I can't help but notice the irony in your comment. So this guy comes along and having read one article, says "I can't call this good science."
A very basic summary of molecular biology of the cell:
DNA - library of blueprints, basically instructions on how to build proteins
RNA - copies of blueprints you take out of the library to build proteins so you don't expose DNA to unnecessary hazards
protein - catalyzes reactions so the cell can do stuff, including make new DNA when replicating.
A fundamental conundrum exists when it comes to evolution of this mechanism. DNA is needed to build proteins, but proteins are needed to catalyze the reactions necessary to build DNA. It's a chicken and egg problem... what came first?
When it was discovered that RNA can catalyze certain reactions, presumably because of their slightly higher chemical reactivity, it suggested a way out of this conundrum. What if life originated with RNA only, where RNA acted as both the hereditary and catalyzing machinery?
The problem with this RNA World hypothesis is that the reactions that current RNA can catalyze is very limited. But what if, at the origin of life, when nature could experiment, the genetic alphabet that RNA could play with was bigger, potentially leading to expanded capability? Scientists like Benner have worked for three decades to try to answer this question.
So, your characterization of "comes along, casually expand" a well-established code and claims it's better is grossly unfair.
When one of my instructors at Berkeley had to take leave due to personal issues, Mihai stepped in as the instructor. The course became one of the most challenging, instructive, and yet enjoyable one during my time at Berkeley. What I will remember about him is the aura of genius that was unmistakable, and the surprising level of warmth and camaraderie he displayed every time he interacted with us. Being as brilliant as he was, I always marveled at his patience when explaining things to his students. This makes me truly sad to a level I have not experience many times in my life.
A very basic summary of molecular biology of the cell:
DNA - library of blueprints, basically instructions on how to build proteins
RNA - copies of blueprints you take out of the library to build proteins so you don't expose DNA to unnecessary hazards
protein - catalyzes reactions so the cell can do stuff, including make new DNA when replicating.
A fundamental conundrum exists when it comes to evolution of this mechanism. DNA is needed to build proteins, but proteins are needed to catalyze the reactions necessary to build DNA. It's a chicken and egg problem... what came first?
When it was discovered that RNA can catalyze certain reactions, presumably because of their slightly higher chemical reactivity, it suggested a way out of this conundrum. What if life originated with RNA only, where RNA acted as both the hereditary and catalyzing machinery?
The problem with this RNA World hypothesis is that the reactions that current RNA can catalyze is very limited. But what if, at the origin of life, when nature could experiment, the genetic alphabet that RNA could play with was bigger, potentially leading to expanded capability? Scientists like Benner have worked for three decades to try to answer this question.
So, your characterization of "comes along, casually expand" a well-established code and claims it's better is grossly unfair.