Could RNA have been around pre-biotically?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cliffhanley203
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rna
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the RNA World hypothesis, which suggests that RNA could have existed before the emergence of life, serving both as genetic material and as a catalyst for chemical reactions. The article referenced implies that a single RNA catalyst might have been capable of producing multiple living forms, hinting at its potential prebiotic role. Participants recommend exploring existing organic compounds found on prebiotic Earth to understand the types of molecules that could have contributed to early life. The RNA World hypothesis is a significant concept in abiogenesis research, indicating a possible pathway for the origin of life. This highlights the importance of RNA in the evolutionary transition from simple molecules to complex life forms.
cliffhanley203
Messages
28
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I’m reading my way through the Brittanic.com article on abiogenesis and I have a question regards the following line taken from the article;[/B]

“...a single RNA catalyst could have produced mulitiple living forms...”

Q. Is this implying that RNA could have existed pre-biotically? That it could have caused the first life forms (‘...produced mulitiple living forms...’)?

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
That's a reference to the RNA World hypothesis.

"According to this hypothesis, RNA stored both genetic information and catalyzed the chemical reactions in primitive cells. Only later in evolutionary time did DNA take over as the genetic material and proteins become the major catalyst and structural component of cells."
 
  • Like
Likes jim mcnamara
"RNA world" would be a good place to start a google search.You could also have a look at the sorts of organics found already that give a glimpse of the sorts molecules that could have been around on pre biotic earth.
 
  • Like
Likes jim mcnamara
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top