Came into this thread late, but am surprised at a real lack of knowledge
from the collective group on *current* science -- does anyone pay attention
to, if not scientific journals then, say, the New York Times?  Try January
21st.

Cosmologists have dealt with an analogous beast but decidedly didn't name it
"Junk Matter".  (Of course physicists are smarter than biologists
and had an
inkling from t zero that there probably was something to dark matter, but
why has this possibility for genetic material has escaped biologists until
only recently just stupefies me!).  So instead of the "Junk DNA" misnomer,
I'd like to suggest "Dark DNA" be used instead.

A great number of Nobel laureates to be made in this young field, mark my
words.


"Robert Karl Stonjek"  wrote in message
news:b172cc$2u1e$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> It occurs to me that nature is fussy when it comes to free rides and
> wasteful, pointless or vestigial attributes.  So why Junk DNA?
>
> It seems to me that having Junk DNA gives that beast a selective
> advantage whenever randomly antagonistic pathogens effect genetic
> material.
>
> In other words, if 90% of my DNA is junk, then the chances of a random
> mutation effecting the genetic material actually used for coding is one
> in ten.  As specific cells, say skin cells, use only a fraction of the
> useful fraction, then the odds are even better.  This is very handy when
> you consider how easily DNA can be damaged by ultra violet light eg from
> the Sun.
>
> Considering low level environmental radioactivity, ultraviolet
> radiation, replication errors caused by aging, possible attacks by virus
> and bacteria, all or any of which could have a random mutating effect on
> DNA,  junk DNA is not just useful but  essential for the long term
> stability for any long lived animal.
>
> The basic test of this is to check the amount of junk DNA as a ratio to
> good DNA against the life expectancy of the animal in question.  Long
> lived animals should have a higher 'junk to good'  DNA  ratio than
> shorter lived animals.  I note that bacteria have none.
>
> Just a thought,
>
> --
> Kind Regards,
> Robert Karl Stonjek.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 2/5/03 6:18:01 PM