Ian A. York
iayork at panix.com
Wed Apr 19 07:00:04 EST 2000
In article <38FD2A50.18FCE444 at Yahoo.com>,
Nils Confer <NConfer at Yahoo.com> wrote:
>As I read all these posts about 'Junk DNA', I must comment that making
>the assumption that DNA only functions to code for proteins and that
>which does not is 'Junk' is a little narrow in focus. There might
>possibly be factors selecting for additional DNA beyond that needed for
>coding. Just a thought.
By no one's definition does "junk DNA" merely include everything that's
not coding DNA. It's utterly obvious that non-coding DNA can and has been
selected for in many ways. Junk DNA shows no sign of having been selected
in any way.
This may come as a shock, but you know, the people who do research on
genomics are not total morons.
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