Out of the box theory.

#1 spiritus

Guest
71 posts
0 ₮

Posted 17 January 2006 - 02:32 PM

[:o]

Okay, how about this for a theory.

First off you will have to open your mind to this scenerio. \ We, as humans, have been created in the image of our maker. Let us assume that we are a genetic test, and our creators are some alien race. They used the most primitive DNA sample they could find and created us from that image. However, they turned off a lot of portions of our DNA so we would not have the same abilities they had at that time. Those portions could have contained genes for regeneration or perhaps super powers lets say, but go no further on the super power part. \

(Junk DNA) is it really junk or could it be editted DNA... because think about it... if you follow the Darwin Theory, wouldnt it be so called "fittest" if there was no junk DNA at all. To conserve energy in transportation of a lot of DNA molecules wouldnt that so called Junk be eliminated...

Even Darwin died believing in creationism. I think the key to achieving immortality and even more could be in activating the junk DNA. That unintelligible DNA to us may be the key to regeneration of every cell in your body and perhaps more.

#2 John Schloendorn

Guest, Advisor, Guardian
2,542 posts
157 ₮

Location:Mountain View, CA

Posted 17 January 2006 - 05:40 PM

if you follow the Darwin Theory, wouldnt it be so called "fittest" if there was no junk DNA at all

No, because (asssuming that these sequences actually are "selfish" or unproductive), a nuclear surveillance that would identify them and kick them out efficiently might well be more expensive than dragging them along. Uh-oh, this is gonna be my first post in the esotherics forum...

Click HERE to rent this BIOSCIENCE adspot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3

Lurker
1 ₮

Posted 18 January 2006 - 02:24 AM

(Junk DNA) is it really junk or could it be editted DNA...

A quick eukaryotic genetics clarification :

introns = DNA sequence that is spliced out (also referred to sometimes as "Junk") = non-coding
exons = DNA sequence that codes for the protein part/s of gene = coding

In older days (a few years ago), when the molecular biology of genetics dogma was DNA > mRNA > protein, anything in the DNA of a cell that did not correlate in terms of a protein sequence that could be isolated and characterised from that cell was considered "junk". Of course there were some conserved non-coding regulatory sequences acknowledged to exist - essentially regions around the protein coding area of the DNA that would allow DNA reading machinery to recognise and attach (and disengage once the protein coding sequence ended) - but anything else, was for some inexplicable reason assumed to be "junk". Since the discovery that "junk regions can encode micro RNA's - short RNA sequences that do not end up being translated into protein but instead regulate other RNA or DNA - we can much more safely (and sensibly) assume that there is very little in the genome that does not serve a purpose (hence there is no "junk"). Your premise that "junk" DNA would be eventually eliminated is correct - since there exists very little if any junk at all (pseudogenes are another matter, of course) in the genome.

I agree with your intuition on modulating aging: there are vast sequences of DNA that become switched off as part of the differentiation program of a cell and the key to modulating that program and thus preventing senescence is in understanding the how and why they work they way they do. Whether there is an agency actively operating to prevent human evolution is another matter best left for others to debate. The only agent I believe is influencing our evolution is Darwinian selection

#4 John Schloendorn

Guest, Advisor, Guardian
2,542 posts
157 ₮

Location:Mountain View, CA

Posted 18 January 2006 - 03:00 AM

assume that there is very little in the genome that does not serve a purpose

But sure you are aware that for several megabases of mouse DNA a purpose was not found despite intensive search [1]. It's not clear to me why this deletion would not be favored if it occurred naturally. The only explanation I can come up with is an element of "selfishness" (stability despite a net cost to the fitness of the other genes in the same genome) in these sequences. Or would you think they simply missed hidden benefits that these sequences do confer on the other genes, large enough to justify the cost of synthesizing this DNA?

[1] Nobrega MA, Zhu Y, Plajzer-Frick I, Afzal V, Rubin EM. Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice. Nature. 2004 Oct 21;431(7011):988-93.

#5

Lurker
1 ₮

Posted 18 January 2006 - 08:14 AM

I strongly doubt that a robust analysis of the consequences of megabase deletions would have no phenotypic consequences in the experimental organism or its progeny. The authors of the paper you cited answer put it very succinctly:

It is possible—even likely—that the animals carrying the megabase-long genomic deletions do harbour abnormalities undetected in our assays, which might affect their fitness in some other timescale or setting than those assayed in this study.

It is of course intriguing that so much DNA can be deleted without more dramatic and immediate consequences but then again, and on another scale, it does not surprise us when an animal can continue to survive following extensive physiological damage (i.e. loss of limbs, organs, etc.).

The paper below provides aspects on the function of gene deserts.

Genome Res. 2005 Jan;15(1):137-45
Evolution and functional classification of vertebrate gene deserts.
Ovcharenko I, Loots GG, Nobrega MA, Hardison RC, Miller W, Stubbs L.

#6 spiritus

Topic Starter
Guest
71 posts
0 ₮

Posted 29 January 2006 - 09:48 PM

Some very interesting dialog and thank you for awnsering my questions.

Click HERE to rent this BIOSCIENCE adspot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#7 power.bulls.x

Guest
115 posts
0 ₮

Location:btw France & Germany

Posted 24 February 2006 - 06:05 PM

i think that the billions of galaxie surouding us was made by some child who is doing some Homeworks on chaos . we are the result of that . that child exist in another world witch is billions of time biger than ours space...

I am wondering why the hell are that far supurior to any kind of animals neither daulphins nore ape can compare to OUR powerfull mind/brain.
ther is no graduation.

Google Sign in options

#1 spiritus

#2 John Schloendorn

#3

sponsored ad

#4 John Schloendorn

#5

#6 spiritus

#7 power.bulls.x

1 user(s) are reading this topic

Ad Notice