4 ms·
The real 'sidestep' in the Base/RNA/Protein/Life theory is the lack of transcriptase and ribosome equivalents. Some theories posit that ribosomes were exclusiv
by ABCLAW 10y ago
The real 'sidestep' in the Base/RNA/Protein/Life theory is the lack of transcriptase and ribosome equivalents. Some theories posit that ribosomes were exclusively RNA-based and developed the ability to self-transcribe at some point. To give a sense of how impactful this would be, if accurate, the central dogma of molecular biology is shown to be fundamentally wrong.
----
Going from a string of RNA to another string of RNA is no easy task. Additionally, going from RNA to a protein requires more than just energy. It requires a molecular factory which can commence protein synthesis.
This requirement is somewhat mitigated by the fact that RNA itself can fold in on itself to form useful structural elements, albeit far simpler than protein-based chains.
- mtdewcmu 10y ago>> Going from a string of RNA to another string of RNA is no easy task. Additionally, going from RNA to a protein requires more than just energy. It requires a molecular factory which can commence protein synthesis. If you're starting from something simple that already works, you can imagine how it might evolve into something more complex in small increments, with the new stuff gradually replacing the old stuff until the old stuff is completely gone. The important thing is that you start with something that already works. That's why I'm proposing that you start with some kind of self-sustaining chemical reaction, i.e. a metabolism. If you start with a dead strand of RNA, it's hard to imagine how a metabolism springs up spontaneously around it and suddenly starts doing anything at all, much less anything useful like making proteins.