DNA information

[Elshamah]

No, you only need RNA to encode the transcript.

What you probably mean , is that ribozymes can produce RNR enzymes. as substitute of the DNA to protein process.

As you conveniently ignored, and keep ignoring:

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t2029-ribonucleotide-reductase-one-of-the-most-essential-enzymes-of-life-and-how-it-buries-the-rna-world

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4390871/

Ribonucleotide reduction is the only pathway for de novo synthesis of deoxyribonucleotides in extant organisms. This chemically demanding reaction, which proceeds via a carbon-centered free radical, is catalyzed by ribonucleotide reductase (RNR). The mechanism has been deemed unlikely to be catalyzed by a ribozyme, creating an enigma regarding how the building blocks for DNA were synthesized at the transition from RNA to DNA-encoded genomes.

As your friend Cali uses to say : learn that lesson fast, before you keep ridicularizing yourself.

And there are more issues :

The maintenance of life on Earth depends on the ability to reproduce. Reproduction requires an accurate and stable storage system for the genetic information in all organisms, including viruses. It has been recently suggested that the RNA molecule, with autoreplicative capacity, is the primary primitive molecule for the genetic information storage. Despite the wide acceptance of this idea, there are arguments against the concept of an RNA world that cannot be underestimated. 7

Today, three different RNR classes have been described, with little apparent similarity between them in terms of primary protein sequence (approximately 10–20% similarity). Thus, it could be assumed that each RNR class appeared independently from each other over time.

There we have a problem of convergent evolution. “ As Stephen J.Gould stated :

…No finale can be specified at the start, none would ever occur a second time in the same way, because any pathway proceeds through thousands of improbable stages. Alter any early event, ever so slightly, and without apparent importance at the time, and evolution cascades into a radically different channel. 11

That means, hardly we should find a enzyme evolving the same function. But thats exactly what supposedly happened. Not only did the RNR would have had to arise 3 times independently with different gene sets, but provided the same function. Should we not expect it to evolve just once, if the function is the same ?

 

[SpecialFrog]

So Elshamah, do you have any other evidence for non-biological intelligence other than spooky-sounding NDE stories? Are you going to suggest Uri Gellar and the SRI experiments?

 

[Rumraket]

No, you only need RNA to encode the transcript.

What you probably mean , is that ribozymes can produce RNR enzymes. as substitute of the DNA to protein process.

No, I mean exactly what I write. You don't need the code for the sequence of the RNR enzymes to be stored in a DNA molecue, they can be stored in RNA. In fact, part of the process of producing these enzymes is transcription into mRNA. This is simply a temporary storage, which proves directly that RNA can and does in fact do the job of information storage of genetic information well enough to be useful to the cell.

It is, however, an interesting fact that the catalytic fold of Ribonucleotide Reductase is made of RNA, not protein. Interesting, but not relevant to what I am saying here.

But for the love of anything good in the world, Elsamah, we've already been over this stuff. How many times do I have to educate you about this? How many times do I need to tell you what your galactic-scale list of deceitful quotemines are even talking about? It is so clear from our exchanges you don't understand half of the crap we are talking about, you don't even understand what some of the references and quotes you bring mean or what subject they relate to. On one of the previous pages in this thread you brought a list of quotes about three different fossil record subjects, in response to a statement I made about a fourth one. That is simply amazing. None of your quotes were directly relevant to my statement. What better proof can one get that you are cluelessly copy-pasting material you don't understand in response to things you also don't understand?

Take your Stephen Jay Gould quote there for example (and this is the second time I'm explaining this): Gould is talking about the overall history of life. The many unique events that happened in Earth's history that shaped the evolution of life. Take the impact that probably killed the dinosaurs. Suppose it didn't happen at all, would humanity evolve? Probably not. This is the scale Gould is talking about, the grand "tape of life". This is what he is saying is unique and highly contingent and, if you could restart it from scratch, the result would be different.

Have you ever read any of Gould's books? You can almost be forgiven for not knowing the real meaning of your Gould quote, if it wasn't because instead of an honest mistake, you have patently and dishonestly employed it to an end you must somehow deep down realize is false. Gould is talking about the grand scale of evolution, the >3.5 billion year history of life. He's not talking about the theoretical convergence of a couple of fucking enzymes.

Regardless, as already explained before, to you personally, the RNR classes did not emerge indendently and happen to converge on a similar function and structure. Rather, the similarity in their structure and function is due to their common origin.

As your friend Cali uses to say : learn that lesson fast, before you keep ridicularizing yourself.

Ridicularizing? Dude...

Today, three different RNR classes have been described, with little apparent similarity between them in terms of primary protein sequence (approximately 10–20% similarity). Thus, it could be assumed that each RNR class appeared independently from each other over time.

For fucks sake, this is the exact same nonsense we covered before.

No, it can NOT be assumed that each class of RNR emerged independently. Rather because of the patterns of STRUCTURAL similarities (not sequence similarity, structural similarity) that can be constructed with phylogenetic methods, it is actually strongly implied through this evidence that they all evolved from a common ancestral RNA ribozyme.

I already explained all this to you in the other thread. I even gave you the references to papers where this stuff is explained in exquisite detail.

Why do you copy-paste the same already debunked horseshit? Can you read? Are you dyslexic? Did you "word-seach" program that mindlessly copy pastes irrelevant shit not get updated recently or something?

Are you forgetful much? Well it seems you are, since you have obviously forgotten this whole debacle has already taken place.

 

[JRChadwick]

You might as well just copy and save your previous posts for the next clueless creationist to ignore the next time someone comes and asks these same questions. Even if he understands what you are saying at all, the only thing I've seen him do is respond with hand waving, a non sequitur, and an already refuted statement.

Greetings,

quote="Elshamah"]
not possible.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t2028-origin-of-the-dna-double-helix
/quote]
I am not impressed by creationists sources or anyone who uses Ben Stein as a references.

quote="Elshamah"]that can easily be observed. But thats not a shame. You can learn......
/quote]
I can, but you won't.

Touché! - on both counts.

Kindest regards,

James

Thank you, sir. Notice that he both ignored my source and responded to my self admitted failings with a patronizing insult? You and I see admitting one's lack of knowledge as honesty, he views it as a victory for himself and his beliefs.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Why do you copy-paste the same already debunked horseshit? Can you read? Are you dyslexic? Did you "word-seach" program that mindlessly copy pastes irrelevant shit not get updated recently or something?

Well, as the resident dySlEXiC of this forum, I would like to give Elshamah a little help on that front (if he is indeed dySlEXiC). In the settings of most smartphones and tablets, one is able to turn on the "speak text" feature. One just needs to highlight what they want read and choose "read". If you ask me, this feature should come pre-activated on all devises. If Elshamah is on a computer, something like ReadPlease can be downloaded in order for text to be read.

 

[Elshamah]

No, I mean exactly what I write. You don't need the code for the sequence of the RNR enzymes to be stored in a DNA molecue they can be stored in RNA.

Fine. How did the right nucleotide sequence arise to make the enzyme ? trial and error ? lol......

furthermore : you were screaming a few posts back that you do not stick to the RNA world. Yeah, that it was utter nonsense. Now you propose exactly that ? LOL....

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t2110-what-might-be-a-protocells-minimal-genome

"The RNA molecule is too complex, requiring assembly first of the monomeric constituents of RNA, then assembly of strings of monomers into polymers. As a random event without a highly structured chemical context, this sequence has a forbiddingly low probability and the process lacks a plausible chemical explanation, despite considerable effort to supply one" "It has been challenging to identify possible prebiotic chemistry that might have created RNA. Organic molecules, given energy, have a well-known propensity to form multiple products, sometimes referred to collectively as 'tar' or 'tholin.' These mixtures appear to be unsuited to support Darwinian processes, and certainly have never been observed to spontaneously yield a homochiral genetic polymer.

In fact, part of the process of producing these enzymes is transcription into mRNA.

As if RNA polymerase enzymes were already in place and operational... LOL... and it was transcriber from ?? DNA ??

This is simply a temporary storage, which proves directly that RNA can and does in fact do the job of information storage of genetic information well enough to be useful to the cell.

you like to make up things, don't you ?? pretty much portraying a imaginary scnearion ??

How many times do I have to educate you about this?

So far, i have not learned andything from you, and do not expect to....

How many times do I need to tell you what your galactic-scale list of deceitful quotemines are even talking about? It is so clear from our exchanges you don't understand half of the crap we are talking about, you don't even understand what some of the references and quotes you bring mean or what subject they relate to.

its not matter of the topic to evaluate what i do or not do understand. And even if i do not understand something now, i can learn. So stop your irrelevant drivel about my knowledge, and keep on the subject we are debating. thanks.

On one of the previous pages in this thread you brought a list of quotes about three different fossil record subjects, in response to a statement I made about a fourth one. That is simply amazing.

Well, fact is that i have a topic at my library about fossils, and i just selected a few quotes about the issue, without taking too much time to read them through.

None of your quotes were directly relevant to my statement. What better proof can one get that you are cluelessly copy-pasting material you don't understand in response to things you also don't understand?

beside this, i do not know why you try to bring the fossil record into the debate.

The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/macroevolution-microevolution-and-chemistry-the-devil-is-in-the-details/

In order to say that some function is understood, every relevant step in the process must be elucidated. The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon such as sight, or digestion, or immunity, must include a molecular explanation. It is no longer sufficient, now that the black box of vision has been opened, for an ‘evolutionary explanation’ of that power to invoke only the anatomical structures of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the 19th century and as most popularizers of evolution continue to do today. Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant. So is the fossil record. It does not matter whether or not the fossil record is consistent with evolutionary theory, any more than it mattered in physics that Newton’s theory was consistent with everyday experience. The fossil record has nothing to tell us about, say, whether or how the interactions of 11-cis-retinal with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodiesterase could have developed step-by-step. Neither do the patterns of biogeography matter, or of population genetics, or the explanations that evolutionary theory has given for rudimentary organs or species abundance.

The point which Professor Behe makes for vision applies equally to macroevolution as a whole. The relevant steps in macroevolutionary processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of macroevolution must include a molecular explanation.

If, for some reason, certain macroevolutionary transitions appear to be highly improbable from a chemical standpoint, then that in itself is a good reason to be skeptical of the view that Darwin’s theory of evolution is an all-inclusive theory of biology.

(Why Evolution Is True. 2009. Oxford University Press, Glossary, pp. 268-269).

Macroevolution has also been defined by Professor Jerry Coyne as “large changes in body form or the evolution of one type of plant or animal from another type”

Evolutionary change occurs on different scales: ‘microevolution’ is generally equated with events at or below the species level whereas ‘macroevolution’ is change above the species level, including the formation of species.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/06/more_strong_exp087061.html

In nature, evolution occurs at the molecular level of specific, individual mutations, so it is there we must look to evaluate possible evolutionary paths. Studies with less detail can say very little on the topic.

Take your Stephen Jay Gould quote there for example (and this is the second time I'm explaining this): Gould is talking about the overall history of life. The many unique events that happened in Earth's history that shaped the evolution of life. Take the impact that probably killed the dinosaurs. Suppose it didn't happen at all, would humanity evolve? Probably not. This is the scale Gould is talking about, the grand "tape of life". This is what he is saying is unique and highly contingent and, if you could restart it from scratch, the result would be different.

well, my argument rests not only on the quote from Gould.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t2014-convergence-another-problem-for-evolution

Paleontologist J. William Schopf, one of the world’s leading authorities on early life on Earth, has made this very point in the book Life’s Origin.

Because biochemical systems comprise many intricately interlinked pieces, any particular full-blown system can only arise once…Since any complete biochemical system is far too elaborate to have evolved more than once in the history of life, it is safe to assume that microbes of the primal LCA cell line had the same traits that characterize all its present-day descendents.

Have you ever read any of Gould's books? You can almost be forgiven for not knowing the real meaning of your Gould quote, if it wasn't because instead of an honest mistake, you have patently and dishonestly employed it to an end you must somehow deep down realize is false. Gould is talking about the grand scale of evolution, the >3.5 billion year history of life. He's not talking about the theoretical convergence of a couple of fucking enzymes.

Even if so, its a extremely unlikely event , that the same function of these enzymes would evolve independently 3 times.

Regardless, as already explained before, to you personally, the RNR classes did not emerge indendently and happen to converge on a similar function and structure. Rather, the similarity in their structure and function is due to their common origin.

baseless claim.

As your friend Cali uses to say : learn that lesson fast, before you keep ridicularizing yourself.
Ridicularizing? Dude...

how does it write correct ? now you can be my english teacher, LOL..... riduling ?

Today, three different RNR classes have been described, with little apparent similarity between them in terms of primary protein sequence (approximately 10–20% similarity). Thus, it could be assumed that each RNR class appeared independently from each other over time
For fucks sake, this is the exact same nonsense we covered before.

No, it can NOT be assumed that each class of RNR emerged independently. .

Well, you seem to know it better then than the author of the paper ?? haha, you seem to have become a expert overnight, kkkkkk........

Rather because of the patterns of STRUCTURAL similarities (not sequence similarity, structural similarity) that can be constructed with phylogenetic methods, it is actually strongly implied through this evidence that they all evolved from a common ancestral RNA ribozyme.

thats not what the author says. Again. You are making things up.

 

[Rumraket]

No, I mean exactly what I write. You don't need the code for the sequence of the RNR enzymes to be stored in a DNA molecue they can be stored in RNA.

Fine. How did the right nucleotide sequence arise to make the enzyme ? trial and error ? lol......

Yes. There was a cell with a genome of RNA instead of DNA, one of the enzymes in that genome was encoded in a stretch of RNA instead of DNA, and it mutated and ended up being capable of reduction of RNA monomers, converting them into DNA monomers instead.

That RNA-based genome would still contain the sequence for a lot of protein enzymes. And they would be made in the same way they are today. An RNA-transcription factor would be scanning along the RNA double helix, it would come upon a promoter region and initiate transcription, such that an RNA-polymerase could attach and produce a complementary mRNA transcript to the protein-coding RNA stretch in the genome. That piece of mRNA would then be translated into a protein coding gene.

In the particular case of the RNR ribozyme, there would not be any translation necessary. Essentially the transcript itself turned out to be functional, in that it could chemically alter the monomers of RNA into DNA by removing the hydroxyl group from the 2nd carbon atom on Ribose. That's it.

The cell was basically the cell in almost every aspect as it's DNA-based descendant, the main difference being it's genome was a big RNA chromosome instead of DNA.

There would still be transcription, and there would still be translation, and it would still have all the necessary machinery made up of proteins and ribozymes. But their codes would be contained in the RNA chromosome, not in a DNA chromosome.

furthermore : you were screaming a few posts back that you do not stick to the RNA world. Yeah, that it was utter nonsense. Now you propose exactly that ? LOL....

No, it wasn't nonsense and no I do not.

I'm still not proposing the first stage of life was the origin of self-replicating RNA, or the spontaneous origin of an entire functional cell with an RNA based genome. I have never suggested this and I still don't. I still think there would be a long evolutionary history before the first cells with nucleotide-based genomes emerged. I still think that even though RNA came before DNA, RNA was not the first thing to arrive at the origin of life and even when RNA arrived, it did so in combination with very small peptides and these two things coevolved for a long time before anything resembling a modern cell with translation, transcription and all the rest emerged.

By asking me this question you are again proving that you don't understand what I'm saying. Now I have explained it again, above, for the umpteenth fucking time.

You really do have some sort of reading problem. You either don't understand english very well, or you have a general reading problem, or the particular subject we are discussing you simply don't understand enough about to see what I'm saying. I don't know which of these it is, but I have a nagging suspicion it is the latter. You don't really understand the subject well enough.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t2110-what-might-be-a-protocells-minimal-genome

"The RNA molecule is too complex, requiring assembly first of the monomeric constituents of RNA, then assembly of strings of monomers into polymers. As a random event without a highly structured chemical context, this sequence has a forbiddingly low probability and the process lacks a plausible chemical explanation, despite considerable effort to supply one" "It has been challenging to identify possible prebiotic chemistry that might have created RNA. Organic molecules, given energy, have a well-known propensity to form multiple products, sometimes referred to collectively as 'tar' or 'tholin.' These mixtures appear to be unsuited to support Darwinian processes, and certainly have never been observed to spontaneously yield a homochiral genetic polymer.

I agree, which is why I'm not proposing that any of that ever happened. I simply don't believe that it did and in fact, for the reasons stated, I think we have good reason to think that it didn't and couldn't.

In fact, part of the process of producing these enzymes is transcription into mRNA.

As if RNA polymerase enzymes were already in place and operational... LOL... and it was transcriber from ?? DNA ??

RNA polymerase enzymes were encoded in the RNA chromosomes. How those ultimately originated I don't know, but probably they coevolved with the genetic code. But this is irrelevant with respect to the origin of DNA.

DNA simply evolved at a time when cells looked like modern cells, with the main difference being that their chromosomes were based on RNA instead. That chromosome would still contain many protein coding genes and regulatory regions. That chromosome would still be transcribed into mRNA by RNA polymerases, and those mRNA transcripts would still be translated into proteins by the Ribosome.
All the genes of the cell would be contained in the cells chromosme, a chromosome made of RNA instead of DNA.

In that cell, a single ribozyme evolved, the ribozyme we today call Ribonucleotide-Reductase (RNR). It is the ribozyme that converts RNA into DNA, by deoxifying D-Ribose at the 2nd carbon hydroxyl group.

This is simply a temporary storage, which proves directly that RNA can and does in fact do the job of information storage of genetic information well enough to be useful to the cell.

you like to make up things, don't you ?? pretty much portraying a imaginary scnearion ??

No, the particular part you are responding to with that question pertains to an observed fact: That RNA can and does carry genetic information and can act as the central genome full of protein coding genes and regulatory regions.

That is how many viruses work. For example, the common cold is an RNA virus. It has several protein coding genes in it's single RNA-based chromosomes.

The same is true for the Influenza virus. It is ALSO an RNA-based virus. Every time you catch the flu, or get the common cold, your cells are being infected with RNA based chromosomes.

Also, please think about what happens during protein synthesis. First the genetic information for making a protein is transcribed from DNA into mRNA. Messenger-RNA. This usually(though there are exceptions such as self-splicing mRNA) has no enzymatic function, it functions exactly like DNA, it merely is a long polymer that contains a specific sequence that other molecules can act upon. This proves that RNA is an excellent information carrier, certainly well enough that the cells still make use of it. It proves that RNA can and does act as an information storing molecule. It can base-pair with itself through complementary watson-crick pase-pairing just like DNA, it can wound up and form a double helix to become more stable like DNA, it can even base-pair with DNA so information can be copied between the two molecules. All of these are observed facts, they are not speculation or imagination.

It has even been demonstrated experimentally that mixed sequence chromosomes made of both RNA and DNA (as in the polymer contains both RNA and DNA nucleotides) can be accurately copied by DNA and RNA polymerases. So that means we have observational evidence that there would be no barrier at the origin of DNA, preventing the incorporation of DNA monomers into an RNA based genome.

In light of these facts, it is trivial to see how the RNA-based genome gradually got replaced by a DNA one, nucleotide by nucleotide. It has also been proven through computer simulations that this would confer the host cell a huge selective advantage, because the frequency of emergence of selfish genetic elements in a DNA-based genome would be much, much lower.

How many times do I have to educate you about this?

So far, i have not learned andything from you, and do not expect to....

That is amazingly sad. I recommend you act immediately to rectify that situation, I'm basically giving you a free education in molecular biology and genetics here.

 

[Rumraket]

Rather because of the patterns of STRUCTURAL similarities (not sequence similarity, structural similarity) that can be constructed with phylogenetic methods, it is actually strongly implied through this evidence that they all evolved from a common ancestral RNA ribozyme.

thats not what the author says. Again. You are making things up.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4390871/
The origin and evolution of ribonucleotide reduction.

Abstract
Ribonucleotide reduction is the only pathway for de novo synthesis of deoxyribonucleotides in extant organisms. This chemically demanding reaction, which proceeds via a carbon-centered free radical, is catalyzed by ribonucleotide reductase (RNR). The mechanism has been deemed unlikely to be catalyzed by a ribozyme, creating an enigma regarding how the building blocks for DNA were synthesized at the transition from RNA- to DNA-encoded genomes. While it is entirely possible that a different pathway was later replaced with the modern mechanism, here we explore the evolutionary and biochemical limits for an origin of the mechanism in the RNA + protein world and suggest a model for a prototypical ribonucleotide reductase (protoRNR). From the protoRNR evolved the ancestor to modern RNRs, the urRNR, which diversified into the modern three classes. Since the initial radical generation differs between the three modern classes, it is difficult to establish how it was generated in the urRNR. Here we suggest a model that is similar to the B12-dependent mechanism in modern class II RNRs.

From this paper we find this gem:

3.2. A Highly Conserved Reaction Mechanism

Even before structures provided conclusive evidence of the homology of all RNRs, it was still widely believed that the classes were evolutionarily related, since the reaction mechanism is highly similar between all studied RNRs (Figure 5) [48].

Would you like to eat your own words?

You need to get help with your dyslexia and your faulty memory because I already quoted this paper to you before.

Even before structures provided conclusive evidence of the homology of all RNRs

Even before structures provided conclusive evidence of the homology of all RNRs

You can read it now, right?

 

[Elshamah]

Yes. There was a cell with a genome of RNA instead of DNA, one of the enzymes in that genome was encoded in a stretch of RNA instead of DNA, and it mutated and ended up being capable of reduction of RNA monomers, converting them into DNA monomers instead.

The scientific evidence conspires against your fanasy made up wished rna scenario. I don't think i have to go over this again.

That RNA-based genome would still contain the sequence for a lot of protein enzymes.

ah yah. And magic made the right informational sequence getting in place with a magic hand LOL.....

And they would be made in the same way they are today. An RNA-transcription factor would be scanning along the RNA double helix

amazing. Do you know transcription factors that are solely made by RNA ? Do you even have a idea about how complex they are ?? If not, how about you educate yourself about them ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t2036-the-complexity-of-transcription-through-rna-polymerase-enzymes-and-general-transcription-factors-in-eukaryotes#3459

, it would come upon a promoter region and initiate transcription

I have written about this process.

Transcription by RNA polymerase II (Pol II) is a finely tuned and multistep process of making RNA from a DNA template that requires the concerted action of a large set of transcription factors. RNA polymerase II transcription proceeds through multiple stages designated preinitiation, initiation, and elongation. Several key factors are involved in this process. Including, DNA, transcription factors, RNA polymerase, and ATP. There are many more molecular machines involved in the process, namely additional proteins such as coactivators, chromatin remodelers, histone acetylases, deacetylases, kinases, and methylases etc..... The whole system is interdependent. The machinery itself is irreducible complex. DNA, transcription factors, RNA polymerase, and ATP must be present, otherwise transcription cannot occur. What came first, the TATA Box in the promoter region in DNA, or transcription factors, controlling the rate of transcription of genetic information from DNA to messenger RNA ? What use does one have without the other ? Both must have come into existence at the same time, since they are functionless, one without the other. And so the RNA polymerase machine as well, since the other two without it have no function either. That is a extremely sophisticated, interdependenet system that had to come into existence all at once. Thats best explained through a designer. this is a interdependent, highly coordinated complex system, where the single parts have no use, unless in conjunction with all other parts. This is one more prima facie example of intelligent design in molecular biology.

, such that an RNA-polymerase could attach and produce a complementary mRNA transcript to the protein-coding RNA stretch in the genome. That piece of mRNA would then be translated into a protein coding gene.

what evolved first : DNA, mRNA, RNA polymerase, transcription factors, or histones,?

What good is DNA for, if the transcription machinery is not in place in the cell to read the coded information stored in DNA ? Must both not be in place and fully functional at the same time ? and what good is the transcription machinery good for without DNA to read the message ?

In the particular case of the RNR ribozyme, there would not be any translation necessary. Essentially the transcript itself turned out to be functional, in that it could chemically alter the monomers of RNA into DNA by removing the hydroxyl group from the 2nd carbon atom on Ribose. That's it.

oh yah. Everything very easy. Very simple...... :lol:

The cell was basically the cell in almost every aspect as it's DNA-based descendant, the main difference being it's genome was a big RNA chromosome instead of DNA.

And in Alice in Wonderland you believe as well ?? :roll:

There would still be transcription, and there would still be translation, and it would still have all the necessary machinery made up of proteins and ribozymes. But their codes would be contained in the RNA chromosome, not in a DNA chromosome.

Well, you need really to educate yourself. You have no clue what you are writing about. We are talking here about the most complex machines known in the whole fucking universe. And you write here as if you knew what you write about. WE have no idea about the details of these processes. Even the most advanced scientific researchers have not yet explained many details of the mechanisms of these nano machines, as for example how genes are expressed. Far less they have a clue how these machines could have emerged........ It seems however you know more than anyone else. Congrats !!

I'm still not proposing the first stage of life was the origin of self-replicating RNA, or the spontaneous origin of an entire functional cell with an RNA based genome. I have never suggested this and I still don't. I still think there would be a long evolutionary history before the first cells with nucleotide-based genomes emerged. I still think that even though RNA came before DNA, RNA was not the first thing to arrive at the origin of life and even when RNA arrived, it did so in combination with very small peptides and these two things coevolved for a long time before anything resembling a modern cell with translation, transcription and all the rest emerged.

By asking me this question you are again proving that you don't understand what I'm saying. Now I have explained it again, above, for the umpteenth fucking time.

You really do have some sort of reading problem. You either don't understand english very well, or you have a general reading problem, or the particular subject we are discussing you simply don't understand enough about to see what I'm saying. I don't know which of these it is, but I have a nagging suspicion it is the latter. You don't really understand the subject well enough.

Well, at least i understand that you propose the metabolism first fantasy wishful thinking scenario. Which is another fairy tale pseudo scientific just so story at its best.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t2110-what-might-be-a-protocells-minimal-genome

Metabolism-first scenarios involve development of a self-replicating, self-sustaining chemical system that is able to capture energy and that is contained within a protocell [24] or geothermal vent [38-39]. Perhaps energy transfer used an "osmosis first" paradigm [40, 26]. Unlike RNA first, there is no nucleotide genome to control replication or component construction so that selection would have favored "not the best replicator, but the reaction that sucked in fuel the quickest, denying energy to other chemical processes" [41]. The "bag of chemicals" (composome) presumably would grow until it reaches a size that enables it to divide, with each "daughter" inheriting about half the chemical contents. "The origin of life was marked when a rare few protocells happened to have the ability to capture energy from the environment to initiate catalyzed heterotrophic growth directed by heritable genetic information in the polymers ... The origin of life occurred when a subset of these molecules was captured in a compartment and could interact with one another to produce the properties we associate with the living state" [39]. There have been simulations [42-43] in which the composomes "undergo mutation-like compositional changes" that are claimed to illustrate evolution, but these have never been experimentally observed.

Although metabolism-first avoids the infeasibility of forming functional RNA by chance, "replication of compositional information is so inaccurate that fitter compositional genomes cannot be maintained by selection and, therefore, the system lacks evolvability (i.e., it cannot substantially depart from the asymptotic steady-state solution already built-in in the dynamical equations). We conclude that this fundamental limitation of ensemble replicators cautions against metabolism-first theories of the origin of life" [44]. Concerning the chemical cycles required, "These are chemically very difficult reactions ... One needs, therefore, to postulate highly specific catalysts for these reactions. It is likely that such catalysts could be constructed by a skilled synthetic chemist, but questionable that they could be found among naturally occurring minerals or prebiotic organic molecules. The lack of a supporting background in chemistry is even more evident in proposals that metabolic cycles can evolve to 'life-like' complexity. The most serious challenge to proponents of metabolic cycle theories—the problems presented by the lack of specificity of most non-enzymatic catalysts—has, in general, not been appreciated. If it has, it has been ignored. Theories of the origin of life based on metabolic cycles cannot be justified by the inadequacy of competing theories: they must stand on their own"

RNA polymerase enzymes were encoded in the RNA chromosomes. How those ultimately originated I don't know, but probably they coevolved with the genetic code. But this is irrelevant with respect to the origin of DNA.

Observe your own writing : RNA polymerase enzymes were encoded in the RNA chromosomes. Baseless assertion. How those ultimately originated I don't know, but probably they coevolved with the genetic code. But this is irrelevant with respect to the origin of DNA

you dont know, and say probably. Why not probably NOT ?? Probably NOT, because that would shake your wishful world view, and consequently you would have to admit and face a creator ( which you wish to avoid at any reason, reasons that only you know. maybe its because you do not want that big daddy knows what you do when nobody is looking ? )

DNA simply evolved

Now look at this irrational assertion. And you REALLY believe that ?? Come on !! I posted several times why that is extremely unlikely, i would say, IMPOSSIBLE.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t2028-origin-of-the-dna-double-helix

the crux of the problem is that even a basic biological replicating system requires (a) several macromolecules with complementary functions with (b) each having a highly improbable sequence. And this combination of complexities presents an insurmountable challenge to a naturalistic origin of life.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t2028-origin-of-the-dna-double-helix#3436

at a time when cells looked like modern cells, with the main difference being that their chromosomes were based on RNA instead. That chromosome would still contain many protein coding genes and regulatory regions. That chromosome would still be transcribed into mRNA by RNA polymerases, and those mRNA transcripts would still be translated into proteins by the Ribosome.
All the genes of the cell would be contained in the cells chromosme, a chromosome made of RNA instead of DNA.

If that were the case, and everything would work just fine that way, there would be no need to emerge with DNA :lol:

And you were delivered also as baby by storks ?? :lol:

In that cell, a single ribozyme evolved

There is no evolution prior replicating cells. Learn that lesson quickly before it gets worse... ( i wont use ridicularizing anymore, lol..... )

, the ribozyme we today call Ribonucleotide-Reductase (RNR). It is the ribozyme that converts RNA into DNA, by deoxifying D-Ribose at the 2nd carbon hydroxyl group.

And why would chemical reactions evolve that enzyme, if everything works just fine in your idealized rna scenario ??

That RNA can and does carry genetic information and can act as the central genome full of protein coding genes and regulatory regions.

Ok. Lets go back to real life . Fantasy time is over.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t2024-the-rna-world-and-the-origins-of-life

The issue of the complete synthesis of RNA nucleotides has been a major stumbling block for the RNA World Hypothesis. The sugar found in the backbone of both DNA and RNA, ribose, has been particularly problematic, as the most prebiotically plausible chemical reaction schemes have typically yielded only a small amount of ribose mixed with a diverse assortment of other sugar molecules.

One of the more enigmatic and difficult problems confronting the prebiotic chemistry community is identifying how the monomers of RNA, or pre-RNA, or even non-related polymeric components selectively formed and self-assembled out of the presumed random prebiotic mixtures.

Achieving regio- and stereochemical selectivity of glycosylation reactions under simulated prebiotic conditions has plagued the community ever since Orgel and others began working on this problem

http://www.panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm# 28ref

There is no evidence in life today of anything that produces huge quantities of new, random strings of nucleotides or amino acids, some of which are advantageous. But if precellular life did that, it would need lots of time to create any useful genes or proteins. How long would it need? After making some helpful assumptions we can get the ratio of actual, useful proteins to all possible random proteins up to something like one in 10^500 (ten to the 500th power). So it would take, barring incredible luck, something like 10^500 trials to probably find one. Imagine that every cubic quarter-inch of ocean in the world contains ten billion precellular ribosomes. Imagine that each ribosome produces proteins at ten trials per minute (about the speed that a working ribosome in a bacterial cell manufactures proteins). Even then, it would take about 10^450 years to probably make one useful protein. But Earth was formed only about 4.6 x 10^9 years ago. The amount of time available for this hypothetical protein creation process was maybe a few hundred million or ~10^8 years. And now, to make a cell, we need not just one protein, but a minimum of several hundred.

That is how many viruses work. For example, the common cold is an RNA virus. It has several protein coding genes in it's single RNA-based chromosomes.

The same is true for the Influenza virus. It is ALSO an RNA-based virus. Every time you catch the flu, or get the common cold, your cells are being infected with RNA based chromosomes.

http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.php

Trefil noted that the question of where viruses come from is an “enduring mystery” in evolution.

Also, please think about what happens during protein synthesis. First the genetic information for making a protein is transcribed from DNA into mRNA. Messenger-RNA. This usually(though there are exceptions such as self-splicing mRNA) has no enzymatic function, it functions exactly like DNA, it merely is a long polymer that contains a specific sequence that other molecules can act upon. This proves that RNA is an excellent information carrier, certainly well enough that the cells still make use of it. It proves that RNA can and does act as an information storing molecule. It can base-pair with itself through complementary watson-crick pase-pairing just like DNA, it can wound up and form a double helix to become more stable like DNA, it can even base-pair with DNA so information can be copied between the two molecules. All of these are observed facts, they are not speculation or imagination.

It has even been demonstrated experimentally that mixed sequence chromosomes made of both RNA and DNA (as in the polymer contains both RNA and DNA nucleotides) can be accurately copied by DNA and RNA polymerases. So that means we have observational evidence that there would be no barrier at the origin of DNA, preventing the incorporation of DNA monomers into an RNA based genome.

In light of these facts, it is trivial to see how the RNA-based genome gradually got replaced by a DNA one, nucleotide by nucleotide. It has also been proven through computer simulations that this would confer the host cell a huge selective advantage, because the frequency of emergence of selfish genetic elements in a DNA-based genome would be much, much lower.

This is all baseless , faced the fact that RNA polymerase, transcription factors, enhancers and inhibitors, topokinase enzymes, the ribosome, tRNA, chaperones, regulation mechanisms, cell division proteins and processes would have all to be fully functional all at once, working in a complex, interdependent manner, in order to make things goins... The cell is a hudge interdependent and irreducible complex system. I am collecting btw information of all proteins and enzymes that would be INDISPENSABLE to make the first cell going. I am just at the beginning, but my contention is, that if the flagellum requires several subunits that are essential to work, the cell needs probably thousands more, making it the most complex irreducible system we know of.

here a small list :

Essential parts and functions in the cell

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t2085-essential-parts-proteins-enzymes-organelles-and-functions-in-the-cell

The mechanism by which chromosomal DNA molecules are held together: entrapment within cohesin rings?

mysterious has been the trigger for what is arguably the most dramatic and one of the most highly regulated events in the life of a eukaryotic cell, the sudden disjunction of sister chromatids at the metaphase to anaphase transition. 1

Work in our lab has shown that sister chromatids are held together by a multi-subunit complex called cohesin whose Smc1 and Smc3 subunits are rod shaped proteins with ABC-like ATPases at one end of 50nm long intra-molecular anti-parallel coiled coils. At the other ends are pseudo-symmetrical hinge domains that interact to create V shaped Smc1/Smc3 heterodimers. N- and C-terminal domains within cohesin’s third subunit, known as α kleisin, bind to Smc3 and Smc1 ATPase heads respectively, thereby creating a huge tripartite ring whose integrity is essential for holding sister DNAs together. A thiol protease called separase opens the cohesin ring by cleaving its α kleisin subunit, which causes cohesin’s dissociation from chromosomes and triggers sister chromatid disjunction.


Regulation of chromosome condensation and segregation. 2

Regulated and controlled chromosome condensation and segregation is essential for the transmission of genetic information from one generation to the next. A myriad of techniques has been utilized over the last few decades to identify proteins required for the organized compaction of the massive length of a cell's DNA. A full understanding of the components and processes involved relies on further work, exploiting biochemical, genetic, cytological, and proteomics approaches to complete the picture of how a cell packages and partitions its genome during the cell cycle.

Condensins: universal organizers of chromosomes with diverse functions 3

Condensins are multisubunit protein complexes that play a fundamental role in the structural and functional organization of chromosomes in the three domains of life. Most eukaryotic species have two different types of condensin complexes, known as condensins I and II, that fulfill nonoverlapping functions and are subjected to differential regulation during mitosis and meiosis.

The multisubunit condensin complex is essential for the structural organization of eukaryotic chromosomes during their segregation by the mitotic spindle 4


Recruitment of the conserved centromeric protein shugoshin is essential for biorientation, but its exact role has been enigmatic. 5


A mystery surrounding tubulin, the protein that plays a crucial role in the passing of genetic material from a parent cell to daughter cells, has been at least partially solved. 6 Nogales and her colleagues also identified a region in Dam1 essential for the regulation of the complex, by spindle-checkpoint kinase enzymes. "These kinases are signaling proteins that, based on tension in the spindles, tell the ring when the time is right for it to let go of the microtubules," Nogales says. "We have found that without this region, the ability of the Dam1 to form a ring is reduced."

All eukaryotic cells must segregate their chromosomes equally between two daughter cells at each division. This process needs to be robust, as errors in the form of loss or gain of genetic material have catastrophic effects on viability. Chromosomes are captured, aligned, and segregated to daughter cells via interaction with spindle microtubules mediated by the kinetochore. 7


Topoisomerase II enzymes 8

Type IIA topoisomerases are essential in the separation of entangled daughter strands during replication. This function is believed to be performed by topoisomerase II in eukaryotes and by topoisomerase IV in prokaryotes. Failure to separate these strands leads to cell death.


1) http://www.bioch.ox.ac.uk/aspsite/index.asp?pageid=591
2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12672496
3) http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/26/15/1659.full
4) http://www.nature.com/nsmb/journal/v18/n8/full/nsmb.2087.html?WT.ec_id=NSMB-201108
5) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4063673/
6) http://www2.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sabl/2007/Oct/onering.html
7) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3216659/
8 ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_II_topoisomerase

expect this list to grow much longer as i go forward studying these things.......

I'm basically giving you a free education in molecular biology and genetics here.

Oh, thats so nice. Thank you so much !!

 

[Rumraket]

Yes. There was a cell with a genome of RNA instead of DNA, one of the enzymes in that genome was encoded in a stretch of RNA instead of DNA, and it mutated and ended up being capable of reduction of RNA monomers, converting them into DNA monomers instead.

The scientific evidence conspires against your fanasy made up wished rna scenario.

My scenario is not a fantasy, it is directly implied by the evidence. That is, after all, why the different classes of Ribonucleotide reductases show common descent.

I don't think i have to go over this again.

If your goal here is to show that you are correct, you need to go over it again. This time with arguments and evidence against the scenario I put forward, instead of quotemines against the RNA-world scenario for the origin of life which are all irrelevant.

That RNA-based genome would still contain the sequence for a lot of protein enzymes.

ah yah. And magic made the right informational sequence getting in place with a magic hand LOL.....

BUT THAT IS WHAT YOU BELIEVE FOR FUCKS SAKE. :facepalm: :facepalm:

But no, that is not what happened.
Just like in DNA based chromosomes, the genes are encoded in a specific sequence, and those genes emerged through evolution mostly from previous genes, or by random resurrection of pseudogenes by accumulating mutations, so the same thing would happen in RNA based chromosomes. The genes there would have most originated through the same process.

This process is an observed fact, by the way. Genes primarily originated through duplication and divergence, and secondarily through reactivation of junk-sequence in what usually results in what we call ORFan genes.

And they would be made in the same way they are today. An RNA-transcription factor would be scanning along the RNA double helix

amazing. Do you know transcription factors that are solely made by RNA ?

No and they don't have to. As I already explained, the RNA chromosome would contain protein coding genes that would be transcribed and translated by the ribosome. Just like in a DNA based genome.

Do you even have a idea about how complex they are ??

Yes.

If not, how about you educate yourself about them ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t2036-the-complexity-of-transcription-through-rna-polymerase-enzymes-and-general-transcription-factors-in-eukaryotes#3459

I have a university-level textbook on molecular biology, called "Molecular biology of the Gene, 5th Edition". It is co-authored by James Watson (the James Watson). I'll be going to that book if I need to learn something about molecular biology, not your stupid apologetics site that mostly just contains copy-pasted material you don't understand anyway.

, it would come upon a promoter region and initiate transcription

I have written about this process.

Copy-pasted you mean.

For example:
"Transcription by RNA polymerase II (Pol II) is a finely tuned and multistep process of making RNA from a DNA template that requires the concerted action of a large set of transcription factors. RNA polymerase II transcription proceeds through multiple stages designated preinitiation, initiation, and elongation. "

I read the first sentence here that you claim to "have written", and the word that jumped to mind was "concerted". You would never use the word concerted, it is simply not in your vocabulary. So I just put the part of the sentence that reads: "concerted action of a large set of transcription factors." into google and found where you copy-pasted it from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12676794

Synthesis of eukaryotic mRNA by RNA polymerase II is an elaborate biochemical process that requires the concerted action of a large set of transcription factors.

As we see here, you have actually not written any of this shit yourself, you have picked out sentences from other people's work and stringed it together into a piece you now claim credit for having written. That is plagiarism, and it shows your really don't know anything about the subject, you only know how to cut and paste sentences together from other people's work.

Honestly that is straight up pathetic. Can you please stop this pretension?

 

[SpecialFrog]

Elshamah, here is a tip: if a reader can't tell when something is in your words or someone else's words, you have committed plagiarism, which is a form of theft. Any phrase or paragraph taken directly from someone else should either in quotation marks or be formatted as a block quote and be cited properly. Text that is in your own words but relies on another source for its information should be cited but does not need to be in quotation marks.

 

[Rumraket]

such that an RNA-polymerase could attach and produce a complementary mRNA transcript to the protein-coding RNA stretch in the genome. That piece of mRNA would then be translated into a protein coding gene.

what evolved first : DNA, mRNA, RNA polymerase, transcription factors, or histones,?

I don't know. But I can tell you this much: DNA came last of all the members in your list, because they would have to be already in place for the Ribonucleotide-Reductase to evolve and start converting RNA into DNA.

If you understood what I wrote earlier, you would be able to figure this out yourself. It follows immediately and logically from first principles.

What good is DNA for, if the transcription machinery is not in place in the cell to read the coded information stored in DNA ?

Nothing. Which is why it was already in place, but reading RNA instaed, and simply gradually adapted to a genome containing more and more DNA bases instead of RNA bases.

Must both not be in place and fully functional at the same time ?

No, I don't see why it would be for the reasons just explained.

and what good is the transcription machinery good for without DNA to read the message ?

Transcribing an RNA genome instead. Obviously. As already explained.

In the particular case of the RNR ribozyme, there would not be any translation necessary. Essentially the transcript itself turned out to be functional, in that it could chemically alter the monomers of RNA into DNA by removing the hydroxyl group from the 2nd carbon atom on Ribose. That's it.

oh yah. Everything very easy. Very simple...... :lol:

Probably neither simple nor easy, but nevertheless that is probably how it happened. If you have a better explanation(with higher explanatory power) for the facts, such as the shared decent of all RNR's, by all means bring it.

The cell was basically the cell in almost every aspect as it's DNA-based descendant, the main difference being it's genome was a big RNA chromosome instead of DNA.

And in Alice in Wonderland you believe as well ?? :roll:

No, unlike you who actually believe in magic.

I don't.

There would still be transcription, and there would still be translation, and it would still have all the necessary machinery made up of proteins and ribozymes. But their codes would be contained in the RNA chromosome, not in a DNA chromosome.

Well, you need really to educate yourself.

Okay, let's see how many arguments against my scenario you produce.

You have no clue what you are writing about.

Not an argument.

We are talking here about the most complex machines known in the whole fucking universe.

Not an argument.

And you write here as if you knew what you write about.

Not an argument.

WE have no idea about the details of these processes.

Counterfactual blind assertion. We do have ideas about the details of these processes. In fact we have very interesting experimental demonstrations that key steps of the process I described are possible. And we have some interesting phylogenetic evidence that supports it, such as the divergent DNA replication complexes found to be different in Bacteria and Archaea.

Even the most advanced scientific researchers have not yet explained many details of the mechanisms of these nano machines, as for example how genes are expressed.

Wat? My "Molecular biology of the Gene" textbook has several chapters devoted to explaining gene expression. What the fuck are you even talking about?

Far less they have a clue how these machines could have emerged........

Blind assertion.

It seems however you know more than anyone else. Congrats !!

No, I don't know more than these researchers, I only know what they know, because I read their work.

You had zero logically valid arguments against my scenario. There were some appeals to igorance, some claims that I don't know what I'm talking about (which is weird, because I can sit here and pretty much effortlessly write about this stuff without having to copy-paste it off some apologetics website I have compiled first) and then a couple of demonstrably false blind assertions.

Your score on arguments is: 0
Overall grade: F (for Fail)

I'm still not proposing the first stage of life was the origin of self-replicating RNA, or the spontaneous origin of an entire functional cell with an RNA based genome. I have never suggested this and I still don't. I still think there would be a long evolutionary history before the first cells with nucleotide-based genomes emerged. I still think that even though RNA came before DNA, RNA was not the first thing to arrive at the origin of life and even when RNA arrived, it did so in combination with very small peptides and these two things coevolved for a long time before anything resembling a modern cell with translation, transcription and all the rest emerged.

By asking me this question you are again proving that you don't understand what I'm saying. Now I have explained it again, above, for the umpteenth fucking time.

You really do have some sort of reading problem. You either don't understand english very well, or you have a general reading problem, or the particular subject we are discussing you simply don't understand enough about to see what I'm saying. I don't know which of these it is, but I have a nagging suspicion it is the latter. You don't really understand the subject well enough.

Well, at least i understand that you propose the metabolism first fantasy wishful thinking scenario. Which is another fairy tale pseudo scientific just so story at its best.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t2110-what-might-be-a-protocells-minimal-genome

Metabolism-first scenarios involve development of a self-replicating, self-sustaining chemical system that is able to capture energy and that is contained within a protocell [24] or geothermal vent [38-39]. Perhaps energy transfer used an "osmosis first" paradigm [40, 26]. Unlike RNA first, there is no nucleotide genome to control replication or component construction so that selection would have favored "not the best replicator, but the reaction that sucked in fuel the quickest, denying energy to other chemical processes" [41]. The "bag of chemicals" (composome) presumably would grow until it reaches a size that enables it to divide, with each "daughter" inheriting about half the chemical contents. "The origin of life was marked when a rare few protocells happened to have the ability to capture energy from the environment to initiate catalyzed heterotrophic growth directed by heritable genetic information in the polymers ... The origin of life occurred when a subset of these molecules was captured in a compartment and could interact with one another to produce the properties we associate with the living state" [39]. There have been simulations [42-43] in which the composomes "undergo mutation-like compositional changes" that are claimed to illustrate evolution, but these have never been experimentally observed.

It is true they have yet to be experimentally observed. There was also a time at which the human carrying flying machine had not been experimentally demonstrated either. Some times you have to get an idea first before you do the experiments. And before you do the experiments you have to get money to do them.

Although metabolism-first avoids the infeasibility of forming functional RNA by chance, "replication of compositional information is so inaccurate that fitter compositional genomes cannot be maintained by selection and, therefore, the system lacks evolvability (i.e., it cannot substantially depart from the asymptotic steady-state solution already built-in in the dynamical equations). We conclude that this fundamental limitation of ensemble replicators cautions against metabolism-first theories of the origin of life" [44]. Concerning the chemical cycles required, "These are chemically very difficult reactions ... One needs, therefore, to postulate highly specific catalysts for these reactions. It is likely that such catalysts could be constructed by a skilled synthetic chemist, but questionable that they could be found among naturally occurring minerals or prebiotic organic molecules. The lack of a supporting background in chemistry is even more evident in proposals that metabolic cycles can evolve to 'life-like' complexity. The most serious challenge to proponents of metabolic cycle theories—the problems presented by the lack of specificity of most non-enzymatic catalysts—has, in general, not been appreciated. If it has, it has been ignored. Theories of the origin of life based on metabolic cycles cannot be justified by the inadequacy of competing theories: they must stand on their own"

I should note that several of your quotes in this piece of copy-paste have been superceded by later work. For example, the citation in [44] has been superceded by:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22221860

And that work has been cited and built on by several subsequent publications concerning the feasibility of primordial metabolic cycles:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?linkname=pubmed_pubmed_citedin&from_uid=22221860

This is the problem with building your case entirely on quotemines, particularly concerning work that is the forefront of scientific research. Sometimes previous ideas are overturned fast and then someone like you who has put all his money on it all being false has to go hunting for new quotes to support your preconcieved conclusion. Instead of simply patiently sitting back and allowing the experiments to be done and the evidence to be compiled, you are desperately seeking a specific conclusion.

RNA polymerase enzymes were encoded in the RNA chromosomes. How those ultimately originated I don't know, but probably they coevolved with the genetic code. But this is irrelevant with respect to the origin of DNA.

Observe your own writing : RNA polymerase enzymes were encoded in the RNA chromosomes. Baseless assertion.

No, it follows immediately from first principles. If a cell with an RNA based chromosome is to replicate itself, it is going to need an RNA polymerase, and if that RNA polymerase is to be expressed during cell division, it must obviously be encoded in that RNA genome. It is obvious and logical that this stage was the antecedent to DNA-based genomes.

How those ultimately originated I don't know, but probably they coevolved with the genetic code. But this is irrelevant with respect to the origin of DNA

you dont know, and say probably. Why not probably NOT ??

Because this is where the evidence points, and it is pretty much entailed by logic. When RNA eventually emerged, one of the very first functions that evolved must have been RNA replication, which requires an RNA polymerase. But since an RNA polymerase in turn must be a coded entity, a reduced code must in some form have co-emerged with the first RNA polymerase. I have already given you a paper that explains what these scenarios could be in the other thread(notice how I wrote that entire post myself, I didn't have to copy-paste it from some collection of quotes I have dishonestly stringed together and then pretended I wrote myself):

An excellent and very recent paper, for anyone who is not a deluded religious apologist, but instead interested in trying to understand stuff about recent developments in the field, and who would like to see some stuff on the possible origin of RNA and coded protein synthesis, I can recommend this paper:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4390850/
How Amino Acids and Peptides Shaped the RNA World

Abstract
The “RNA world” hypothesis is seen as one of the main contenders for a viable theory on the origin of life. Relatively small RNAs have catalytic power, RNA is everywhere in present-day life, the ribosome is seen as a ribozyme, and rRNA and tRNA are crucial for modern protein synthesis. However, this view is incomplete at best. The modern protein-RNA ribosome most probably is not a distorted form of a “pure RNA ribosome” evolution started out with. Though the oldest center of the ribosome seems “RNA only”, we cannot conclude from this that it ever functioned in an environment without amino acids and/or peptides. Very small RNAs (versatile and stable due to basepairing) and amino acids, as well as dipeptides, coevolved. Remember, it is the amino group of aminoacylated tRNA that attacks peptidyl-tRNA, destroying the bond between peptide and tRNA. This activity of the amino acid part of aminoacyl-tRNA illustrates the centrality of amino acids in life. With the rise of the “RNA world” view of early life, the pendulum seems to have swung too much towards the ribozymatic part of early biochemistry. The necessary presence and activity of amino acids and peptides is in need of highlighting. In this article, we try to bring the role of the peptide component of early life back into focus. We argue that an RNA world completely independent of amino acids never existed.

You really should read this paper, it contains a lot of super interesting information concerning the functions of very small peptides and RNA fragments, and how their interactions could have kick-started the evolution of the translation machinery.

Much of this is still shrouded in uncertainties and mystery, and some of the evidence is weak if not ambigous. Let me put it this way: Im open to being shown wrong. But given what we know now, it seems the most likely explanation given the facts we have(many of which are pointed out in that paper).

There could be another way it happened of course, but if that is so then we would need evidence that better supports that scenario before we should put our money there.

Probably NOT, because that would shake your wishful world view

I have no particular preference in my worldview concerning the order of appearance of biological macromolecules. I honestly don't care whether RNA came before DNA or not. What I care about is facts and evidence.

If this was about what I wanted to believe, why would I reject the RNA world hypothesis that I initially believed was the best explanation, but I no longer do?

and consequently you would have to admit and face a creator ( which you wish to avoid at any reason, reasons that only you know. maybe its because you do not want that big daddy knows what you do when nobody is looking ? )

I masturbate. To videos of naked women. I'm okay with everyone knowing.

I sometimes also pick my nose.

Suppose you are right, suppose there really is a god and that I secretly somehow know it inside. (This is what you believe, righ?)
Suppose that god is going to judge me for my actions and my beliefs. The most sensible option for me would be to start lying to myself!

This makes no sense, honestly. It is the most galactically stupid of all theist arguments. Watch this video:

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

There's also this...

Alert to biologists: Ribosomes can translate the 'untranslated region' of messenger RNA

Kindest regards,

James