|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 17 2013 @ 05:42 AM EDT |
Very interesting. Thanks for the lnc.
--O4W[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: albert on Wednesday, April 17 2013 @ 01:30 PM EDT |
I never thought 'junk' DNA was junk. Nature is too efficient for that.
Other theories (no particular order:)
1. Messages from advanced ETs are encoded there.
2. Such sequences could be akin to 'commented out' computer code, which can be
activated by removing the 'comment symbols'.
3. They may be 'stand by' sequences, which could be activated in response to new
or unusual environmental threats.
4. ALL may be functional, but we just don't know the details yet.
Now if we could only find the 'greed' gene....
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 17 2013 @ 03:42 PM EDT |
My point is:
Looking around at nature, we see very efficient processes.
Such as the processes involved in plants processing the energy in sunlight. Or
the efficiencies in which our bodies process the natural vitamins and minerals
in food.
Or the way the human brain can reconfigure itself to get
better at something.
Yet:
Mans science today indicates a large portion
of DNA is "junk".
That raises an obvious - to me - question:
Did nature
really create the DNA in a highly inefficient structure while everything else is
so efficient?
The obvious answer - to me - is:
Nope!
So by logical
deductive reasoning, all that DNA structure that current science says is junk is
really unknown.
How much of the human DNA does genetic science today say
is junk? 10%? 35%? 80%?
From Wikipedia (take with a
huge grain of salt of course):
over 98% of the human genome is
noncoding DNA,[1] while only about 2% of a typical bacterial genome is noncoding
DNA
That's the claim. 98% of the human genome is "noncoding DNA" -
is this the equivalent of what's considered "junk dna"? If so... there's a huge
difference between a bacteria life form and the much more complicated human
body. It's my humble opinoin it's more likely to be true that "98% of the human
genome is not understood".
This is why I don't trust genetic modification
- where humans are splicing genes - to be part of my food supply.
In my
humble opinion, it's like giving a 2 year old a live nuclear device to play
with. The person involved simply has no concept of what they're playing with or
the impact.
This - of course - easily explains to me why geneticists seem
to insist trial and error is the only method that can be applied in genetic
splicing.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: nsomos on Thursday, April 18 2013 @ 11:03 AM EDT |
I found the following quite interesting.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/pseudogenes.html [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
