Just like in our DNA...

[srenner at lycosmail.com]

>
> I'm a biologist and couldn't help but jump in here.  I agree that
> Guido's is a good analogy, although unlike useless code, "junk DNA"
may
> serve some function(s) that are yet to be understood (in other words,
I
> wouldn't want to parse my DNA and remove those regions just yet).
> Clarification: introns are not the same as junk DNA.  While introns
are
> non-coding segments withing genes, they do serve to demarcate splice
> sites that allow for alternative coding messages to be derived from
the
> same gene.  They (introns) also often contain binding sites for
> regulatory proteins.  There is a lot of non-coding DNA which has
> characterized functionality - bottom line: non-coding != junk.
>
> Now that we're way off topic...
>
> --
>
> John Corradi


I shouldn't have mentioned introns. Of course 'junk DNA' is a product of
selection too -- the analogy with useless code breaks down if you push
it too far. But any analogy does. I didn't anticipate that my view
would have such broad support. How gratifying.

sr


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.