Re: Layman's question on Newsweek article
- From: "deowll" <deowll@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:46:18 -0500
"Lorentz" <drosen0000@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1176297638.287698.109590@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Most of our DNA is not doing much other than maybe confusing viruses andIs noncoding DNA used in these studies. That is, do they look at
occupying space. A lot of it is old viruses. Random changes don't seem to
make much difference in many of these segments so you can use the average
rate of change in them to roughly measure time. If the stuff is active
it's
a whole other story.
mutations in codons that don't code for an amino acid? The assumption
has long been made that this is "junk" DNA with no uses. If that was
true, they would make the perfect DNA clock. Recent studies show they
may have some selective value as place holders.
Although such DNA probably has some uses, I would think their bias
with respect to DNA dating would be far less than that of coding DNA.
Okay you got me. I don't completely trust that the non coding DNA isn't
doing something. It is late and my brain isn't working at its best at the
moment but I seem to recall a recent article that stressed this point. Some
of the "junk" was impacting genetic expression.
.
- References:
- Re: Layman's question on Newsweek article
- From: Lorentz
- Re: Layman's question on Newsweek article
- Prev by Date: Tyrannosaurus rex was just a big chicken with big teeth
- Next by Date: Someone wrote some paleontology music?
- Previous by thread: Re: Layman's question on Newsweek article
- Next by thread: Collagen from T.rex bone extracted
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading