[MayoFlyFarmer]

I think it would be VERY randomly lucky for a total noncoding regoing to aquire all of the parts neccesary for a functional, transcriptionally active gene to form by simple base pair mutations (although evolution occurs in crazy ways)  but I believe it happens quite frequently via maechnaisms such as chromosomal rearrangements and transposable elements etc.  that can move whole genes, or at least parts of a functional gene into regions where there wan't one before.  
It is pretty much accepted that these spaces leave way for eolutionary change, and are likely the reminants of evolutionary change.  HOwvwere, where the debate comes in, is why we keep them there over evolutionary time.  If they had no beneficial function we would most likely kick out the extra genetic baggage (bacteria will kick out an un needed plasmid, if not selected for my antibiotics, in a few short cell cycles.  You pointed out that there is the bennefit of room for evolution, howvere, this hypothisis doesn't exactly hold up because while this IS benneficial, there is no evolutionary mechanism that selects for the future potential to evolve.  So the juries still out.  There are some very viable hypotheses out there that I've read, but I can't remember any specfics of any of them.  I believe if you dig out the issue of Nature that NIH published their draft human genome (Feb 16 2001??)  they throw out some ideas in there (somehwhere bedded in the hundreds of pages of that artice, have fun reading) although I'm sure there have been some better theories since then.

A submarine is NOT a cargo ship!

[Ylide]

But bacteria have limited real estate as their genome and plasmids occupy a relatively high percentage of cellular space.  Our genome is very efficiently packed and our cells are much bigger, we have more than enough room.  Since the extra space for genetic information is obviously a benefit, I don't see why we would  evolve away from it.  

Yeah, there are definately better and faster ways of developing entirely new genes than base substitutions, don't know why I only mentioned that one.  Thanks for pointing that out.

This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

[ebzZzZ]

There is more to this than just DNA, the DNA serves a function
to build our bodies and store information, It is a tool of animal life not the source of animal life.

so i thought i'd add a bit to this discussion, and all this
can be backed up with real science, out of the BOX science


CENTRIOLE

The centriole is a small cylinder inside all animal cells, comes with a pair, mum with daughter attached, well sort of floats there next to her, well to tolerances engineers can only dream about, without actually touching, magically

in micro gravity experiments in space on animal cells, it's centriole activity that causes most problems, on earth it's centriole activity that causes cancer, in animals it's centriole activity that starts and executes cell mitosis/division, the centriole organises the internal fertilization of an egg. the centriole moves about in the cell where ever it wants, for whatever function. it connects itself up with microtubules to other parts of the cell. DNA is not the intelligence at work, the centriole is. living things interact with gravity more than inert things. living things change in mass, before they die they increase in mass as the quantum process in the centrioles increases to find and answer to the impending death, then when they die they loose mass as the quantum process stops. the centriole is the inertia centre of our cells. is this not evidence enough to start extensive research into the function of the centriole?

animals have centrioles and animals move!!

 
"if you want quantum computing you don't even
have to look past the end of your nose"

 

centrioles self assemble a copy of themselves
before mitosis of the cell. this is nanotechnology

if a centriole/s is dissolved inside a living cell it
reforms as if by magic, it doesn't need to copy
itself from another

Microtubules to carbon-nanotubes

Quantum computing - use natures best as a start,
then maybe you might be able to get one to work


And before someone gets smart, and says "neurons don't have centrioles". well when they looked at Einstein's brain, he had normal neuron count but a higher glial cell count, could this be a case of classic mistaken identity because science doesn't have it's missing science of life.

Artcile from Scientific american
 
http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse.cfm?sequencenameCHAR=item2&methodnameCHAR=resource_getitembrowse&interfacenameCHAR=browse.cfm&ISSUEID_CHAR=3B8A9274-2B35-221B-63A60F782CAB6E84&ARTICLEID_CHAR=3BA32C9C-2B35-221B-63605E90A8809E26&sc=I100322

---------------------------------------------

NOW TO DNA

DNA

The centriole/patterns takes it's DNA with it.
 whether this is fertilization of an egg or mitosis/division of a cell, the DNA is taken, it's second, it follows.

 

" we worry about one mutation in our gene's.
 the centriole can mutate our gene's"


adaptive mutation.

J cairns Boston school public health 1985

that says to me

"what ever controls the centriole/patterns controls the mutation of our gene's"

"our body is not as fragile as medicine would have us believe"

"there is something else controlling/causing our diseases"

The DNA is the centrioles/patterns,
toolkit/workshop/manufacturing/warehouse etc.

DNA is what the quantum process
we can't see uses to build the body we can see.

How do we know that there is a quantum process there?

well if quantum computing exists wouldn't life have found it already?

ebz

[MayoFlyFarmer]

but its the protiens encoded by the DNA that make up the centrioles and manipulate their functions.

Jay, I agree with you that we don't have anywhere near as much evolutionary pressure to kick out extra DNA as bacteria do (actually I just learned today that the average is 5 cell divisions or 1 hour for a bacterial cell to kick out a plasmid) but there is still a small pressure against it. I guess that more important point that I was trying to make is that while it is beneficial to have the room for easier evolution, we associate that with a selective advantage, but if you really think about the rules of how evolution and natural selection work, this does not hold up, because there is no way nature can select for "future potential".  It has to be a currently manifested trait.  I couldn't tell from your post if you understood this or not, so if you did ignore it.

A submarine is NOT a cargo ship!

[ebzZzZ]

a ham sandwhich is a source of portien for our
bodies, are you saying the ham sandwhich is in charge

[Ylide]

The DNA that transcribes the RNA that translates the protein is in charge.  Centriole formation isn't "magic", it's intermolecular attractions between tubulin proteins.



This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

[MayoFlyFarmer]

quote:Originally posted by ebzZzZ


a ham sandwhich is a source of portien for our
bodies, are you saying the ham sandwhich is in charge

no.... but the DNA that made that protien for the pig it came from was in chage for that pig.  When you eat protiens, those protiens don't get used in that form by your body.  they get broken down to their amino acids so your cells can make your own protiens out of them (coded by the DNA)



A submarine is NOT a cargo ship!

[ebzZzZ]

read this it does a better job of explaining than
i can

http://rgouin.home.mindspring.com/pdf/reviewB.pdf

and you can't say it doesn't go along way to desribing things
biology ignores, just look at the list of referenced papers.

i think the centriole is going to have the last laugh, but what
this does mean is it's a link between our medicine in the west
and the Qi based medicine from the east, now wouldn't that be nice.
about time the drug companies got whats coming to them and their
shareholders, i know i've worked for most of them, find a disease
to apply a drug for.

ebz

[Ylide]

While I don't agree with that paper's quantum mechanical treatment of a macroscopic system (yes, even centrioles are macroscopic, it would violate heisenberg otherwise since we can observe them directly) I do agree with you that there is a degree of effectiveness in Eastern medicine and that research combining it with western meds that is going on now may yield some effective, cheap treatments.  I also agree that drug companies are horrible and well-deserving of comeuppance.  





This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People