i threw out the term
"junk DNA"
which linked to a wikipedia page titled "noncoding dna",
with the full intention of returning
to flush out the controversy and nuances of the term
when
[Farnsworth] Good news everyone! [/Farnsworth]
As it turns out,
the [adjective for unspeakably vile] ID propaganda whores
over at the Discovery Institute
have provoked an excellent opportunity for science education.
(as opposed, of course, to their usual mis-education)
Boy, if i had a nickel ...
How'd we find out about this?
It just so happens that fellow truth crusader scientist Larry Moran over at Sandwalk
has done a fantastic job of dissecting the junk (science, that is)
while at the same time providing a wonderful exposition
on the whole non-coding
paradox
(as in, mystifying but resolvable problem).
And by dissect, i of course mean:
torn apart bit by bit
with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns
and the precision of optical tweezers
paired with photothermal nanoblades.
The discussion is well underway (multiple parts already posted),
so this link will take you to the most recent aggregation of the posts.
[Pause for breath]
Embedded in the earliest post,
Larry included this gem of a link from
evolutionary biologist T. Ryan Gregory
over at Genomicron...
...whom we can thank for transmitting this excellent quote into the blogosphere:
"If we take the simplistic assumption that the number of genes contained is proportional to the genome size, we would have to conclude that 3 million or so genes are contained in our genome. The falseness of such an assumption becomes clear when we realize that the genome of the lowly lungfish and salamanders can be 36 times greater than our own."
*Attributed to Susumu Ohno
Needless to say, i was ecstatic
to find this in my interweb wanderings,
and hopefully now i've given the topic
a more rigorous appraisal.
Tune in next time for tuna!
No comments:
Post a Comment