In talk.origins I read this message from yojimbo5681 at my-deja.com:
>In article <199910151547.LAA22120 at milo.math.sc.edu>,
> Peter Nyikos <nyikos at math.sc.edu> wrote:
>>> I don't see why the role of proteins couldn't be played
>> by ribozymes. In fact, the "loosey-goosey" nature of RNA
>> molecules (as one person put it) might actually be an asset
>> here: our own neurons aren't the simple on/off things early
>> researchers assumed, and RNA molecules might actually permit
>> a wider range of responses.
>>i see our resident bio-chemist is now claiming that ribozymes can
>substitute for proteins.
>>leaving aside that interestingly quaint notion for a bit, he then
>proposes that RNA, as opposed to protein, might make neurons more
>flexible and responsive.
>>before i really start to lay into him on this one, i would like dr. p to
>more clearly explain what he means by this interesting statement.
>I read his claim differently. I don't think he is suggesting that the
change would help neurons, I think he is suggesting that an unreliable
system like RNA could give a more analog style response.
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
A science is said to by useful if its development tends
to accentuate the existing inequalities in the
distribution of wealth, or more directly promotes the
distruction of human life.
GHH
