Talk:RNA world

January 2016

Plagiarism

I made some legit changes, but also some that maybe I should not have.

I deleted a sentence in one section and a paragraph in another because they were, in my view, plagiarism. They were word-for-word direct quotes from sources, but were presented as though they were not (they were not in quotes, for example). In one case the reference was not even to the correct source: the reference was copied from the correct source as part of the plagiarism!!

I just made those deletes, so if someone wants to undo my 2 plagiarism-based deletes, it should not be hard to find them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:442:C180:3E13:E094:2427:C161:7BFE (talk) 04:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Molecular chemists Dream/Nightmare

This whole section needs to be completely redone. If nothing else, blow it completely away and start from scratch.

It is full of statements that are (1) from anti-science, religious sources, (2) incorrect (as one example, these religious nuts don't know the difference between a DREAM and a NIGHTMARE!), and (3) are plagiarized (word-for-word copy and paste, without the statements being enclosed in quotes).

This section does not come from a NPOV, nor is its information correct; and at least in my view, parts are illegal/immoral (plagiarized). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:442:C180:3E13:E094:2427:C161:7BFE (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it indeed looks like Gerald Joyce and Leslie Orgel are attacking the RNA world hypothesis. They merely discuss the problems in terms of first genetic system in the RNA world. The statements mentioned are only half of what they actually said. For example It does not reflect Joyce's explicitly remark "There is now strong evidence indicating that an RNA World did indeed exist before DNA- and protein-based life," or that of Orgel "It is now generally accepted that our familiar biological world was preceded by an RNA world." Of course the source is from Origins & Design, an ID journal. Chhandama (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Gerald Joyce and Leslie Orgel are NOT attacking the RNA world hypothesis. These are all twisted words and lies spread by creationists. Please see the original papers and you will see what they said in reality.91.158.251.58 (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Definition is wrong: I fixed it, but someone undid that

"The RNA world refers to the self-replicating ribonucleic acid (RNA) molecules hypothesised to have been the precursors to all current life on Earth"

No, it does not. The self-replicating RNA molecules would be replicase ribozymes, not the RNA world.

My edit, that was tossed for some reason, is better:

“The RNA world refers to a time in life’s early history on Earth, before genetically encoded proteins had evolved, when RNA performed two of the major functions required for minimal life: storing genetic information and catalyzing chemical reactions, including catalyzing the replication of the genetic information." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:442:C180:3E13:8437:6BFF:2A42:913F (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Self-replication change removed: who is running this show?

I had made a completely valid and contributor change to the self-replication part, noting ...

In 2013, scientists evolved the 'first polymerase ribozyme capable of catalysing the accurate synthesis of an RNA sequence longer than itself (adding up to 206 nucleotides)

And gave the reference Attwater, James (2013). "In-ice evolution of RNA polymerase ribozyme activity". Nature Chemistry 5: 1011–1018. doi:10.1038/nchem.1781

But it was removed. Why?

Another change of mine removed: who is running this show?

I had made a correction to another part, and it was removed also.

Originally, the first sentence mentioned only RNA, but the paper it used as support for the statement was about DNA. So I made the first sentence more accurate by noting that what it was talking about applied to both RNA and DNA. In addition, the last sentence in the paragraph seems to imply that the problem applies only to RNA and not to DNA, which would be wrong. My additions helped eliminate this misinformation too.

The chemical properties of RNA (and DNA) make large nucleic acid molecules inherently fragile, and they can easily be broken down into their constituent nucleotides through hydrolysis. These limitations do not make use of RNA as an information storage system impossible, simply energy intensive (to repair or replace damaged RNA molecules) and prone to mutation. While this makes it unsuitable for current 'DNA optimised' life, it may have been acceptable for more primitive life.

The reference they used was: Instability and decay of the primary structure of DNA

What's the difference between a dream and a nightmare? Apparently, only I know

Another of my corrections was undone.

The section titled "Molecular biologist's dream" is wrong. Joyce and Orgel had coined two cute terms: "Molecular biologist's dream" and "Molecular biologist's nightmare". As one can imagine, they are not the same thing. The paragraphs discuss the nightmare, but it is labeled as the dream.

I had fixed this too, but this correction of mine - like the others - was also tossed out.

No need to start a new section for each comment. :-) I haven't been active on this article for the last month or two, but I will check over recent edits at some point. Just commenting here so it doesn't seem like nobody's listening to you! Sunrise (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Ribose synthesis

This research is making the rounds in the news outlets. I am not sure how to use it in this article so I will just leave it on your desk:

• Making ribose in interstellar ices Science journal
• Complex sugars cooked up from 'comet ice'. BBC News.

Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Adamic RNA World

Most likely Adam was constructed by RNA only but Eve completed the DNA double helix and from then on it was all DNA. I'll let ya know for sure when I get to heaven by faith in Christ.

January 2019

This article needs revision. The problems with Pyrimidines are described in two different sections, without (afaik) any rationale. The 11-Jan-2019 issue of Science (magazine) contains an article which states "In 2009, for example, Sutherland ...reported a plausible prebiotic reaction for making C[ytosine] and U[racil]...Then, in 2016,...a plausible way to make A[denine] and G[uanine][was reported]...What's more, those steps can produce all four nucleosides in one pot, offering the first plausible explanation for how all four RNA letters could have arisen together". This directly contradicts some of the claims in the Wiki. article.(workshop paper not peer reviewed, afaik.) This article also seems to lack the coherence it needs. Life's origins require 3 things: Metabolism, Memory, and Separation. What the order of those are isn't clear. The coupling between memory (homeostasis of template) and metabolism (replication of templates) is obviously closely related while pre-cellular (possibly via lipids) separation/concentration/assembly/protection of the pre-biotic system might have occurred before, after or simultaneously with the other two requirements. RNA, Proteins, and RNA+Proteins are all possible as the 'first' step for metabolism and memory. Whether these reactions occurred inside a (cascade of) pool(s) or in lipid vesicles, or in ocean mud (or somewhere else) isn't known. We have no good reason to believe that abiogenesis didn't occur on Earth but it is unlikely that we can ever prove that it did. We do not know what the initial ingredients were to the primordial soup, nor where (on Earth) that soup was located. RNA world hypotheses suppose that the ingredients were purines, pyrimidines, ribose and phosphate - or (importantly) their chemical precursors. It doesn't seem to me that this is made clear in the article,and it should be. As an aside, this article conflates chemical "evolution" with Evolution. Everything "evolves"; meaning everything experiences time and, with time, changes. The key factors of "Evolution" are replication with (natural) selection. The prebiotic 'soup' may have existed (and changed and been dispersed as various precursors) for millions of years prior to the assembly of the components able to replicate. During this time, there may have been no "selection". 72.16.99.93 (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)