Comments on: Mammal Gene Memetics

Mammal Gene Memetics

Gyan — Tue, 11 May 2004 00:27:47 -0800

Analysis Uncovers Critical Stretches of Human Genome.

By: chicobangs

chicobangs — Tue, 11 May 2004 08:35:31 -0800

It's not really a surprise. We're all living on the same planet, and many of the coping mechanisms we've grown for dealing with gravity, getting food, dealing with weather & predators, and so on, are things most beings share. If they've been able to figure which genes have these universal coping mechanisms, then right on. (And chickens, of all people, are our cousins? Ah, sure, okay. That might redefine incest in some parts.)

By: Gyan

Gyan — Tue, 11 May 2004 09:14:14 -0800

It's not really a surprise. Yes and No. No, because the odds (as reported in another article) on this were 1 in 10^22. Yes, because assuming the evolutionary tree is correct, it stands to reason that closer relatives have more in common.

By: Pretty_Generic

Pretty_Generic — Tue, 11 May 2004 09:20:08 -0800

What is the basis for those odds? Do you have a link to the other article?

By: Gyan

Gyan — Tue, 11 May 2004 09:29:23 -0800

This article. In the 9th paragraph block.

By: jmd82

jmd82 — Tue, 11 May 2004 10:22:55 -0800

In the past few years, this concept is nothing new in the sciences- at least here at school where I've been taught this exact idea since I got to college

By: cameldrv

cameldrv — Tue, 11 May 2004 10:27:36 -0800

My understanding of this is that it is quite surprising. Even in coding genes, you don't find 100% identical sequences between species usually because there are synonymous codons, which means that if there is a mutation in the right spot, it will normally have absolutely no effect on the organism. According to the article, this sequence does not code for a protein. So here you have a sequence that either a) must somehow, for some totally unknown reason, is error corrected way beyond the capabilities of any known mechanism, or b) Is so vital to the organism that any mutation would be 100% fatal, despite the fact that it doesn't code for any protein, and has a totally unknown function. That is quite strange and would seem to suggest that the central dogma is incorrect. Either that, or the universe is 6000 years old, and god put that sequence in there. Strange stuff indeed.

By: Iax

Iax — Tue, 11 May 2004 11:10:22 -0800

This reminds me of some of Greg Bear's science fiction.

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Tue, 11 May 2004 11:46:15 -0800

would seem to suggest that the central dogma is incorrect The "central dogma" (This is the worst name for anything in science, by the way. There is no room for dogma in the scientific method.) has been known to be incorrect, or at least incomplete, for at least three decades. It's an oversimplification that is probably best abandoned; the process of transcription/translation is better understood as merely a subset of possible nucleic acid/protein interactions responsible for cell function and control.

By: nasim

nasim — Wed, 12 May 2004 23:50:42 -0800

It actually appears to be a fractal of some kind. Which implies it encodes information. I believe(maybe read somewhere) that this fractal pattern is really just a massively redundant form of error correction to for both itself and the gene encoding sequence.