STUDY - Technical - New Dacian's Medicine
The Life (Part 2) - About Life
Translation Draft
A new day of introductory,
general approach to life... But this time, there won't be a post
full of "technical" stuff... There will also be some interesting
things (?!?). Because we're going to discuss the evolution of
RNA and DNA.
I will start "forced",
only with the views and discoveries of materialists,
evolutionists.
Although nowadays, in
terms of genetics, the source of life, the origin of life or
similar concepts, there is almost only talk about DNA, I must
bring to science that it is not the basic genetic material but,
you guessed it, RNA.
And, this statement is
based both on "quantitative values", "presence", in terms of a
mass relationship between DNA and RNA and because of the
"physiological involvements" of these basic structures of
life...
Then everything can start
from the simple evolution because the first appeared in the long
journey of life is the RNA, without it, the DNA having no
"possibility" to "manifest" because, as you saw in yesterday's
post, it is nothing but a mold, a relatively safe storage place
(a kind of library, hard drive or the like) and, of course,
relatively stable, genetic information. Interesting, isn't it?
Especially for those who discovered this, being rewarded with a
Nobel Prize...
It all starts from the
finding that ribosomes (ribonucleoprotein structures) are
universally present, also in eukaryotes and prokaryotes.
Thus, from the research on
the emergence of protons (primitive single-celled organisms) it
was concluded that the first "genes" were made up of RNA (of
course also its precursors), which, nowadays, "still represent"
the "pure" genetic material only for some viruses and viruses.
Through the abiotic
synthesis of the primary genetic material (RNA and its
precursors) several types of "genetic sequences" were
synthesized both because of errors that occur during replication
(RNA structures show a relative instability in replication but
this used evolution because, in the end, only "useful" RNA
structures continued to evolve) and because of the extreme
"mutagenic" conditions from the beginning of the Earth's
existence.
Of all these survived the
most stable "genetic sequences", which had a length of 50 to 100
nuleotides, similar to the transfer RNA found in all living
animals today (if you remember yesterday, those that are
intended to transport amino acids to ribosomes to synthesize
proteins).
Thus, the RNA that we
"find" today, has the same "qualities" as in the beginning being
a genetic material that "benefits" the two mandatory
evolutionary properties represented by the "genetic information
replicator" and "enzymatic catalyst", thus ensuring the quality
of the replicative system with which the evolution of living
systems begins on this earth...
So, here we are dealing
with a true "autonomous replicative system" (which is not the
case with DNA).
The first RNA genes were
small (it is estimated that the structure of these types of RNA
would have been around 100 nucleotides) but the "problem" of
their stability could not be solved.
This meant a blockage of
the evolutionary process, because evolution involves an
increased amount of genetic information. It is estimated that
accumulations of nucleotides were made which generated
relatively stable evolutionary elements but it was not possible
to achieve the synthesis of macromolecules greater than
8,000-10,000 nucleotides, because at this level it is impossible
not to produce a depolymerization followed by destructuring.
But this "impasse" was
"overcome" by the accidental or non-development of bicatenary
RNA structures that ensured the most stable replication. When
scientists use the term "bicatenar", they do not necessarily
refer to a double structure, of two "strands", but to a kind of
"existence" of two relatively identical structures by means of a
link of formation of a "bicatenary" structure...
So, at this "evolutionary
point" came a kind of mechanism of "checking" and "keeping" a
structure through the "related" structure, foreshadowing the
future of DNA.
This would be the time for
some technical details... Earlier, I "affirmed" the major role
of ribosomes in what would be the evolution towards DNA. Well,
now would be the "time", the "time" when the ribosomal RNA, the
main component of the ribosome, is structured, even if it is not
clear how a cell-free cellular component can exist.
An "essential" feature of
this type of RNA, "noted" by geneticists as "RRNA", is that it
is totally different from all other types of RNA in that it is
always bound (physically, chemically) to proteins, having an
"essential" role in the processing and "transposition" of
proteins into "common action" with other forms of RNA.
Perhaps that's why, in
life nowadays, rRNA makes up about 80% of cellular RNA... Even
ribosomes are made up of 60% rRNA and 40% ribosomal proteins.
It should no longer be
necessary to recall that, of course, there were also RNA
elements of "interaction" such as RNA( transport, mRNA
(messenger RNA) and other forms, with the functions possible at
that time of life development.
So, in the "great
agglomeration" of molecules, macromolecules or whatever it was
in the "early" days of DNA, the first "structure" that required
permanent connection with proteins appears, in addition to the
"advantage" that rRNA has a relatively small molecule, around
1,000 nucleotides (referring to "small molecules"). The other
RNA "types" have molecules larger than those of RNA, for example
mRNA is "structured" out of about 1,500 nuleotides...
But what will be really
surprising, at least to the profane, is the fact that the
primary structure of rRNA sequences may vary by organism, but
the association of bases within these sequences usually forms
"stem loop" configurations... This "allows" the rRNA to create
three-dimensional RNA structures that are similar between
species.
Yes, you read correctly,
"similar between species"! That's why scientists couldn't name
this "property" except with the phrase "stem loop."
And even if I don't give
you details about LSU and SSU, small and large molecules, etc.,
I can present the opinion of geneticists who state that rRNA
sequences are widely used in the study of evolutionary
relationships between organisms, because they are of ancient
origin, being found in all life forms, being resistant to
"horizontal gene transfer".
On "Romanian" it is thus
proven that before DNA was RNA, which "activates" without
problems, the RNA sequences being "preserved" (unchanged) over
time, due to its crucial role in protein synthesis. Compared to
the DNA that has "specialized", "customized" permanently, giving
the "differences" of regn, species, etc.
Returning, against the
background of the specialization of replication structures, the
bicatenary structures have evolved little by little towards the
dna structure against the background of the development and
structure of replication systems and the emergence of
replication control systems (correction of errors on account of
"comparison" to replication between monocatenar structures that
formed the bicatenar structure).
It seems that in this
"early period", the evolution has also occurred the appearance
of nucleic acid T (thimine, which is nothing but a molecule of
uracil with an "addition" of a methyl grouping) in the chains of
RNA (which have only A - adenine, G - guanine, C - cytosine, U -
uracil) as an element of information delimitation and thus one
can talk about the appearance of proto-DNA.
Here it can be said that
we are discussing proto-DNA, even the DNA of today, the one in
which there is no more uracil (although there are still some
life forms, very few, it is right, in which DNA still has traces
of uracil).
Thus, the RNA (proto-DNA)
structures created became more and more stable and,
evolutionaryly, it came to take over RNA elements from the
environment directly into the proto-DNA structure with the help
of enzymes called transcriptases, then by other "polymers",
leading to the "birth" of the symbiosis of multicellular beings,
organisms that will develop with each evolutionary step.
I'm going to make a little
parenthesis now about the history of mitochondrial DNA...
According to the theory of endosymbiosis, mitochondria are
cellular organelles resulting from endosymbiosis of an
alpha-proteobacteria... It has partially preserved its own
genome, with some genes necessary for the synthesis of proteins
participating in the realization of the respiratory chain being
transferred into the nuclear genome.
This symbiosis
relationship, perfected during evolution, allows a cell, which
previously could not achieve oxidation reactions, to obtain its
energy in an oxygen-rich environment...
So, mitochondria is the
next evolutionary step, the one that current geneticists have as
a "basic study element" in terms of "pure" DNA transfer... Given
that the DNA present in the mitochondria is circular and not
double helical... But this is a whole other story, which I will
debate in subsequent posts.
Comments on the
correctness of what is described in scientific materials are...
enough (I think it's the best term). I won't go into details but
I will complete this post by focusing on the conflict between
creationists and evolutionists on the topic of "RNA-DNA"... And
I'm going to limit myself to some of the elements that
controlled this process...
From the outset, it is
indisputable that the main factor to be taken into account is
chemistry (amino acids, enzymes, proteins, etc.). ... From an
evolutionary point of view everything starts from a soup of
chemical elements which, over time, became full of organic
elements, which, after another period of time, attracted the
appearance of bakers (organic aggregations), then the
development of proto-RNA structures and so on.m.d. (as described
above)...
In all the theories we
have gone through, acceleration factors such as relatively high
temperatures are discussed, the existence of a particularly high
electrical activity (massive and much more numerous electrical
discharges than we can imagine), the acceleration elements
represented by intense volcanic activity and, last but not
least, the fact that in those times the moon was much closer to
the earth (about a third of the current distance - slightly
above the orbital limit of the current artificial satellites),
the lunar cycle was much shorter (about 16 to 20 days - here
there are some small differences between scientific discoveries
but, anyway, this short cycle is proven) and, through the tidal
effects of particular intensity, behaves like a
"centrifugatoro-mixer" (a kind of huge ladle that centrifuges
and mixes everything) that massively accelerates chemical
processes.
Then we'd better remember
that Earth's atmosphere had nothing to do with oxygen... At the
time of its cooling, most of the oxygen was absorbed by various
oxidizing materials and was not "available"... The oxygen we
"have" at the moment does not exist freely, in the atmosphere
and in the water.
So, whatever life form
existed then it's obvious that they had nothing to do with
oxidation reactions... This led to the development of life forms
(actually, at most bacteria) that used only carbon dioxide,
water, sunlight or other chemical elements for their metabolism.
On these considerations developed all gene "relationships" based
on RNA and subsequently proto-DNA...
The next step was the
transition to inclusion in cellular metabolism of oxygen, as
described briefly in the case of mitochondria. This took place
over an enormous period of time (approximately 3 billion years)
with the help of cyanobacteria (Gamaproteobacteria) and other
primitive forms of "extremofyl" bacteria and, subsequently
algae, "components" of stromatolite cell development (which we
will discuss in future posts).
But, important for our
future arguments, is that the transition to the "use" of DNA has
undergone a huge evolution of RNA (especially due to its
instability)... And, to be fair to the end, DNA first and
foremost developed into alphaproteobacteria in the form found
today in any cellular mitochondria, circular form...
Here are the traces of
proto-DNA, in the mitochondria... Here the DNA does not have
double helix structure but is circular, here the DNA is much
more unstable because it does not "benefit" from protein
protection (it does not present histone), here the DNA repair
system is less effective and, last but not least, here are
produced free radicals of oxygen that "do not really benefit"
the life of DNA producing "injuries" to it... I think you
understand what was understandable...
From a creationist point
of view everything starts from the simple act of creation
resulting from the divine act... We can't talk about DNA, RNA
and the like. What is done by the Unique Divine Power, by the
Creator, exists... And that's it...
Here, out of respect, we
made these descriptions and we reached the point where there is
organic material (whether it is proto-RNA, proto-DNA) or life,
simply... We now find ourselves in a small "impasse" that we
will overcome in the following approach: the evolution-creation
impasse reduced to evolution... yes, you read it right...
To be easier (I believe in
Divine !!!), I will begin with the creationist theories...
According to them, the world was created about 9, 10,000 years
ago... The theories we've gone through have been superbly
well-argued in this regard...
But from here, even in
this theory of life, evolution begins... And I don't mean
dinosaurs and their bones buried by "satan" to destroy our faith
(although I have big question marks in this direction because
they laugh at evolutionists but their explanation is about the
"actions of the sheitan")...
I'm talking about Adam
making "stupidity" to "eat the coast"... So, the woman showed
up... Then came all the diseases and troubles resulting from the
"fall" of the Garden of Eden, the animals (I mean the serpent)
lost their gift of speaking... Then the kids came, Abel and
Cain... And I'm going to stop here... You got the message...
evolution...
So even here it is about
evolution (to remember that He, the Unique and Divine Power, the
Creator, has left us to evolve to humble ourselves, repent,
recognize sin, etc. to return to eternal life in a different
kind of evolution???) ...
And, the evolution that
interests us relates to the response to environmental factors
and the adaptation of the organism to them or, effectively, to
the possibility of continuing life "at least" in the form in
which it could exist, if not possibly to improve towards better
adaptation...
Then, why not, there is
also a kind of "short" evolution in which we constantly adapt
and evolve from child to adult, from unprepared adult to
prepared adult, etc. Every day matters, being a constant
evolution, adaptation... Today we're not like yesterday, either
for better or for worse...
Then, as we present in
some previous posts, we begin to transmit to our children some
skills, some dexterities (either under the comment of the
"selection" of genetic or divine transmission)...
So, we're evolving... I
"forgot" to present here the disease thing, more specifically,
with antibodies (molecules of a protein nature of the monomer
type, under the generic name of globulin) in the case of viral
or bacterial attacks, with the elements "strengthening" in the
case of many diseases "solved" by our adaptability and so
on.m.d. Everywhere it's about evolution, even in small...
So, in order to stop
unduly pummerent this post, the basic conclusion is that we can
talk about evolution and the fact that, at its core, lies our
permanent adaptation (regardless of the creationist or
evolutionary point of view)...
Evolution starts from
"star dust", reaches "genetic dust", polymers, blah, blah and
reaches the perception of evolution or divine power...
We'll continue tomorrow!
Don't forget the weekend
is coming and you have to prepare for the well-deserved rest and
the well-deserved amusements!!!
Dorin, Merticaru