junk DNA

Ian A. York iayork at panix.com
Mon Apr 17 17:02:38 EST 2000


In article <20000417174508.26367.00002010 at ng-fj1.aol.com>,
Rcjohnsen <rcjohnsen at aol.com> wrote:

WHEN YOU POST AND MAIL RESULTS, PLEASE INDICATE THAT YOU HAVE DONE SO.
It is the height of rudeness to force someone to answer twice.  

The points I made:

>(1)  Alu sequences are only a fraction of "junk" DNA.
>(2)  I suspect you're thinking "virus", rather than "bacterium".  If not,
>what reference do you have for alu being derived from a bacterium?
>(3)  I suspect you are confused between using alu sequences to track
>evolution, and alu sequences to drive evolution.  If not, what references
>do you have?

The speculation you cite in the Discover article is not taken seriously by
almost anyone, indicated by the fact that Reynolds has not published this
in a peer-reviewed forum.   

Alu elements are the most common transposon.  They are only a small
fraction of junk DNA.  

You also apparently continue to be confused about the difference between a
virus and a bacterium.

Discover, among popular science journals, has to be near the bottom, from
what I've seen of them.  Do yourself a favour and stop reading it, or at
least read real science to sort out the trash.  

Ian 
-- 
    Ian York   (iayork at panix.com)  <http://www.panix.com/~iayork/>
    "-but as he was a York, I am rather inclined to suppose him a
     very respectable Man." -Jane Austen, The History of England




More information about the Cellbiol mailing list