Hi, Sac.
sac51495 writes:
Typically, mRNA gets information for amino acid sequencing (this is slightly generalized) from the DNA, and then tRNA and rRNA may act as
catalyzers [sic] for the process of protein synthesis.
Since marking your own mistakes with sic is rather inexplicable, and since I can’t find the word catalyzer anywhere else on this thread, I'm curious as to whether this is actually your own writing.
-----
sac51495 writes:
...but please notice something about all of this: besides from some difficulties with the actual steps, one must realize that the steps are mere
possibilities (if that), and really only serve as an escape device for evolutionists.
When other valid
possibilities are brought onto the table, your assertion that RNA and DNA must have evolved simultaneously loses its automatically-assumed-as-true status, and becomes nothing more than one of the mere
possibilities itself.
When autocatalytic ribozymes are known to exist, it’s difficult to take seriously your argument that RNA can’t function without DNA.
-----
sac51495 writes:
Dr. Adequate mentioned that "a lot of the most basic nuts and bolts of the process of making proteins consist of RNA enzymes such as tRNA and rRNA". This is indeed true, but it does not support the notion that RNA, in and of itself, can carry out all of the necessary functions for life, including reproduction.
You’re missing the basic point. What necessary functions of life did RNA have to carry out on its own other than self-replication?
A ribo-organism would have been nothing more than an autocatalytic ribozyme, a molecule that replicates in a pool of water. Such an organism did not have to do anything but self-replicate. It could become intermingled with DNA and proteins later.
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.
™ Version 4.2
