Students Name 1 Students Name Instructors Name Course Date Critical Thinking Essay The issue of microbial evolution

is very complex and can be differently interpreted. One may call it the chicken and the egg problem, because all components of three theories are closely intermingled with each other and coexist as the whole responsible for each other. Ribonucleic acid (RNA), deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), and proteins in the way we observe and study them now are part of the process of decoding and encoding information. It is difficult to view them as unrelated processes among which only one can be considered the basis for microbial evolution, because only together they can maintain an efficient functioning. Before discussing the RNA theory, it is necessary to mention two more important theories as alternatives that should be also taken into consideration. The first theory introduces threose nucleic acid (TNA) as the predecessor of RNA. The threose molecules that TNA is assembled of are easier organized than RNA or DNA. Such chemical simplicity and laboratory approved comparability with RNA are responsible for the existence of the theory. However, TNA has never been observed to occur naturally, that is why this theory lacks practical realization. The second theory views peptide nucleic acid (PNA) as the predecessor of life. PNA is an artificial polymer that is in many respects similar to DNA and RNA. Two features of PNA make it applicable to the microbial evolution theory. Namely, it is capable of storing information as DNA. Moreover, PNA possesses a more robust backbone than DNA. The second reason is its chemical stability due to the more robust backbone. Still, the main stumbling block to the approval of this theory is the inability of PNA to occur naturally.

Students Name 2 Therefore, the main speculation is based on the possibility of the PNA existence during the earlier stages of life on the Earth, which cannot be proved experimentally. The third theory of RNA as the basis should be also viewed from the perspective of the early RNA, because the evolution resulted in some changes that can hinder the process of understanding. According to this theory, RNA evolved earlier than DNA. Still, this suggestion entails a dilemma that can be traced from the coexistence of DNA and proteins. Namely, the protein reads DNA, but it is coded by DNA too. Therefore, the protein cannot appear first because of the order of coding. In case it can, it should decode itself before its own existence, which is also nonsense. However, DNA could never be made and read without the protein. The same problem of coexistence is observed in the protein and RNA issue. Very specific proteins should decode RNA, but they are also coded by information from the same RNA. The answer to this dilemma can be found analyzing peculiarities of the early form of RNA. The enclosure within lipoprotein vesicles could be responsible for the evolution of selfreplicating RNA life forms into the first cellular life forms. This process may have happened during no available amount of time on early Earth. However, eventually, the proper constituents and a set of circumstances came together and a primitive enclosed structure appeared, capable of self-replication. This pro-cellular life form would resemble a modern cell in spite of the fact that it lacked DNA and proteins. The evolutionary refinement would have been imminent due to the natural selection for the process of self-replication. The evolutionary refinement would have pursued the purpose of efficiency. Therefore, this would likely have included a selection of more effective catalysts and a more stable genetic coding process. Since proteins have considerably higher catalytic specificity than RNAs, they would have evolved through the process of refinement. Moreover, as a result, primitive organisms became more complex and catalytic reactions

Students Name 3 more biochemically demanding. Additionally, proteills would have replaced RNAs as the cells primary biocatalysts. These crucial changes cannot be viewed as an overnight occurrence, because they took a really long time to be completed due to the peculiarities of biological evolution. Gradual appearance of proteins in cells, perhaps, at first complexes with RNA (as a ribunucleoprotein complex, as it is well-known in todays cells) is also very likely. The flow of the evolution resulted in the selection of a more and more precise biochemical catalyst, and RNA was eventually replaced almost entirely by proteins as cellular enzymes. I agree with the last introduced theory. The interdependent system of DNA, RNA, and proteins that evolved and exists nowadays should not be the basis for interpretation. The structures of all components have also enormously changed and cannot serve as the prototypes for first life cells. Therefore, taking the points stated above into consideration, it is possible to assume that RNA could function like enzymes and help catalyze biochemical reactions, performing the role usually associated with proteins. According to this hypothesis, RNA is the pioneer of life, followed by emerged proteins through the process of refinement and DNA as the culmination of it. Therefore, the ability of the first RNA to function as a gene and enzyme appears to be plausible even in spite of the extreme complexity of the process of copying a genetic molecule. Moreover, experiments conducted to prove the ability of RNA to self-replicate were successful and showed that even in spite of mutation, enzymes in RNAs are able to sustain replication, which also speaks in favor of the third theory that has very strong theoretical and practical background. The central dogma of molecular biology is that information in biological systems flows only in one direction: from DNA to RNA and to proteins. This way of information transmission can be called normal. However, there is a special way, which involves viruses that attack cells. The capsids of viruses are capable of conducting recognition. Inside a host cell, viruses can replicate the viral nucleic acid and synthesize more capsids for making more

Students Name 4 viruses. It endangers the normal functioning of cells, which can be exploited by viruses. The flow of information in biological systems can be also aggravated or destroyed by more dangerous types of viruses such as the influenza virus that can use a cells components and proteins to make a viruss structure components. Retroviruses such as HIV, the human immunodeficiency virus that causes AIDS, have a RNA core and reverse transcriptase, the enzyme that allows HIV to perform its takeover in a unique manner. Furthermore, a provirus can also occur when viral cores of DNA are incorporated into the host cells DNA. It can be replicated and transcribed to viral RNA that is used as a genome for a new virus. Therefore, peculiarities of the central dogma foreground possible discrepancies in the information flow in biological systems. The issue of Eukaryotes close relation to Archaea can be explained by their evolvement from Prokaryotic ancestors. There are a lot of features that differentiate them, but at the same time, there are very important features responsible for their similarities. For instance, Archaea are intermediate between Bacteria and Eukaryotes. Moreover, RNA enzymes of Archaea create proteins and other components, the complexity of which corresponds to the complexity of Eukaryotes components. In comparison, bacteria have a simpler structure and proteins. Protein synthesis as one of the crucial processes of their existence is also very similar in Archaea and Eukaryotes. Still, the absence of nucleus in Archaea and its presence in Eukaryotes result in considerable differences between them. Further similarity is proved by the existence of

Nucleosomes/histones. This fact also underpins that Eukariotes are more closely related to Archaea than to Bacteria. The qualitative comparison of introns shows that they are underrepresented among Archaea, but it does not influence the ability of Archaea and Eukaryotes not to be affected by the antibiotic growth. The main hypothesis regarding such close relations highlights that the ancestor of eukaryotes was early diverged from Archaea.

Students Name 5 The horizontal gene transfer can be also viewed as a possible hypothesis of similarities between Archaea and Eukaryotes, especially when it concerns their subclasses. Still, the issue cannot be addressed fully.