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 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