Oct 192006
 

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 insistence refusal to accept the Darwinian just so stories.

Another IDiot, Joy, follows Bradford in asking irrelevant questions like these.

1. Does RNA spontaneously generate in hypothetical pre-biotic earth conditions?
2. If so, what are those conditions?
3. How stable are these loose RNA molecules in those conditions (how long do they last)?

The question is not if RNA world existed. It is a fact like gravity is a fact. The question is can we come up with a just so story that people will be fooled by it. We all know RNA is unstable, so what. We all know that RNA has a half-life of about an hour and shorter if the solution is basic, so what. Natural selection can work really fast if it has to. We all know that as soon as RNA is synthesized in the prebiotic world it will get used.

Stability of Ribose and Other Sugar
Itis apparent that ribose cannot be synthesized from formaldehyde by the Butlerow reaction in yields substantially higher than other pentoses and hexoses. Related syntheses may possibly give higher yields of ribose. However, sugars are known to be unstable in aqueous solution, but there are no kinetic data available. We therefore have measured the rate of decomposition of ribose at 60 to 120° and pH’s between 4 and 8. The half-life of ribose at 100° and pH 7 is 73 minutes and 34 years at 0°. These results show that ribose is too unstable for prebiotic use unless it is used immediately after its synthesis. The other pentoses and hexoses decompose at a rate approximately proportional to their free aldehyde content. It therefore seems unlikely that sugars could have played a role in the first informational macromolecules.

emphasis added.

  3 Responses to “RNA Disney World”

  1. Hi Teleologist. David Berlinski has written a devastating critique of the RNA world. I
    should have reviewed it carefully before posting at TT although it would not have staved off
    the personal invective. I decided to post rebuttals of the concept at my own blog. The
    first post was:

    http://intelligent-sequences.blogspot.com/2006/10/self-replicating-rna.html

  2. Do we have to call these people IDiots?

  3. Sal…, I was being sarcastic. IDiots are terms that Darwinians would like to use for ID proponents.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.