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)

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?

- My guess is that most readers are physics/coding/maths oriented 172.71.241.100 22:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)