In article <7u80ml$2nu$1 at nnrp1.deja.com>,
yojimbo5681 at my-deja.com wrote:
> 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.
>> to further facilitate discussion, i have added bionet.neuroscience.
dr. nyikos has chided me indirectly for my post above. he claims i am
suggesting that he has proposed that ribozymes could work better than
proteins in terrestrial organisms in general, and in their neurons in
particular.
mind you, that's not surprising, given the typically vague terms in
which dr. p wrote:
"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."
a wider range of responses than _what_, dr. p?
will you indulge us all, and flesh out your hypothesis to explain how a
form of life containing rna, but virtually no proteins could evolve
multicellularity and intelligence? could you explain how rna could
permit a wider range of responses in neurons than proteins? - anywhere,
mind you, not just on earth.
that _is_ what you're proposing, is it not?
i'm tying to have an on-topic discussion here, dr. p. are you going to
participate, or are you going to leave your "hypothesis" as a vague
collection of half-baked, on-the-hoof ramblings?
i guess that if you leave things the way they are, you can always claim
that peepl misrepresent you.
it is, after all, very easy to misrepresent something that is never
fully explained.......
(posted and e-mailed. i will desist if dr. p. lets me know he does not
wish to receive e-mail).
--
tu marche et, tu marche et,
tu baille effete typique
heaume et gaine - heaume et gaine
gigote chic!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
