How does that figure in the whole "front-loading" thing?

It's the RNA world that confers great adaptability into cells, enhancing their evolvability. As for brains, what is learning if not a certain form of adaptability and evolvability?

Once again, evolution is encapsulated.

Are you calling all of your commenters lazy and (presumably) unemployed, or just the ones who ask questions you don't like answering?

What in the world makes you think I didn't like answering your question?

So, because the alternative-splicing process takes place at the pre-mRNA stage of translation, you mentioned RNA. I see. But alternative splicing shows up in a variety of places; the new discovery isn't that the splicing took place, but rather the changes that it made. It's like being amazed that DNA is eventually translated into protein"“it's not really the point of the article. Hence my confusion.

Don't you know that the term "RNA World" is commonly used to refer to the RNA biochemistry inside a cell? Here is just one representative example:

New perspectives on neoplasia and the RNA world.
Hall PA, Russell SH.
Hematol Oncol. 2005 Jun;23(2):49-53.

Key tenets of modern biology are the central place of protein in cell regulation and the flow of genetic information from DNA to RNA to protein. However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that genomes are much more complex than hitherto thought with remarkably complex regulatory systems. The notion that the fraction of the genome involved in coding protein is all that matters is increasingly being questioned as the roles of non-coding RNA (ncRNA) in cellular systems becomes recognised. The RNA world, including microRNA (miRNA), small inhibitory RNA (siRNA) and other RNA species, are now recognised as being crucial for the regulation of chromatin structure, gene expression, mRNA processing and splicing, mRNA stability and translational control. Furthermore such ncRNA systems may be perturbed in disease states and most notably in neoplasia, including in haematological malignancies. Here the burgeoning evidence for a role of miRNA in neoplasia is reviewed and the importance of understanding the RNA world emphasised.

The idea that features, at whatever scale, turn out to be useful later, isn't a new one. RNA is clearly not a fossil; it's used, as you pointed out, in a myriad of fashions in the cell. Because a DNA mutation can have its effect mediated by RNA, that's no reason to call the whole RNA system a "fossil/frozen accident", and I don't think anyone actually does, any more than we consider tetrapod limbs to be a "fossil/frozen accident" left over from lobe-fins on fish.

If we agree that RNA is not a fossil or frozen accident, we're left with our agreement.

Did you not notice the first comment on the post? Here, I'll repeat it.

What does this have to do with the RNA world hypothesis, or even with RNA in general?

You've answered this now, and I appreciate it.

It would have been nice if you had given me a chance to answer the question before launching ad hominems.

I assume press releases are mostly fiction (judging by what I observe on the cable news networks and read on the Web), so I tried to find if the research was published on the Web.

No luck. Neither the publisher's site nor two of the authors personal websites list the research.

I suspect its real. No problem. But I really don't like "science" by press release. No proper citation to begin with, almost never in any press releases I've ever read! Journalists (publicists, and popularizers_ don't know the first thing about reporting science!

But why even bother to publish research when one can issue a press release?
Seems a bit redundant to me! LOL

I did find many very interesting related links however, including the one linked to by Thought_Provoker.

From the paper linked to by TP: The difference between being "intellectually" a human or a mouse is in the RNA splicing.

Then the scientists hybridized human brain material with the brain material of insects to see what they'd get!

Science is so FNCOOOL!

If you test higher on an IQ test it could be because your RNA is spliced differently than a mouse's.

And if a mouse RNA was spliced differently, the mouse would be as smart as you!

How does that figure in the whole "front-loading" thing?

(And don't tell me I gotta read your book, GDit! WHAT book?! LOL)

It is ironic that you accuse me of laziness when you are the one who has had the time to post comments to a blog throughout the day. I posted this thought provoking bit of science news to update the blog right before running off to work.

Are you calling all of your commenters lazy and (presumably) unemployed, or just the ones who ask questions you don't like answering?

That's the hypothetical, geological RNA world. I'm focused on the actual, biotic RNA world "“ the world that is studied when scientists explore the cell. It is clear that the biotic RNA world is an integral part of the cell, interfaced at many levels with the protein world. As such, some from a non-telic perspective view this RNA world as a fossil or frozen accident, left-overs from the hypothetical, geological RNA world.

So, because the alternative-splicing process takes place at the pre-mRNA stage of translation, you mentioned RNA. I see. But alternative splicing shows up in a variety of places; the new discovery isn't that the splicing took place, but rather the changes that it made. It's like being amazed that DNA is eventually translated into protein–it's not really the point of the article. Hence my confusion.

If so, all I'm pointing out here is that it is unlikely that the human brain would have evolved without this "fossil/frozen accident." It's not that surprising, given that most genes expressed in the human brain undergo alternative splicing or RNA editing.

The idea that features, at whatever scale, turn out to be useful later, isn't a new one. RNA is clearly not a fossil; it's used, as you pointed out, in a myriad of fashions in the cell. Because a DNA mutation can have its effect mediated by RNA, that's no reason to call the whole RNA system a "fossil/frozen accident", and I don't think anyone actually does, any more than we consider tetrapod limbs to be a "fossil/frozen accident" left over from lobe-fins on fish.

Grendelkhan, instead of complaining about me, why didn't you simply and politely ask me to clarify the meaning of the title?

Did you not notice the first comment on the post? Here, I'll repeat it.

What does this have to do with the RNA world hypothesis, or even with RNA in general?

You've answered this now, and I appreciate it.

You wrote…

If so, all I'm pointing out here is that it is unlikely that the human brain would have evolved without this "fossil/frozen accident."

So, do I get a passing grade on the pop quiz for at least coming close to what you were thinking? (my first comment, not the Chimpanzee to Human hyperbole)

(sticks tongue out at Chunkdz)

Regards,
TP

GPCR's like neuropsin are integral in the signal transduction pathways of eukaryotes, which provides a mechanism for external stimuli to alter gene splicing patterns.

Wrong gene. There are two that were named neuropsin by their discoverers. That shouldn't have happened — someone wasn't paying attention– but the nomenclature has since been cleaned up. One "neuropsin", aka Opsin 5, is a GPCR. However, the "neuropsin" in the research that MikeGene referenced is KLK8, a serine protease.

So, nice try but you fail the pop quiz!

I can complain about Mike's incredible laziness in posting this and still prefer that he post science articles. It's not like Mike's posting-science mechanism is irrevocably bound to his lazy-and-misleading-headline mechanism. Or maybe it is; I don't know him.

Mike, take that target off your shirt.

I wrote…"I have hinted (an understatement) to MikeGene that he often puts his bias into his posts to Telic Thoughts."

You asked…

Who doesn't?

Nobody, especially not me.

Welcome back from the dark side.

You wrote…

I have long noted that there is a mountain of data out there ripe for re-interpretation from a teleological perspective. Is there something wrong with that?

Absolutely nothing. Let's do science!

Regards,
TP

You wrote:

I have hinted (an understatement) to MikeGene that he often puts his bias into his posts to Telic Thoughts.

Who doesn't? I have long noted that there is a mountain of data out there ripe for re-interpretation from a teleological perspective. Is there something wrong with that?

You write:

I can complain about Mike's incredible laziness in posting this and still prefer that he post science articles. It's not like Mike's posting-science mechanism is irrevocably bound to his lazy-and-misleading-headline mechanism. Or maybe it is; I don't know him.

It is ironic that you accuse me of laziness when you are the one who has had the time to post comments to a blog throughout the day. I posted this thought provoking bit of science news to update the blog right before running off to work.

But the RNA world hypothesis is supposed to pre-date bacteria"“the events it describes are roughly a thousand times older than the events described in the article.

That's the hypothetical, geological RNA world. I'm focused on the actual, biotic RNA world "“ the world that is studied when scientists explore the cell. It is clear that the biotic RNA world is an integral part of the cell, interfaced at many levels with the protein world. As such, some from a non-telic perspective view this RNA world as a fossil or frozen accident, left-overs from the hypothetical, geological RNA world. If so, all I'm pointing out here is that it is unlikely that the human brain would have evolved without this "fossil/frozen accident." It's not that surprising, given that most genes expressed in the human brain undergo alternative splicing or RNA editing.

Grendelkhan, instead of complaining about me, why didn't you simply and politely ask me to clarify the meaning of the title?