80% in what sense?
As you do, certain genes ramp up expression to build more muscle and fire the muscles more quickly. You get faster. You’re becoming a different animal.
The Luria–Delbrück experiment elegantly demonstrated that in bacteria genetic mutations arise in the absence of selection, rather than being a response to selection. These are mutations both to the genetic elements that could be plausibly described as genes and the many that can't. Evolutionary biology has made so much more sense ever since.The Hershey–Chase experiment showed once and for all that nucleic acids were in fact the heritable molecule.The two guys who discovered the model for the structure of the B form double helix were phage folk. Incidentally they published it in easily the snarkiest, most badass, and likely most important published scientific paper ever, written as an accessible single page. The structure of DNA, and its relationship to function that they discovered, is true for all of life.Most of the central dogma, was also figured out using phage, from most of the functions of RNA to the triplicate nature of codons
"This is what most people call a "gene" in molecular biology. However, none of these "genes" matches up at all with Dawkin's definition of gene. Dawkin's definition shifts to whatever it needs to be, and does not appear to have a physical basis that is coherent."
Since I've missed that trick, I'm missing just how the mechanism of "gene expression" actually works? Are there different codes? Are there "if then else" elements to the genetic code? Is the "code" very clever that it functions differently in freezing water vs boiling water? Did I miss something in the article or is there a whole field of "expression studies"?
"Since I've missed that trick, I'm missing just how the mechanism of "gene expression" actually works? Are there different codes? Are there "if then else" elements to the genetic code? Is the "code" very clever that it functions differently in freezing water vs boiling water? Did I miss something in the article or is there a whole field of "expression studies"?"
"So, essentially, our DNA is a program, and gene expression is the command line arguments?"
Cosine: "Because the headline and intro are all "Selfish Gene is Wrong, Total Bullshit, Get Rid of It, Must Go Away"
Then a page in comes the "well, selfish gene is mostly right, we are just fine tuning it."
That is link bait."
#3. What are you measuring? Since it isn't the full genome or even the full set of expressed genes and proteins in each species, is it representative genes? You can compare cow hemoglobin to human hemoglobin and get a figure (like 90%).
#5. How do you align? A technical matter, but one which there is not an agreement among geneticists. If you are lucky enough to have two protein expressing genes of the same length, the matter is somewhat easier. You still have to be concerned about multiple deletion/insertion events. Once you start getting different lengths, do you assume a two amino acid change is a single event? Is it an event equal to a nucleotide change?
How could a smell sensitivity, formed in an adult animal’s olfactory bulb in its brain, possibly be transmitted to its gonads and passed on to future generations?
The researchers are nowhere near being able to answer that question, but they have some data that points to epigenetics.
"What would happen if you took DNA out of my cells and stuck it in some random eukaryotic cell? Is the rest of the cell's machinery sufficiently different that my DNA wouldn't function in there? How different does it have to be before my DNA doesn't work anymore?"
Epistasis is hardly a new concept. In fact, geneticists have been arguing about its importance ever since R.A. Fisher and Sewall Wright bickered about it in the 1920s. Dawkins acknowledges a role for gene- gene interactions in The Selfish Gene, noting that ‘the effect of any one gene depends on interaction with many others.’ But research since then show that these interactions take place in non-linear, non- additive ways of a complexity impossible to understand at the time Dawkins wrote his book. Casey Greene and Jason Moore of Dartmouth, for instance, recently found that in some cases epistatic interactions seem to warp conventional gene-trait relationships so profoundly that they can often negate the gene as a trait’s reliable carrier.
« Older Sofles - Limitless, Graffiti + Timelapse (SLYT) p... | dan le sac vs Scroobius Pip : ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt