Posted on 06/15/2017 12:50:19 PM PDT by Kaslin
“Then he describes splicing a molecule into an artificial transcript:”
No.
He describes showing that a guanosine is added in the splicing out reaction, in this case only a G, not an A, U or C.
“The primary revelation that proteins are not requisite for RNA splicing is cool - however Splicing a molecule into an an artificial RNA polymer is a HUGE shortfall from manufacturing self-replicating RNA from atomic precursors.”
You’ve never taken a biochemistry class, have you?
Or chemistry for that matter.
It's a joining process - not just a cutting process like the straw you tried to splice into the discussion:
Splicing molecules into an existing polymere, as exciting as that might be, does not manifest the sort of sustained, COMPLETE, self-replication that might demonstrate the process of evolutionary abiogenesis.
Q: Is there a published source that describes the methodology by which the “purified RNA”, referenced throughout the presentation prior to 9m0s, was obtained? -- 234 of 240 HLPhat to ifinnegan
A: { iCrickets chirping in iStraw }
Produce the published methodological documentation or shut up.
“It’s a joining process - not just a cutting process like the straw you tried to splice into the discussion:”
You still do not understand the chemistry. A base is added.
Splicing film does not add a frame.
Splicing rope, in your example, loses rope. Splicing wood, your other example, does not add more wood.
In this reaction more RNA is added.
Also you do not understand this is an excision event.
The analogy to film is good.
A film may have some frames cut out. Two cuts are made, then the intervening film frames are removed and the two ends are spliced together.
The film cut out does not gain and added frame. No where in the process is there an added frame.
The RNA example in tetrahymena excision of an intron in a ribosomal RNA transcript is very analogous to the film example above except that there is a base added to the excised piece.
That would be like adding a frame to a movie every time it was spliced.
If this same dynamic existed in film, and one kept splicing a one hour movie, a longer movie witch more frames would be created just by splicing.
One could create a whole new movie that way.
There is nothing and then suddenly there is something before and after the big bang. Maybe the first law of thermo still applies and whatever was before was simply converted to matter after.
And finally, you have to admit that our classical perception of nature is very far removed from the “real world” of quantum mechanics, cosmology. It means that our senses and our perception of nature is wrong. I wonder how far removed it will be in a few decades or centuries.
>>You still do not understand the chemistry. A base is added.
I understand the chemistry enough to understand that you're waving semantic straw.
Noun 1.gene-splicing - the technology of preparing recombinant DNA in vitro by cutting up DNA molecules and splicing together fragments from more than one organism
"Splicing together"
In your dramatic presention - a base is spliced into a polymer.
And you've still iFAILED to demonstrate the sustained iCOMPLETE self-replication required to support the process of evolutionary abiogenesis.
ALL ‘the links’ are missing... Not just one - all of ‘em.
You’ve lost it.
Cech won the Nobel Prize for this.
Here’s one of many.
The intervening sequence excised from the ribosomal RNA precursor of Tetrahymena contains a 5-terminal guanosine residue not encoded by the DNA.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC320658/
You know how to use PubMed, don’t you?
Cech-TR tetrahymena rRNA
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Cech-tr+tetrahymena+rrna
You seem to have become angry, bro.
You’re flying off the rails.
>>Splicing film does not add a frame.
LOL.
Evidently you’ve never seen all the frames of Fight Club.
>>Cech won the Nobel Prize for this.
LOL. And Obama won the Nobel Prize for... whatever.
In the meantime - you’ve repeatedly iFAILED to provide the evidence required to demonstrate iCOMPLETE self-replication necessary to support the process of evolutionary abiogenesis.
“From 2 Q of Tetrahymena, 0.5 ig (3.7 pmoles) of
pure IVS RNA was routinely isolated.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC320658/pdf/nar00378-0064.pdf
So, IOW, that RNA was obtained from living Tetrahymena - not synthesized from atomic precursors.
replication (ˌrɛplɪˈkeɪʃən)
n
1. a reply or response
2. (Law) law (formerly) the plaintiff's reply to a defendant's answer or plea
3. (Biology) biology the production of exact copies of complex molecules, such as DNA molecules, that occurs during growth of living organisms
4. repetition of a procedure, such as a scientific experiment, in order to reduce errors
5. a less common word for replica
So, I'll rephrase my question:
Has Dr. Cech (or anyone else) manufactured, from fundamental atomic precursors, RNA which, after having been manufactured, autonomously produces exact copies of itself from atomic precursors - as required to demonstrate the hypothetical process of evolutionary abiogenesis?
CO2 + H2O ↔ H2CO3
Now we could say the H2CO3 can replicate exact copies of itself. Albeit it has to destroy itself in order to do so, becoming CO2 and H2O before becoming H2CO3 again so it may not be a perfect analogy.
Now the environmental forces of the water, its temperature and chemistry etc, might influence which state is more common, and this could be said to look something like natural selection. But neither state would be considered "progress" or more "advantageous". Rather it would simply be whatever proportion of molecules fits a state of equilibrium appropriate to the current environment.
So let us suppose the hypothetical molecule you are talking about can make exact copies of itself without destroying itself. And let us suppose that some of the copies it can create can create copies exactly like their self rather than like its grand parent. It seems to me that the number of configurations that could be directly reached and whic had this secondary property are likely very few, and the power of multiplication would be useless since we would reach an equilibrium of sorts with the states of the molecules that the enviornment most favors
But of course I admit I say that as someone who is no expert on the particulars of this hypothesis nor am I a biologist nor chemist. But I think I am at least justified in asking why if this kind of molecule is possible it is not in abundance currently? I would suppose the most reasonable answer to save the hypothesis would be that environmental conditions are different in some in a way that now precludes them. One might be tempted to add that the molecules are still here in a sense as part of organisms, but that last bit would be missing the point of the question by begging it.
But I think also a reasonable person may then ask why the various experiments designed to create the conditions have failed to produce the desired results. Certainly human directed effort has a strong tendency to be greatly more efficacious than random luck. While these failures are not absolutely conclusive, they do seem to meet the standard of conclusiveness of the "Myth Busters" when they put that big stamp on something: "BUSTED!" after they try to reproduce something described in a myth and fail.
“In the meantime - you’ve repeatedly iFAILED to provide the evidence required to demonstrate iCOMPLETE self-replication necessary to support the process of evolutionary abiogenesis.”
I’m not sure what iCOMPLETE means but can understand your question from the context.
I agree with you and certainly have not been trying to demonstrate or claim that.
Catalytic RNA which can reproduce itself and add to itself is only an observation which suggests ways early molecular evolution could have happened. It’s consistent with certain ideas.
And that’s all any scientific finding can do with regard to evolution - be consistent with theories or suggest mechanisms.
But of course the hardcore atheist evolutionists don’t understand that and think such things prove evolution, e.g. Dawkins as the the most well example and his “evolution is fact” nonsense.
“So, IOW, that RNA was obtained from living Tetrahymena - not synthesized from atomic precursors.”
No.
The initial observations were made with isolated RNA from tetrahymena.
Because of the possibility of trace proteins in the isolate they could not see that were carrying out the enzymatic reaction, they then synthesized RNA of the same sequence and looked to see if the same reaction occurred.
It did, thus indicating the reaction was being catalyzed by RNA.
Prior to this it was believed that only proteins carried out enzymatic reactions and nucleic acid did not have catalytic properties.
That was what the work was about. It wasn’t to study potential mechanisms for early molecular evolution.
I agree with you about the Nobel Prize being weathered down and political now. But that doesn’t happen in science awards (although it could be moving toward that) and this award was very merited.
The catalytic properties of RNA was probably the most important finding in biology since the double helix structure of DNA.
“Has Dr. Cech (or anyone else) manufactured, from fundamental atomic precursors, RNA which, after...”
Just FYI. You’re using terms wrong. It makes you sound like the Bowery Boys.
Molecular precursors would sound OK, but atomic precursors makes no sense in this context.
Evidently nobody explained to Tyler Durden that he didn't need to add anything whilst splicing films -- but he did.... .
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=fight+club+frame+splicing
“Has Dr. Cech (or anyone else) manufactured, from fundamental atomic precursors, RNA which, after having been manufactured, autonomously produces exact copies of itself from atomic precursors - as required to demonstrate the hypothetical process of evolutionary abiogenesis?”
Exact copies? I’m not sure but think, yes. I seem to recall publications describing it, but could be wrong.
Exact copies, though, are not needed for the idea that this RNA mechanism may have contributed to molecular evolution.
Living things do not need reproduce exact copies and don’t.
Our kids aren’t exact copies of us, for example.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.