A noticeable fraction (at least a few percent) of our DNA consists of many repetitions of short stretches of 6-25 letters. One might be excused for suspecting it had no important information. Dan> ... exceedingly arrogant for scientists who didn't know ... Fortunately, our scientists are equal to the task, overcoming their natural inborn humility, to better inform us of their discoveries. Rich ----- Quoting Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net>:
I don't pretend to know what "junk" DNA is for, but I found it exceedingly arrogant for scientists who didn't know what it might be for to have pronounced it to be purposeless.
Reminds me of Crick & Mitchison's pronouncement that dreams are merely the detritus of the psyche.
This is possible, but they surely had no evidence for it.
It seems far more likely to me that we just don't know yet, and likewise for "junk" DNA.
--Dan
On 2012-09-06, at 4:54 PM, Warren Smith wrote:
Most evolutionary biologists will tell you that _none_ of the DNA is truly "junk". The proof: if it weren't important, it would relatively quickly disappear after a few generations.
--complete bull. DNA actually is expensive in bacteria and viruses, and they have little or no junk. But in eukaryotes like us, DNA is a tiny expenditure relatively speaking so we can afford lots of junk. By the way, you just "proved" microsoft windows is small and compact, not bloated.
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun