Bradford over at TT has posted an interesting thread on RNA World. Bradford, like a typical IDiot is looking for empirical and detail testable pathways. The sophisticated and intellectually superior Darwinists on the thread is befuddled by Bradford's…

Most people have an innate propensity to assign an intelligible universe to an intelligent agent that *is not* the intelligible universe. Others presume the intelligible universe *is* the causal agency. Still others assume there's no causal agency at all. Everybody believes their assumptions are the only true Truth, and insist that everybody else bow down to it.

It has always been thus. I call it "Dueling Metaphysics," a perennial pastime.

While I think the closing statement was a little too sarcastic, I thought your post on the whole was very good. I would encourage everyone to look at the links you provided. Sidney Altman had a more positive spin than the other link. BTW, your quote is actually from the RNA World book that I managed to find several links to. Unfortunately, I couldn't find Chapter 2 which is where the quote came from. I would have liked to have seen the quote in context.

The latter link included an interesting list of other hypotheses that included…

Another idea is the "PNA world." Because starting the RNA world is so difficult, there probably needs to be a pre-RNA world. PNA, or peptide nucleic acid, might have some of the properties necessary to constitute that world (21). This would be pre-precellular life.

21 Christof Böhler, Peter E. Nielsen and Leslie E. Orgel, "Template switching between PNA and RNA oligonucleotides," p 578-581 v 376, Nature, 17 August 1995

It looks like it is possible Leslie Orgel is just doing the RNA World one better. This coincides with my guess about a "no man's land" between chemists and biologists.

Sidney Altman does say that if the RNA in the RNA World were chemically different from the RNA in our world, then an RNA World (or, a Not-RNA RNA World) makes perfect sense. But according to Leslie Orgel, uncomtaminated strands of RNA of "any size" are unlikely to form in nature. More precisely, "…the direct synthesis of nucleotides from prebiotic precursors in reasonable yield and unaccompanied by larger amounts of unrelated molecules could not be achieved by presently known chemical reactions."

But don't let that discourage anyone. All we need is some unknown and heretofore unimagined chemical reaction that constructs practically indestructible not-RNA RNA, and poof! Molecular proto-life is born, starts constructing proteins and proceeds to build itself an incredibly complex isolating environment (cell). At which point the not-RNA becomes real RNA, constructs a permanent record of proteins it's found useful (DNA), and immediately learns how to reproduce the whole sheebang in one fell swoop.

I suppose the spontaneous generation of clever, free-living, reproducing not-RNA molecules is no more of a stretch than the spontaneous generation of clever, free-living, reproducing cells. And it all goes back to the spontaneous generation of matter and energy, so something from nothing has an illustrious scientific history despite the fact that no one's ever observed spontaneous generation of nucleic acids or life or universes.

Belief-in spontaneous generation apparently comes naturally and easily to human beings. Guess that means it has to be true…

Regardless of its "invention," I seem to recall that it wasn't well known until the ribozyme and ribosome data supported it in spades while amazing virtually everyone. Arguments aren't very persuasive without new data.

"Because we know that in a biotic world, cellular life forms do not spontaneously generate."

Yes, but that has little to do with the RNA World hypothesis, because it would work with or without enclosure in cells.

About #3, my response wasn't clear. I mean that modern measures of RNA stability aren't very relevant to pre- or peri-biotic scenarios, because they wouldn't be inundated with ribonuclease.

One of the things I have noticed in a couple of places. The OOL transition between chemicals and RNA is a no man's land. The biologists actually say "let the chemists figure that part out". While I haven't seen a quote from a chemist, I can easily understand why they wouldn't be all that interested. If they wanted to study biology, they would have become biologists. A catch-22.

Also, generating a few RNAs in prebiotic soup is trivial relative to the pathways that are being filled in supporting the RNA World hypothesis. I predict that you'll be disappointed if you move the bar that low.

I don't follow OOL research, but I do seem to recall that the RNA-World hypothesis was invented to get around the little problem of spontaneously generating cellular life forms. Because we know that in a biotic world, cellular life forms do not spontaneously generate.

So I just wanted to know if RNA is observed to spontaneously generate, in what conditions it is observed to spontaneously generate, and how that process is expected to work in pre-biotic conditions.

Thought you might know, since you seem pretty convinced of the hypothesis.

Immaturity? I'm not the one
deleting non-insulting comments. Where did I utter a profanity, or insinuate anything inappropriate.

Daniel, whining about how a blog is being run, because his posts were deleted?

Now that is rich!

As for #3, that's very hard to measure, because all living things spew ribonuclease into their environment. We go to ridiculous lengths to inhibit ribonuclease when preparing RNA. It's so prevalent that touching your finger to the surface of a solution containing RNA will degrade it all (except for the double-stranded parts) within seconds.

Also, generating a few RNAs in prebiotic soup is trivial relative to the pathways that are being filled in supporting the RNA World hypothesis. I predict that you'll be disappointed if you move the bar that low.

Not all of them. Start with the ones they cited on page 82.

"Ok, I should have noticed that. But that was still too easy. Could you highlight some of the more outstanding references while I continue to struggle my way through this?"

Sorry, probably not. I'm going to be struggling my own way through a meeting that is slightly removed from my field. I feel your pain.