Did God make RNA - finally able to read it
A lurker to this thread has provided me with a PDF copy of the Christian De Duve’s article in Nature,
Did God make RNA? Here are some highlights of that article.
Opening paragraph,
“The recent dispute between Maizel and Weiner1 and Benner and Ellington2 on the properties of primeval ‘ribo-organisms’ illustrates the extent to which the picture of a protein-less ‘RNA world’ has captured the imagination of molecular biologists. What was only a cautiously advanced hypothesis some years ago has now gained so much credibility as to go largely unquestioned.. It is even presented to students as “almost certain”3. Some measure of balance needs to be restored, at least for the benefit of those who are not experts in the field.”
What follows is a discussion of the problems, as Christian De Duve see it, of the protein-less ‘RNA world’. The second paragraph starts with…
“If RNA came first, how did it arise? This crucial question is rarely raised. When it is, the astonishing admission is made that there is no plausible answer”
Then it goes on discuss some of the ways that those who are arguing for the protein-less ‘RNA world’ solution propose to get around the question asked by De Duve at the start of that second paragraph. That second paragraph ends with these statements.
“Until the RNA world is provided with more solid foundations, its present vogue hardly seems justified. At the very least, appropriate consideration deserves to be given to alternative theories, of which there are several.”
Of those several alternative theories, De Duve seems to support an extensive collection of catalysts that are similar to present day enzymes could have been the process through which prebiotic synthesis of complex molecules such as nucleotides arose. De Duve is advocating that a ‘thioester world’ might be the precursor to an RNA world.
“The possibility that a ‘thioester world’ may have preceded the RNA world is consistent with biochemical knowledge, as well as with the views of many biochemists”
After presenting his evidence for the ‘thioester world’, he concludes the article with this…
“Thus, the thioester bond, born in hot, acidic sulphurous waters, could have been the central prebiotic source of both catalysis and energy, allowing the spreading of a long and complex chain of metabolic events that eventually led to something that could be called an RNA world, except that it would have been richly endowed with peptides.”
I will list all the references he used in his article in case anyone would like to check them.
- Maizels, N. & Weiner, A. M. Nature 330, 616 (1987).
- Benner, S. A. & Ellinton, A. D. Nature 332, 668 (1988).
- Watson, J. D., Hopkins, N H., Roberts, J.W., Steitz, J. A. & Weiner, A. N. Molecular Biology of the Gene, 4th edn. Bol. 11. 1104-1163 (Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park. 1988)
- Joyce, G. F., Schwartz, A. W., Miller. S. L., & Orgel, L. E. Proc natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 84. 4398-4402 (1987).
- De Duve, C. Proc. natn Acad. Sci. U.S.A 84. 8253 (1987).
- De Duve, C. in The Roots of Modern Biochemistry (eds Kleinkauf, H., von Dohren, H. & Jaenicke, L.) 881-894 (Gruyter, Berlin. 1988).
- Du Duve, C. Nature 333. 117-118 (1988).
- De Duve, C. Blueprint for a Cell (Patterson, Burlington, in the press).
- Ninio, J. Approches Moleculaires de l’Evolution (Masson, Paris, 1979).
- Gilbert, W. Cold Spring Harbor Symp, quant, Biol. 52. 901-905 (1987).
- Woese, C. R. Microbiol, Rev. 51. 221-271 (1987).
I am not a biologist, chemist, nor any other form of scientist. So I do not have the education or expertise to argue for or against De Duve’s conclusions. However, as a layperson, with very good reading comprehension skills, there are several things about this article I can conclude.
First, this in no way helps Daniel’s cause.
Second, this article, and the arguments for and against RNA world is 28 years old. I am going to presume that science has advanced some in those 28 years, and that either one of the positions has been discredited, or that there is new evidence for either position. Again, I do not have the education or expertise to know, but I will bet my bottom dollar that this article is not the last word in this disagreement.
Third, Du Duve, in advocating his ‘thioester world’ over ‘RNA world’ is not in any way, shape, or form, saying that there must have been a god, of the bible, or otherwise, that lead to life arising on this planet. He is simply pointing out a weakness in a popular theory, and arguing for a particular solution to those problems.
If any of you reading this that have more expertise in this subject than me,(and most anyone responding in this thread not named Daniel would qualify) find that my conclusions about this article are wrong, please correct me. I am here to learn.
(rotflol) 
