RNA World Hypothesis

How this fits in the RNA world hypothesis?

I have to ask what the hell is wrong with them - even if considering proteins as an end all you would at least consider DNA and RNA peripherally useful to look into to figure out the process of their creation and constraints.To go with a clumsy metaphor living wheels and axle style of locomotion cannot be plausibly grown and moved by known organic structures - it would have to use it. Knowing more what can be produced would help figure out what cannot and commonalities. The reaction doesn&#

Maybe they were depicting RNA? (probably not)

Life does not need to be RNA/DNA based.

It's definitely not "totally random". DNA (and more importantly, RNA since that's probably where replication started) have their own chemistry and physics - i.e. it's not like toggling bits in a computer, particular combinations act very different to others. In the case of RNA this is notable because RNA sequences can fold and work as enzymes (ribozymes) on their own.This means you're definitely not throwing random combinations together until something works - th

Ribosomes are mostly RNA, and there is good evidence that they evolved from something that was purely RNA. The aminoacid transport and encoding mechanism is also basically composed of RNA, with some evidence that something like them would work without any of the protein parts.Also, people have created RNA-only self replicating mechanisms that could quite well appear at random, with extremely low odds. Life probably comes from some structure with higher odds that we don't know about, but

I can't help but notice the irony in your comment. So this guy comes along and having read one article, says "I can't call this good science."A very basic summary of molecular biology of the cell:DNA - library of blueprints, basically instructions on how to build proteinsRNA - copies of blueprints you take out of the library to build proteins so you don't expose DNA to unnecessary hazardsprotein - catalyzes reactions so the cell can do stuff, including make n

I don't think you'd need entirely new ribosomes, assuming the new bases are relatively the same size as ATCG. What you'd need more of are aminoacyltransferases, which load amino acids onto tRNAs. You'd also need new tRNA's (probably not super hard), and I imagine you'd want new amino acids. But we don't even know how to predict how existing amino acid chains fold into functional proteins, so I'm not sure what the goal of making new amino acids would furthe

Yay, humans are re-inventing proteins!

But RNA / DNA isn't sufficient for life, right? How are proteins synthesized from that string of nucleotides without ribosomes? And nucelotides randomly reshuffling certainly doesn't explain how ribosomes would be created.It's theorized that under the right conditions amino acids will bond to become proteins without needing the mediation of a ribosome. So it's certainly possible that with enough primordial soup you could get proteins. But that doesn't explain how