Talk:3056: RNA
I really hate that feeling when you need an explanation for at least a couple frames but you're too early to read it and too dumb to write it. 172.68.3.27 14:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- I know, I really wish I knew about RNA so I could just kinda do it. DollarStoreBa'al (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
The 2040's guess in the title text is wild, and would be SO cool if we were able to discover that in 20 years. 162.158.146.139 (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2025 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
oh God ⯅A dream demon⯅ (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
1960s: central dogma of molecular biology; 1980s: discovery of catalytic self-splicing RNA; 2000s: genomic sequencing and discovery of diverse array of non-coding RNAs; 2040s: extrapolation of RNA hypothesis, with aside to notion that life may have arisen multiple times (earlier instances extinguished by large impacts) -- Jhonts (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2025 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- ...or assimilation of function (or extinction by superior RNA, but then we'd not see any signs, whilst maybe there were provable mergers between 'different' original systems). Maybe why there are three shared bases between DNA and RNA, but two unique ones, or other interesting aspects that create puzzles. 172.71.178.139 17:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- ...or they abandoned earth to live elsewhere in the galaxy, and will return to visit us in the 2040s. ;o) 172.70.91.30 09:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Should the transcript point out the changes in the poster in each frame? Maybe in the later frames those are RNA rather than DNA. Barmar (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- It's unlikely to be RNA, since RNA is usually single stranded. According to a quick search, it can sometimes be double stranded as a secondary structure or in some viruses. Solid Kalium (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
How has it been a full day and no full explanation yet? -- DollarStoreBa'al (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2025 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- My guess is that most readers are physics/coding/maths oriented 172.71.241.100 22:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hardly a full day. It was early, but only about six hours before your (DSB's) query. Which was start of the working(/schooling) day, in the US, if not earlier. Those of that territory who are more used to spotting new comics in the early evening might not yet have gotten around to looking.
- Though I prefer to be in it for the long-haul, it takes time to bash a decent explanation into shape, and when I first saw it, I made a minor (in-context) witicism and resolved to return later when either I could bash the early-bird editors' efforts into shape or else form the bits of it that (inexplicably) no-one else had thought of. I'm currently pondering quite which of these two scenarios I'll find when I check... ;) 172.70.162.162 22:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
The link to bases of rna💀172.68.150.67 03:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Then there's also the shadow biosphere. The Yeti (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
There is no concrete proof of how "life" originated. It is all belief systems. "Seems" and "Hypothesizes" is a fancy way of saying belief without proof. Inquirer (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes and no. If you say something seems to be of a certain nature, it must be because of information that leads you to that hypothesis. And you allow for the possibility of learning new facts (for or against your current idea), perhaps to modifying your impression by a lesser or greater degree, including overturning the whole original idea.
- That's pretty much the antithesis of a Belief, that tends to reshape the facts to fit the prior conclusion, perhaps up until some distant breaking point at which you snap over into Believing something else instead, rather than an organic conceptual flow in which you're open to reasonable and rigorous persuasion.
- As to "how life originated", the comic itself demonstrates (some of!) the stages of better and better understanding of life as it is now. Its possible origin(s!) only being vaguely mentioned once you include the title text (and in joke/punchline form, not even going into it any further).
- If you're talking of the Explanation's treatment of it, even that's fairly vague, and remains flexible, and can be changed further (or back again, if anybody provides even wronger conclusions).
- As I'm not really sure what your point is, I'm of course having to respond to several things it seems you may be saying, but you might want to be more precise if I've not been able to satisfy your meaning. 141.101.99.99 02:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
The timeline of this kinda feels like the Dunning Kruger Effect TheTrainsKid (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
