Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,784 Year: 4,041/9,624 Month: 912/974 Week: 239/286 Day: 46/109 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Designed Virus
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5898 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 24 of 44 (302536)
04-08-2006 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Omnivorous
04-08-2006 8:04 PM


Oh, I don't know. It seems pretty clear to me that the designer - based on the number of spandrels and vestigial bits floating around in various organisms that have no function or even rational explanation - had to be a committee. Why design a bug whose massive (in the sense that it's wayyyy more than needed for a bug) DNA contains ten million three nucleotide repeats? Obviously someone was asleep at the switch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Omnivorous, posted 04-08-2006 8:04 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Omnivorous, posted 04-08-2006 8:37 PM Quetzal has replied
 Message 26 by jar, posted 04-08-2006 8:37 PM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 04-08-2006 8:55 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5898 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 32 of 44 (302607)
04-09-2006 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Faith
04-08-2006 8:55 PM


Hi Faith,
Curious about this bug. How much of its DNA is of the sort called "junk DNA"?
Well, in the first place, I have substantial issues with the term "junk DNA". Since that discussion would be way off topic for this thread, I'll be brief. In a nutshell, IIRC some 75-80% of the genome represented non-coding sequences. I'll have to dig around to find the actual reference if you want me to. Whether "non-coding" = "non-functional" is another issue, and one that has yet to be resolved. My personal opinion is that functionality of most of what we call "junk DNA" will be determined through more study. Some, of course, represents true junk: left over bits and pieces from broken genes, viral retrotransposons, etc. Some is possibly structural, some appears to have a role in mutation/variation (eg. evolution) and some of what we used to call junk is actually implicated in early embryonic development. It's still a hot issue in genetics.
Hope that satisfies your curiosity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 04-08-2006 8:55 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 04-09-2006 5:04 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5898 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 35 of 44 (302626)
04-09-2006 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Omnivorous
04-08-2006 8:37 PM


Re: Eureka!
P.S. If you don't send me an address, I'll have to drink that bottle, and my surgeon says that might just kill me.
Sorry about the lack of follow-up. My computer got "virused" - a human designed one in this case - and I had to wipe the HD losing all data, files, email addresses, etc. If you could email me again, I'll send you the info. Again, thanks for the offer - and I stand ready to answer your questions so fire away...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Omnivorous, posted 04-08-2006 8:37 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5898 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 37 of 44 (302679)
04-09-2006 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Faith
04-09-2006 5:04 PM


in comparison with the proportion in other genomes that have less of the coding stuff than this highly genetically endowed bug has.
I'm not trying to beg the question, but the reality is that nearly every organism varies in the amount of non-coding DNA, etc, they have in their genome. For example, pufferfish and onions, which have just about as many actually coding genes as humans do, are vastly different in the amount of non-coding DNA they have in their genomes. The onion has about ten times as much as humans, pufferfish almost none. Beyond that, we'll need a thread (or two) of our own to go much deeper.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 04-09-2006 5:04 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024