human genome question

Richard Norman rsnorman at mediaone.net
Wed Jun 13 19:03:43 EST 2001

"maxwell" <mmmaxwell at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9g8s8b$7eg5g$1 at ID-81739.news.dfncis.de...
> > Just a few more details -- the human genome is not really completely
> > decoded.  But probably all the parts that really count have been.
> > There are technical reasons why two particular regions of each
> > chromosome can't be decoded but these regions almost certainly
> > don't code for any genes.  And what we have now is still called a
> > "draft".
> Good points. I tried to keep the reply within
> constraints-of-comprehension
> as suggested by the inquirer's prose.

You are right and your answer was well phrased to accord with
the tone of the original query.  That is why I, too, didn't try
to explain about telomeres and stuff.  It is just that I think that
people have to understand that the genome story is just barely
started -- it is not at all "completely decoded".

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net