Science desk | ||
---|---|---|
< December 3 | << Nov | December | Jan >> | December 5 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
Yes, I know that the question of whether apparently useless DNA has in fact some purpose is a controversial one, but it still seems strange that some organisms are virtually free of non-coding DNA while others, including our own, have genomes which are more than 97% junk. If junk DNA does have some purpose, why this disparity? And, following on from this, we would now have the capacity to delete all such DNA from a genome. Would a human be in any way different if they had no such DNA in their genome? Myles325a ( talk) 04:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
OP myles325a back live. See, this is what really gets me down on the floor and dragging up carpet tacks wid my teeth while making noises like a Tasmanian Devil on crack. I ask a perfectly sensible question which would be comprehensible to 99.0% of WP readers and I get a brusque note from a trophy polisher basically telling me nothing except that I am an ignoramus and a dickhead. Your answer is nought but garrulous and pompous evasiveness. I note that you make no attempt to say what the “useful” component of non-coding DNA actually does. In any case, even if you knew, my question would still stand. Is that component of DNA which does not “merely” code for proteins necessary for life, and what would happen if you deleted it? I’m a plain-speaking Australian, who has asked an honest and sensible question. It is your answer which is “irrelevent” (sic). Myles325a ( talk) 02:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
OP myles325a back live. Waaahh, pooor bubba. However, I am supposing that telomere length in a new cell IS determined by DNA coding, else male sperm cells produced by a 60 year old man would inherit the truncated version, and this would be passed down to his progeny. So bubbs lives after all. Not too sure about this, but in any case, one instance can hardly champion the 97% of DNA which does not code. Myles325a ( talk) 02:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
OP myles325a back live. See, SOMEONE thinks that I am asking a reasonable question. We know that the genome has vast real estate of evolutionary dead ends and meaningless repetitions. (I believe that about 3% of DNA comprise these repetitive strings, so we have as much DNA devoted to accidental repetition as we have to the coding DNA. It is interesting to think that the long stretches of DNA deriving from now non-functional phenomes is necessary for proper genome and phenome expression today. But what then about the organisms, like puffer fish, who have next to no non-coding DNA. And why would organisms like wheat need so much of it. Myles325a ( talk) 03:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
OP myles325a back live. Groan, the trophy polishing hair splitter is back. The reason we would place such an emphasis on DNA which "merely" codes, is that just about all we know about the makeup of an organism comes from there. You seem sure that non-coding DNA is important, but you provide no clue as to why it is. And yes, as you say, the fact that "some string of DNA doesn't directly code for a protein sequence doesn't mean it isn't necessary". Agree, but it also does not, ipso facto, guarantee that it IS necessary. The SCIENTIFIC way to ascertain the truth in such circumstances, is to do as I have suggested and delete the non-coding DNA of an neonate. If doing this to a human embryo is considered unethical, we could use a hamster or a rat or a pig or such. Myles325a ( talk) 03:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
OP myles325a back live. Hmmm Wnt, I appreciate your thoughts, but in the above you seem to have segued between deletion via natural selection and deletion by geneticists. Luckily, the quality improves after this initial blooper. Myles325a ( talk) 03:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
OP myles325a back live. Ok, Wnt, but while I understand but little of the page you refer to, it DOES seem to be devoted to the special role of RNA on posttranscription processes. That means there are certain changes which are not the result of DNA coding, but there is nothing there, as I read it, relating to the usefulness of stretches of non-coding "junk" DNA. Myles325a ( talk) 03:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
OP myles325a back live. This is a beautiful concept. Much of evolution proceeds via random mutations, and if there was a storehouse of abandoned genome sequences, and even sequences from other organisms, held in escrow in the genome, then there might be a rich treasure house of genomic sequences which could be recombined and brought back from the wings to centre stage again (to mix a metaphor in a context which invites such). Thus, the happy monster. I did have an idea earlier that such a treasure house could be opened by excessive radiation, which accelerates mutation rates. Thus, a dystopia occurring after a nuclear war, when new phenotypes are needed, might trigger the reactivation of ancient phenotypes like body hair. As the dying sun expands and solar radiation begins to strip away the atmosphere, high radiation rates might foster de-evolution, reintroducing hardy organisms which can withstand such ferocious conditions. Then again, evolutionary processes are not teleological (end-directed) so it is hard to see how they could be favored by natural selection on a generation by generation level. But I digress..... Myles325a ( talk) 04:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Why is it that some places use alcohol wipes on your skin before drawing blood and others don't. 2A02:C7D:B901:CC00:CCA2:261C:1C78:FFEE ( talk) 14:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I believe the underlying question is the efficacy of the alcohol wipe. It is well accepted that alcohol kills a large amount of pathogens, but why are we now seeing the alcohol rub skipped altogether? The answer is that while it is a statistically significant amount of pathogens killed at the injection site, this isn't practically significant enough to show infection. [1] This article referenced a World Health Organization bulletin [2], which I read and found Table 3 to be extremely useful.
Even with this bulletin released, which was for muscular shots and not blood draws, the WHO still recommends an alcohol wipe, but honestly I couldn't find a decent reason for this. [3] Jasonmfisher ( talk) 15:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
References
This article:
Basically says that the "holographic universe" hypothesis has just been effectively disproved. I know the results of the experiment are controversial - and might be wrong. But if it has indeed proved that there is no fine-scale jitter in the positions of objects, does that also disprove my favorite hypothesis - the Simulation hypothesis? Seems like if objects can be positioned without jitter then the amount of data to completely describe that position must be infinite - which means that the universe can't possibly be a giant computer simulation like The Matrix.
But I'm not entirely sure I understand the holographic universe hypothesis - so it's not clear that this approach to disproving it also disproves the simulation hypothesis too.
SteveBaker ( talk) 20:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Science desk | ||
---|---|---|
< December 3 | << Nov | December | Jan >> | December 5 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
Yes, I know that the question of whether apparently useless DNA has in fact some purpose is a controversial one, but it still seems strange that some organisms are virtually free of non-coding DNA while others, including our own, have genomes which are more than 97% junk. If junk DNA does have some purpose, why this disparity? And, following on from this, we would now have the capacity to delete all such DNA from a genome. Would a human be in any way different if they had no such DNA in their genome? Myles325a ( talk) 04:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
OP myles325a back live. See, this is what really gets me down on the floor and dragging up carpet tacks wid my teeth while making noises like a Tasmanian Devil on crack. I ask a perfectly sensible question which would be comprehensible to 99.0% of WP readers and I get a brusque note from a trophy polisher basically telling me nothing except that I am an ignoramus and a dickhead. Your answer is nought but garrulous and pompous evasiveness. I note that you make no attempt to say what the “useful” component of non-coding DNA actually does. In any case, even if you knew, my question would still stand. Is that component of DNA which does not “merely” code for proteins necessary for life, and what would happen if you deleted it? I’m a plain-speaking Australian, who has asked an honest and sensible question. It is your answer which is “irrelevent” (sic). Myles325a ( talk) 02:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
OP myles325a back live. Waaahh, pooor bubba. However, I am supposing that telomere length in a new cell IS determined by DNA coding, else male sperm cells produced by a 60 year old man would inherit the truncated version, and this would be passed down to his progeny. So bubbs lives after all. Not too sure about this, but in any case, one instance can hardly champion the 97% of DNA which does not code. Myles325a ( talk) 02:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
OP myles325a back live. See, SOMEONE thinks that I am asking a reasonable question. We know that the genome has vast real estate of evolutionary dead ends and meaningless repetitions. (I believe that about 3% of DNA comprise these repetitive strings, so we have as much DNA devoted to accidental repetition as we have to the coding DNA. It is interesting to think that the long stretches of DNA deriving from now non-functional phenomes is necessary for proper genome and phenome expression today. But what then about the organisms, like puffer fish, who have next to no non-coding DNA. And why would organisms like wheat need so much of it. Myles325a ( talk) 03:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
OP myles325a back live. Groan, the trophy polishing hair splitter is back. The reason we would place such an emphasis on DNA which "merely" codes, is that just about all we know about the makeup of an organism comes from there. You seem sure that non-coding DNA is important, but you provide no clue as to why it is. And yes, as you say, the fact that "some string of DNA doesn't directly code for a protein sequence doesn't mean it isn't necessary". Agree, but it also does not, ipso facto, guarantee that it IS necessary. The SCIENTIFIC way to ascertain the truth in such circumstances, is to do as I have suggested and delete the non-coding DNA of an neonate. If doing this to a human embryo is considered unethical, we could use a hamster or a rat or a pig or such. Myles325a ( talk) 03:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
OP myles325a back live. Hmmm Wnt, I appreciate your thoughts, but in the above you seem to have segued between deletion via natural selection and deletion by geneticists. Luckily, the quality improves after this initial blooper. Myles325a ( talk) 03:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
OP myles325a back live. Ok, Wnt, but while I understand but little of the page you refer to, it DOES seem to be devoted to the special role of RNA on posttranscription processes. That means there are certain changes which are not the result of DNA coding, but there is nothing there, as I read it, relating to the usefulness of stretches of non-coding "junk" DNA. Myles325a ( talk) 03:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
OP myles325a back live. This is a beautiful concept. Much of evolution proceeds via random mutations, and if there was a storehouse of abandoned genome sequences, and even sequences from other organisms, held in escrow in the genome, then there might be a rich treasure house of genomic sequences which could be recombined and brought back from the wings to centre stage again (to mix a metaphor in a context which invites such). Thus, the happy monster. I did have an idea earlier that such a treasure house could be opened by excessive radiation, which accelerates mutation rates. Thus, a dystopia occurring after a nuclear war, when new phenotypes are needed, might trigger the reactivation of ancient phenotypes like body hair. As the dying sun expands and solar radiation begins to strip away the atmosphere, high radiation rates might foster de-evolution, reintroducing hardy organisms which can withstand such ferocious conditions. Then again, evolutionary processes are not teleological (end-directed) so it is hard to see how they could be favored by natural selection on a generation by generation level. But I digress..... Myles325a ( talk) 04:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Why is it that some places use alcohol wipes on your skin before drawing blood and others don't. 2A02:C7D:B901:CC00:CCA2:261C:1C78:FFEE ( talk) 14:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I believe the underlying question is the efficacy of the alcohol wipe. It is well accepted that alcohol kills a large amount of pathogens, but why are we now seeing the alcohol rub skipped altogether? The answer is that while it is a statistically significant amount of pathogens killed at the injection site, this isn't practically significant enough to show infection. [1] This article referenced a World Health Organization bulletin [2], which I read and found Table 3 to be extremely useful.
Even with this bulletin released, which was for muscular shots and not blood draws, the WHO still recommends an alcohol wipe, but honestly I couldn't find a decent reason for this. [3] Jasonmfisher ( talk) 15:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
References
This article:
Basically says that the "holographic universe" hypothesis has just been effectively disproved. I know the results of the experiment are controversial - and might be wrong. But if it has indeed proved that there is no fine-scale jitter in the positions of objects, does that also disprove my favorite hypothesis - the Simulation hypothesis? Seems like if objects can be positioned without jitter then the amount of data to completely describe that position must be infinite - which means that the universe can't possibly be a giant computer simulation like The Matrix.
But I'm not entirely sure I understand the holographic universe hypothesis - so it's not clear that this approach to disproving it also disproves the simulation hypothesis too.
SteveBaker ( talk) 20:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)