SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (22869)3/14/2012 7:17:09 PM
From: Brumar89  Respond to of 69300
 
RNA world hits a brick wall?

RNA and protein ribosome components/Derek and Gustavo Caetano-Anollés

From “Early Evolution of Life: Study of Ribosome Evolution Challenges ‘RNA World’ Hypothesis” (ScienceDaily, Mar. 12, 2012), we learn,

The “RNA world” hypothesis, first promoted in 1986 in a paper in the journal Nature and defended and elaborated on for more than 25 years, posits that the first stages of molecular evolution involved RNA and not proteins, and that proteins (and DNA) emerged later, said University of Illinois crop sciences and Institute for Genomic Biology professor Gustavo Caetano-Anollés, who led the new study. “I’m convinced that the RNA world (hypothesis) is not correct,” Caetano-Anollés said. “That world of nucleic acids could not have existed if not tethered to proteins.”

The ribosome is a “ribonucleoprotein machine,” a complex that can have as many as 80 proteins interacting with multiple RNA molecules, so it makes sense that this assemblage is the result of a long and complicated process of gradual co-evolution, Caetano-Anollés said. Furthermore, “you can’t get RNA to perform the molecular function of protein synthesis that is necessary for the cell by itself.”

Can anyone here spell “irreducible complexity”?

uncommondescent.com



To: Brumar89 who wrote (22869)3/14/2012 8:44:19 PM
From: J_F_Shepard  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 69300
 
"science resisted the idea of creation aka the big bang for decades."

Science still doesn't accept the idea of creation, that's for you bible guys......don't try and usurp the word creation to mean God...if creation means God to you it should be capitalized...