Just like in our DNA...

[William Tanksley]

On Wed, 06 Oct 1999 20:59:30 +0200 (MET DST), Mikael Olofsson wrote:
>On 06-Oct-99 Tom Loredo wrote:

> >  code into proteins.  However, according to this talk, it is now
> >  believed that at least some of this DNA serves a critical function
> >  in determining under what situations various bits of coding DNA
> >  are expressed---chemicals bond to upstream noncoding DNA and trigger
> >  the transcription of the coding parts.  As already noted in the
> >  thread, lower organisms tend to have a much higher ratio of
> >  coding to noncoding DNA; but this may have more to do with them
> >  being simpler (single cells rather than multicellular with different
> >  cells needing to express different coding genes) and thus not
> >  needing the extra control function of the noncoding DNA.

>So, they are case-clauses... :)

I thought that had been determined a while ago -- it's the explanation I'm
familiar with, in my non-specialist position.  In fact, one source I saw
(I have no recollection at all where) claimed that most of our coding DNA
is similar to most other species, and only the noncoding DNA is really
different.

Seems kinda far-fetched, but there you have it.

>This discussion certainly has evolved... 

I disagree -- it's clearly been intelligently designed.  Hmm, kinda brings
a new meaning to the NG name "talk.origins", doesn't it?  Perhaps we
should have "talk.origins.talk" to clarify.

>/Mikael

-- 
-William "Billy" Tanksley