Talk:RNA

double stranded molekul by default?

Just looking superficially at the images in the article, one can think that RNA is a (mostly) double stranded molecule. however, that is not true as far I know. I think at least, first image should be a single stranded RNA image. Araz Zeyniyev (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Too technical first sentence

The first sentence leans on very specialized terms.

Abbreviated: RNA is essential in various biological roles in coding, decoding, regulation and expression of genes.

In the first sentence we should strive to convey the essentials in a way that many can understand. Here is a trial:

RNA is essential for all biological functions, either by performing that function itself (Non-coding RNA) or by forming a template for production of proteins (messenger RNA). Ettrig (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Better introductory picture

Here is a good introductory picture for RNA. The site says that it is public domain. Ettrig (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Biased

The article falsely claims that "It has become widely accepted in science that early in the history of life on Earth ... an "RNA world" existed..." This is absolutely false! The "RNA-world" scenario is one of several. I guess you could argue it is "widely regarded as most likely" but it CERTAINLY ISN'T "ACCEPTED" as being the case by anyone who considers themself a objective scientist. Also, in the next section, it is claimed that each nucleotide contains a ribose sugar. No, they don't. A ribose sugar, BY DEFINITION, has an oxygen at the 1' carbon. Full stop. What it does have is a ribose sugar derivative. (The 3',5' phosphate ester linkages are more trivially modifications of the canonical hydroxyls at those positions.) It is true that the modified ribose is most often claimed to be a sugar but it is not: it is (arguably) a sugar derivative. (It's my understanding that the ribose unit is indeed derived (metabolically) from ribose sugar, but I've not looked into that claim. My point being that this article is unnecessarily sloppy and inaccurate.~2026-92463-4 (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

was reading this recently and also had a reaction to the sentence, "widely accepted *in science*". What a strange thing to say. You don't need to specify science if it's widely accepted. Feels akin to when clickbait headline media talks about mysterious "scientists have proved this thing". If it is the leading theory or one of the leading hypotheses, or it is indeed widely accepted, we don't need to say "in science". I'm not particularly concerned with the opinions of non-scientific groups on things that have been discovered through scientific methods, such as RNA. Shriftkey (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: MCB575 - Scientific Communication

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 26 August 2026 and 10 December 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Groomed Hippie (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Groomed Hippie (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2026 (UTC)