>>12753742The point isn't to convince me, lamebrain, it's to convince the hypothetic unseen audience. If you think there is evidence for a real RNA world (there isn't, it's crackpot), then you should post it, you ignorant pseud.
I'll say it again for your special ears, RNA is fucking hard to make, outside of protein aided catalysis. RNA has a sugar in its backbone, and sugar has oxygen and hydrogen arranged in a C-O-C-O pattern with energetic bonds, this is why it is a good cellular fuel. To make this bond-pattern, you need some magic, a chemical energy source that can extract oxygen from its stable form in CO2, or from its elemental form in O2, or from rocks. The mechanisms can be dreamed up without biology, we can synthesize nucleic acids, but any such mechanisms are baroque, they involve strange and implausible steps.
Once you make the sugar part, you have to weld it to the rest of the RNA molecule, which is produced in a different kind of chemical environment, and this means one part is made in a reducing environment, another part in an acidic environment, another part in salt, and so on and so on, and then they come together, with sparks and lighting, and you have nucleic acids. You can make it (barely), but it is clearly going to appear in trace amounts if at all. Even after it appears, it can't spontaneously polymerize into a chain, and even if it does, no RNA can autocatalyze it's own replication. Even if it does autocalyze it's own replication, a self-replicating RNA just eats up all the nucleotides in making copies of itself, and fills up the whole prebiotic space with junky RNA copies that don't evolve any further. The story doesn't work, and you are brain-damaged for believing it with any confidence.
