“So, IOW, that RNA was obtained from living Tetrahymena - not synthesized from atomic precursors.”
No.
The initial observations were made with isolated RNA from tetrahymena.
Because of the possibility of trace proteins in the isolate they could not see that were carrying out the enzymatic reaction, they then synthesized RNA of the same sequence and looked to see if the same reaction occurred.
It did, thus indicating the reaction was being catalyzed by RNA.
Prior to this it was believed that only proteins carried out enzymatic reactions and nucleic acid did not have catalytic properties.
That was what the work was about. It wasn’t to study potential mechanisms for early molecular evolution.
I agree with you about the Nobel Prize being weathered down and political now. But that doesn’t happen in science awards (although it could be moving toward that) and this award was very merited.
The catalytic properties of RNA was probably the most important finding in biology since the double helix structure of DNA.
>>No.
Yes. The RNA cited in the quotation was ALL isolated from Tetrahymena:
“From 2 Q of Tetrahymena, 0.5 ig (3.7 pmoles) of
pure IVS RNA was routinely isolated.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC320658/pdf/nar00378-0064.pdf
>>they then synthesized RNA of the same sequence
Please cite the text from the methodology which documents the synthesis process.
You know how to use Copy and Paste, don’t you?
>>but atomic precursors makes no sense in this context.
Fundamental Atomic elements ring any bells?
Those are the observable taxonomic precursors of molecules.
Once again you play semantic games sans being able or willing to answer the question honestly. But, I'll rephrase:
Has Dr. Cech (or anyone else) manufactured, from unliving atomic or molecular components, RNA which, after having been manufactured, autonomously produces exact copies of itself from unliving atomic or molecular components - as required to demonstrate the hypothetical process of evolutionary abiogenesis?