"Technotranscendence" <neptune@mars.superlink.net> asked:
>Genomes, in general, are very resilient to some disruptions. Even though,
>e.g., humans get cancer, even most cancer victims live long enough to
>reproduce, raise their children, and so on. I would look at the problem
the
>other way. Why is there so little information in any genome of any
>relevance to the organism?
Well, if you are talking about the DNA within the genome that are not part
of genes, DNA which is non-coded (exons I believe they're called), all this
junk DNA serves the purpose as acting as spacers betweeen genes - they
assure that there is a proper amount of charge/space between single or
multiple genes to make sure that each strand can be properly transcribed and
the resulting proteins can go about their business without getting ensnared
by +/- charges or other genes in the DNA sequence. I think. Something of an
analogy would be comparing the genome to a novel. The dramatic, important
parts might represent genes, but these parts are spaced by plot-building or
descriptive filler, which is the non-coded DNA. So, this "information" is
actually relevant to the organism - without it, the genes could not properly
function.
Hope this clears things up. And that I'm at least somewhat correct! Till
next time,
Cyrus
nougat@ucla.edu
http://www.mp3.com/cyrusfx
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:35 MDT