3056: RNA

|< < Prev Comic #3056 (February 26, 2025) Next > >|

RNA

Title text: 2040s: RNA formed the basis for life each of the five known times it arose on the early Earth.

Explanation

This explanation is incomplete: The explanation is too technical, especially the last bullet point, and isn't directly explaining the comic. If you can fix this issue, edit the page!

This is a comic about how our understanding of DNA and RNA has evolved over time as we've done more research into how they figure into cellular and viral processes. In the 1960s, we had just started to understand the role of DNA; as the years progressed, we realized RNA played a part, initially as an intermediary; and it turned 'weird' as we learned that RNA's role is potentially as complex as DNA's, if not more so. People now believe that life as we know it developed as RNA, and then evolved proteins and DNA later; this is called the "RNA World" theory.

• The first panel (1960s) shows the simplified (though incorrect) version of the central dogma, saying that RNA's sole function is to carry information from DNA to produce proteins.

• The second panel (1980s) shows the discovery that RNA itself can also catalyze reactions, like in ribozymes.

• The third panel (2000s) shows the more recent discovery of many different types of RNA that have numerous functions, like siRNA which acts in the RNA interference pathway, miRNA which causes regulation of transcript expression, piRNA which regulates transposons and other genetic elements, and more.

• The fourth panel (2020s) explains that RNA seems to be the primary actor in life, and it merely uses DNA for permanent storage of information. In particular, DNA contains the genetic information that's copied when cells divide and when ova and sperm combine. This seems to be a reference to the RNA-based evolution theory, which claims that RNA is the primary driver of evolution. It's similar to the idea that a hen is only an egg's way of making another egg.

• The title text extrapolates from the fourth panel into the 2040s, when humans have learned that RNA was responsible for the formation of life on Earth, and that life formed on Earth five times. At the present time, all types of life we know of today (or have evidence of having existed) seem highly likely to have arisen from the last universal common ancestor. (It has also been hypothesized that viruses may have evolved independently of cellular life.) Whether this can change by the 2040s is unknown. It might take more advanced study of ancient rocks, and the sheer good fortune to uncover/discover a suitably preserved 'bed' of alternative biochemistry, to establish convincing evidence of some other origin(s) of life. Another possibility is that intense analysis of the current diversity of biology could extrapolate multiple origins for some of the chemical pathways that eventually became cooperative parts in some or all more recent forms of biological cells.

RNA has been mentioned previously in 2425: mRNA Vaccine, where the COVID-19 vaccine is explained, and 3002: RNAWorld, in which Disney decides to capitalize on the success of RNA.

Transcript

This transcript is incomplete: Do NOT delete this tag too soon. If you can fix this issue, edit the page!

[In each panel, Cueball is standing in front of a poster. On the poster there is a picture of a double helix (presumably DNA) and some illegible text, although the poster is different in each panel. Each panel has a header indicating the decade in which it takes place.]

1960s

[Cueball has a hand up in an explanatory pose]

Cueball: Life is based on DNA, which uses RNA to make proteins do stuff.

1980s

[Cueball faces towards the poster, with his hand on his chin.]

Cueball: Also, the RNA does some stuff itself, which is weird.

2000s

[Cueball has his arms raised in the air.]

Cueball: There are so many types of RNA. It's doing so much stuff!

2020s

[Cueball has both his hands down]

Cueball: Life is a seething mass of RNA that sometimes uses DNA to take notes.

Person out of frame: What do the proteins do?

Cueball: Errands for RNA.

  Add comment        Create topic (use sparingly)       Refresh 

Discussion

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)

But the transcript should mention that it is a similar poster but that t is not the same as seen from different figures shown --Kynde (talk) 10:48, 27 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)
        Add comment