Dna

  • Get the NEW AquariaCentral iOS app --> http://itunes.apple.com/app/id1227181058 // Android version will be out soon!
125gJoe

125gJoe

2009 VMAX
Jul 6, 2002
3,047
0
0
Dna...

[
"Junk DNA"
Over 95 percent of DNA has largely unknown function

By Jaan Suurkula M.D.
Summary

Presently, only the function of a few percent of the DNA is known, the rest has been believed to be useless garbage, commonly called "Junk DNA" by molecular biologists.

Increasing evidence is now indicating that this DNA is not "junk" at all. Especially, it has been found to have various regulatory roles. This means that this so-called "non-coding DNA" influences the behavior of the genes, the "coding DNA", in important ways.

However, the knowledge is still very incomplete about this DNA. And there is little knowledge about the relationship between non-coding DNA and the DNA of genes.

Without this knowledge it is completely impossible to foresee and control the effect of artificial insertion of foreign genes.

This is a very important reason why genetic engineering is unsuitable for commercial application. It is still at a stage of early experimentation with very incomplete understanding about its consequences. According to the ethical standards of sound science, the products of such experimentation should be strictly contained in labortories, especially as released DNA may spread indefinitely in an uncontrollable way.

Presently, only the function of a few percent of the DNA is known, the rest has been believed to be "junk".

JUNK????
They don't hav a clue !!!
All DNA strands are complex, they do have purpose! !

Don't be foolled -- ever..!

There is no "junk DNA" in your body.
 
Last edited:
Mako

Mako

EET MOR KATFISH
Nov 19, 2001
438
0
0
Wake Forest, NC
Visit site
Why, it looks like God knows what He's doing after all.


I get a good laugh at all the theories of evolution out there. When you examine the evidence, all these "homonid" ape-man looking things out there don't look any different than many folks look today, the so-called "aboriginal" facial structure. And where do they find these skulls? In Africa and Australia, right where you'd expect to find such a skull. DUH!!! And radiocarbon dating is NOT accurate. I was reading a while back where a bagel , fresh from the bakery, was dated somewhere around 10,000 years old.
 
Watcher74

Watcher74

Senior N00b
Feb 5, 2004
860
0
0
50
Texas
Visit site
I keep reading from certain sources about carbon dating being unreliable. About very recent things testing out to be millions of years old.

One source that loves to do that are sites that are trying to debunk science in favor of religion. But on closer inspection, those sites are FULL of inaccuracies and sometimes outright lies.

And all the new science books I frequently buy still use carbon dating very often.

I don't see why all of these professional scientists would keep using those results in their research if it was that inaccurate.
 
Raskolnikov

Raskolnikov

AC Members
Jan 2, 2005
1,124
0
0
I think that it's great to hear that junk DNA may may be more involved with genetic coding now. I know that my genetics text will definately be sorely out of date now.

Science is a dynamic institution, changing as we learn more about ourselves and the world around us. I get a good laugh how some folks will interpret the steps of this open minded learning process as evidence to debunk any scientific principles in an instant.
 
Watcher74

Watcher74

Senior N00b
Feb 5, 2004
860
0
0
50
Texas
Visit site


Homo Erectus



Homo Habilis



Homo Neandertal (Yes Neandertal, not Neanderthal ;))



Homo Sapiens



Gorilla



Baboon



Chimp

The other Homo skulls look far more like our skulls than the other apes. But are obviously not ours. Not any 'Human'.

The most telling factor is the size of the brain caveties as well as the shapes the brains had to have been.
 
slipknottin

slipknottin

the original legend
Jan 13, 2002
2,722
0
36
40
CT
Real Name
Connor
Mako said:
Why, it looks like God knows what He's doing after all.


I get a good laugh at all the theories of evolution out there. When you examine the evidence, all these "homonid" ape-man looking things out there don't look any different than many folks look today, the so-called "aboriginal" facial structure. And where do they find these skulls? In Africa and Australia, right where you'd expect to find such a skull. DUH!!! And radiocarbon dating is NOT accurate. I was reading a while back where a bagel , fresh from the bakery, was dated somewhere around 10,000 years old.
Click to expand...

Er, what does any of that have to do with the topic?


And I strongly disagree with the sentiment that there is no 'junk' in our bodies. There are quite a few features/parts of our bodies that are totally useless to us, and logically, the DNA for those parts.
 
Last edited:
Watcher74

Watcher74

Senior N00b
Feb 5, 2004
860
0
0
50
Texas
Visit site
I agree with Slip.

When was the last time you heard someone die by losing their appendix?

Seems that organ can burst and kill you, but removed? No problem.

But they seem to be much larger in our extinct relatives. Indicating a larger herbivory nature in some studies.
 
Last edited:
A

ash

AC Members
Jan 7, 2004
250
0
0
46
Visit site
Actually they find them EVERYWHERE in the old world- Eurasia has a significant fossil record as well. and if you truly look at the evidence they don't look just like us- particularly if you look beyond the facial structure. If you don't believe in evolution, that's your prerogative. But don't purport that you are scientifically dismissing it.
 
M

mrakins

AC Members
Apr 15, 2005
100
0
16
Southington, CT
At least since I was in high school (>=10 years ago), scientists having been working to get people to stop using the term "junk DNA". Don't think that biologists are being blindsided by the fact that the noncoding DNA is functional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
zoomed.com
hikariusa.com
aqaimports.com
Store
Top Bottom