It's time for another poll. Please answer the question in the sidebar.
2 comments
:
UCLAstudent
said...
depends on your definition of junk.
if junk DNA is dna that is not eventually transcribed into functional protein, then it is very very high.
but so much of our genome is dedicated to other important DNA related functions, and so I tend not to think of the rest of the genome as 'junk'.
then there are the totally useless regions of DNA, such as pseudogenes. but even those are useful at the social/cognitive level because we can use them as molecular/genetic clocks!
but even those are useful at the social/cognitive level because we can use them as molecular/genetic clocks!
And archaeologists use middens to learn a great deal about ancient cultures, but a midden is still a pile of garbage, even with an unintended use for it discovered hundreds of years later.
2 comments :
depends on your definition of junk.
if junk DNA is dna that is not eventually transcribed into functional protein, then it is very very high.
but so much of our genome is dedicated to other important DNA related functions, and so I tend not to think of the rest of the genome as 'junk'.
then there are the totally useless regions of DNA, such as pseudogenes. but even those are useful at the social/cognitive level because we can use them as molecular/genetic clocks!
but even those are useful at the social/cognitive level because we can use them as molecular/genetic clocks!
And archaeologists use middens to learn a great deal about ancient cultures, but a midden is still a pile of garbage, even with an unintended use for it discovered hundreds of years later.
Post a Comment