| ||
Random quote: "Heroes are created by popular demand, sometimes out of the scantiest materials, or none at all." - Gerald White Johnson - (Added by: christopherw277) |
The Dervish House: a question Moderators: Admin Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page] | View previous thread :: View next thread |
General Discussion -> SF/F/H Chat | Message format |
gallyangel |
| ||
Uber User Posts: 857 Location: The Wilds of Washington | I am right in the middle of The Dervish House and I have got a question. I thought the fine minds around here might have the answer. One of the plot points is a machine which encodes data into DNA. McDonald explains to us about the 2% encoding DNA and the rest being junk DNA, noncoding. My question is this: is this a correct and modern understanding, conforming to the cutting edge of DNA knowledge? I was under the impression that this view of DNA is 20 or more years old, and the data now, the cutting edge of the science thinks the whole concept of junk DNA is nonsense. That the concept of junk DNA is arrogant and lacks any understanding of subtlety, which is a common science failure. That it is closer to say all the DNA does something, it is just we are only now understanding the true complexities involved, which leads us to the slow unraveling of what it all does. So which vision is correct? I can forgive a lot, but if you screw up on the science by using an out-of-data understanding and then extrapolate forward from there, that is a fundamental SF no-no as far as I am concerned. gallyangel | ||
valashain |
| ||
Uber User Posts: 1465 Location: The Netherlands | To the best of my knowledge most, not all mind you, of what is colloquially referred to as junk DNA still has no known biological function. There have been experiments where some of it has been removed without an observable effect on the organism which does suggest that it really doesn't do anything. It doesn't sound too unlikely to me that over the course of evolution we have picked up some useless baggage. That being said, I very much doubt we are even close to a full understanding of what DNA does. Edited by valashain 2012-08-24 11:08 AM | ||
valashain |
| ||
Uber User Posts: 1465 Location: The Netherlands | Hmm, came across a bunch of articles recently that suggest that up to 80% of our DNA does have a biological function. My grasp of genetics nowhere near good enough to say how solid those results are. From what I have been reading I get the impression they still only have a vague idea of what that DNA might be doing but that they are pretty sure it is doing something. Looks like there is more research to be done in this area. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19202141 The BBC article is a starting point and very superficial, you need to dig a little deeper to get any more detailed information. | ||
justifiedsinner |
| ||
Uber User Posts: 794 | The idea that 98% of human DNA was junk was always arrant nonsense. Why would a biologic organism waste so much energy carrying around stuff it doesn't use? It had more to do with large ego types like Craig Venter not wanting to admit that they had spent a billion dollars decoding the genome and found the problem was bigger than they thought. The ENCODE project which recently published its results from tracking which genes are active in which tissues and found that 80% of the genome is active. Only 2% codes for actual proteins the rest seems to be involved in control and development. Nor does this rule out the other 20% having a purpose, There are several decades of work ahead to determine what is really going on. | ||
Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page] |
Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Books
BOOK AWARDS
Hugo Award
Nebula Award
BSFA Award
Mythopoeic Award
Locus SF Award
Locus Fantasy Award
Locus FN Award
Locus YA Award
Locus Horror Award
August Derleth Award
Robert Holdstock Award
Campbell Award
World Fantasy Award
Prometheus Award
Aurora Award
PKD Award
Clarke Award
Stoker Award
Otherwise Award
Aurealis SF Award
Aurealis Fantasy Award
Aurealis Horror Award
Andre Norton Award
Shirley Jackson Award
Red Tentacle Award
Golden Tentacle Award
Legend Award
Morningstar Award
Nommo Award
BOOK LISTS
Classics of SF
SF Mistressworks
Guardian: The Best SF/F
NPR: Top 100 SF/F
Pringle Best 100 SF
Pringle Modern Fantasy
SF: 101 Best 1985-2010
Fantasy 100
ISFDB Top 100
Horror 100
Nightmare Magazine 100
HWA Reading List
Locus Best SF
200 Significant SF Books by Women
David Brin's YA List
Baen Military SF List
Defining SF Books:
50s | 60s | 70s | 80s | 90s
SF by Women Writers
A Crash Course in the History of Black Science Fiction
Authors
Top Authors
All Authors
All Women Authors
Author Videos
AUTHOR AWARDS
Damon Knight Memorial
World Horror Convention
WFA Life Achievement
Cordwainer Smith Rediscovery
AUTHOR LISTS
Starmont Reader's Guide
Publishers
Top Publishers
All Publishers
PUBLISHER LISTS
Ace Doubles Series:
D | F | G | H | M | #
Conversation Pieces
Classic Library of SF
Critical Explorations in SF&F
EP Masterpieces of SF
Fantasy Masterworks
SF Masterworks
Laser Books
Liverpool SF Texts and Studies
Author's Choice Monthly
Pulphouse Short Stories
Winston SF
Resources
Podcasts
BookTubers
Magazines
Conventions
eBooks
Bookstores
SF/F/H Sub-Genres
Websites
Clubs & Groups
WWEnd
BookTrackr™
The Responsible Parties
WWEnd Patrons
Support WWEnd
Advertise on WWEnd
FAQ
Contact Us
My World
Sign Up now and enjoy the enhanced features only available to members.
Blog
2024 British Fantasy Awards Winners
2024 British Fantasy Awards Shortlists Announced
2023 Nommo Awards Winners
2024 World Fantasy Award Finalists
2024 Aurora Award Winner
Forums
Home | © 2024 Tres Barbas, LLC. All rights reserved.
(Delete all cookies set by this site) | |