January 14, 2006 at 12:52 pm #3201pankaajParticipant
Why RNA has evolved as the genetic material before DNA?
January 14, 2006 at 5:27 pm #37189
RNA is single strand. Isn’t it more possible to have a single stand first and a double strand second?
January 14, 2006 at 5:33 pm #37191
Availability, fitness both are important. So, even if DNA is fitter , its initial availibility may not have been adequate. We can even regard availability as a quantitative fitness and other factor is qualitative fitness.
The strand no. is also imp. but why not ssDNA be the first then??? RNA can also be double stranded, so why have DNA??? this tells that strand no. solely can’t explain this as its not the sole point of differece
Seeing their complexities , lets see if we get some clue-
This example can belong one of the two possibilities
1.When evolution occurs from simple — to complex [ U—to–T] , complex can’t exists before simple. So even if complex is fitter simple has to exist first. But just existing doesn’t mean being involved in life ❗
Acoordinlgy, RNA is just reqired to be there before DNA evolves.[ this depends on how many pathways that cangive us the molecules] But it may or may not be acting as agenetic material.
2.When it comes to making a choice between two things [ U and T]with comparable complexiety, availability [besides fitness] will be an important constraint.In this case we can’t say that RNA has to be there before DNA evolved.It may or may not be present.
Which one do you think the present example belongs to???
January 21, 2006 at 1:12 pm #37976pankaajParticipant
see RNA has evovled first means that it was the first molecule to
be used as an genetic material.
I have found out following points-
1)DNA changes its physical prop. when in
a) Extreams of pH
c)Decrease in dielectric const. by some elements
d)Exposure to Urea, Amides etc.
Also in samples , it has been found that A & U combines quicker than T.
I’m asking why it was evolved first & not why?
January 22, 2006 at 2:52 pm #38133
Faster combinability [formability of RNA] is a qualitative fitness this indeed increases the availability of A-U sequence and thus affects the quantitative fitness this is how the qualitative fitness leads to natural selection.
About dielectric const and urea & amide things i think RNA will also undergo some type of changes… but only those changes would tell the relative qualitative fitnesses of the NAs.
January 23, 2006 at 5:22 pm #38214SpringerParticipantquote Poison:
How, pray tell, could one strand of RNA form without intelligent input?
January 23, 2006 at 7:08 pm #38233
Don’t change this into "intelligent Design vs. Evolution" kind of topic too. You already have one, enjoy with it.
January 23, 2006 at 8:10 pm #38242SpringerParticipantquote Poison:
Is that supposed to be a rational argument?
January 23, 2006 at 10:35 pm #38251mithParticipant
Our goal is to keep the forum tidy and useful. That’s why we don’t like having two threads on the same topic.
January 24, 2006 at 2:54 am #38265alextempletParticipant
Everything I have to say has already been said in the "Origin of Life" thread. Talk about deja vu . . . 🙄
January 24, 2006 at 4:49 pm #38318
Bythe way -why is RNA still a genetic material in some Viruses can be a good question then. This may be thought as convergnt evo. when only the genetic material is considered.
I mean this RNAs aren’t descendants of those RNAworld RNAs. Or they might be so:shock: .
We should follow this-
I think those who believe in intelligent creation should explain the significance of this chara. [ explain why is it intelligent/best possible]
in their way and those who believe in evolution may explain their mechanism.
January 24, 2006 at 5:07 pm #38320quote Springer:
I think you need a reminder: THIS IS A BIOLOGY FORUM. We already LET you to have a topic for your idea. I advise you not to push your luck…
January 25, 2006 at 7:04 am #38368AstusAleatorParticipant
Now I’m no biochemist but here’s my unerstanding of the issue.
It might not have been RNA (or more specifically ribozyme) as we recognize it today, but something very similar. The important thing about RNA is that it’s chemical properties allow it to self-replicate. Modern cellular replication requires a complex sequence of events involving proteins catalyzing the transcription of genetic material. Until the 60s it was thought that only proteins could catalyze the reproduction of genetic material, but scientific speculation of self-replicating RNA in the 60s led to the discovery of ribozymes in the 80s.
Anyway, the theory (or at least one of them) is that these ribozymes or something similar formed out of the primordial soup and were subsequently enveloped in basic lipid-bilayer vessicles.
That’s my understanding of the issue. Some biochemist is probably going to blow me out of the water now, but that’s ok.
January 25, 2006 at 11:38 pm #38472b_d_41501Participant
It’s amazing how Springer can turn every single thread into an ID debate. I vote that he needs to be banned!!!! His posts have littered the entire forum! lol 😆
January 27, 2006 at 1:36 am #38593alextempletParticipant
bd wrote:quote :
In all honesty, at first I enjoyed debating with Springer. It was at least thought provoking, but now it’s getting out of hand. So I think I’ll second that suggestion.
January 27, 2006 at 4:00 pm #38657
No need for banning. We already warned him. And, I think he is clever enough to understand. 🙂
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.