Amazing!
To: DaveLoneRanger
2 posted on
06/14/2007 10:15:21 AM PDT by
Michael_Michaelangelo
(The best theory is not ipso facto a good theory.)
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
Kind of like Windows Vista............
3 posted on
06/14/2007 10:16:39 AM PDT by
Red Badger
(Bite your tongue. It tastes a lot better than crow................)
To: Michael_Michaelangelo; DaveLoneRanger
4 posted on
06/14/2007 10:16:51 AM PDT by
TChris
(The Republican Party is merely the Democrat Party's "away" jersey - Vox Day)
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
The findings, from a project involving hundreds of scientists in 11 countries and detailed in 29 papers being published today, confirm growing suspicions that the stretches of "junk DNA" flanking hardworking genes are not junk at all. But the study goes further, indicating for the first time that the vast majority of the 3 billion "letters" of the human genetic code are busily toiling at an array of previously invisible tasks.I'm not surprised.
I've had my own theory for some time that organisms can imprint changes on their own DNA during their lifetimes and pass those changes directly to offspring. It's the best way, IMO, to explain ingrained and unlearned behaviors.
5 posted on
06/14/2007 10:17:23 AM PDT by
dirtboy
(A store clerk has done more to fight the WOT than Rudy.)
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
The new perspective reveals DNA to be not just a string of biological code but a dauntingly complex operating system that processes many more kinds of information than previously appreciated.And it was all brought about by a series of random mutations. ::Sarc::
6 posted on
06/14/2007 10:17:59 AM PDT by
MEGoody
(Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
...the stretches of "junk DNA" flanking hardworking genes are not junk at all. No sh** Sherlock! Of course they have a purpose. Every little atom in the strand has a purpose, and most of them we're unaware of (so far). Like an appendix, we may be able to live without it, but it was there for a purpose.
How can such "Doctors" and "Scientists" make such foolish assumptions just becuase they don't know what something does?
10 posted on
06/14/2007 10:29:51 AM PDT by
theDentist
(Qwerty ergo typo : I type, therefore I misspelll.)
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
But I thought we understood everything about DNA and were ready to start cloning people?
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
I never realized evolutionary mutations were so smart! /sarc
13 posted on
06/14/2007 10:41:50 AM PDT by
Tolkien
(There are things more important than Peace. Freedom being one of those.)
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
I wonder what this will do to the mutation rate calculations based on the assumption that junk DNA is nonfunctional.
14 posted on
06/14/2007 10:43:50 AM PDT by
Moonman62
(The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
Completely un-amazing, unless you assume DNA designed and coded itself.
If evolution is true, then SETI is a complete scientific fraud. You cannot assume organization for one is conclusive evidence of intelligence and then turn around and state the exact opposite for life itself. Unless you are a scientist trolling for funding.
16 posted on
06/14/2007 10:48:53 AM PDT by
Diplomat
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
No wonder we keep wearing out.
18 posted on
06/14/2007 11:16:20 AM PDT by
Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
21 posted on
06/14/2007 11:40:49 AM PDT by
Tribune7
(A bleeding heart does nothing but ruin the carpet)
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
The expectation was... So many predic...er, expectations, so little space on the cutting room floor...
...that many of the most active DNA sequences in humans would be prevalent in other mammals, too, because evolution tends to save and reuse what works best. But more than half were not found in other creatures, which suggests they may not be that important in people, either, said Ewan Birney of the European Bioinformatics Institute in Cambridge, England, a coordinator of the Encode effort.
"I think of them as gate-crashers at a party," Birney said. "They appeared by chance over evolutionary time . . . neither to the organism's benefit nor to its hindrance. That is quite an interesting shift in perspective for many biologists."
"Gate-crahsers at a party"
And this is supposed to be serious, objective science.
Excuse me while I laugh.
23 posted on
06/14/2007 8:13:18 PM PDT by
csense
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson