfully encoded an enormous amount of information on DNA, (And who also endorsed Stephen Meyer’s book ‘Darwin’s Doubt’),,,
In regards to the ribosome, George Church stated:
Of note, although the ribosome is present, (i.e. ‘common’), in all life, the Ribosome’s size, sequence, and structure is not uniform (i.e. conserved) across all life:
As to their claim that the,,,
Actually the Ribosome, which makes the myriad of different types of proteins found in life, is found to be, contrary to ‘working pretty badly’, an ‘editorial perfectionist’ that is found to be severely intolerant to any random mutations occurring to proteins.
In fact the ribosome’s actions have, contrary to ‘working pretty badly’, been compared to a ‘grand ballet’:
Moreover, the way in which ribosomes are arranged in the cell is in such a way that it ‘optimizes the dense packing of ER sheets, and thus maximizes the number of protein-synthesizing molecules called ribosomes within the restricted space of a cell’.
Of related interest, the Ribosome of the cell is also found to be very similar to a CPU in a electronic computer:
Says the guy who has designed how many molecular factories himself?
‘Where the observer soon realizes that evidence is superfluous—is even a threat?’
More surreal reality easily mistaken for withering satire.