Re: Re: Gattaca

[Guest guest]

I have forgotten much of the technical minutia, especially because much of that knowledge comes from a science fair project that was more from the computer science end of processing genetic information. I do however find it fascinating that the information is encoded in a smaller space than computer technologies have accomplished. As a computer geek it's kinda neat, although the software engineer part of me wonders why some much is rubbish code that does not encode for anything when other polymorphic systems could have been used.

..

[Guest guest]

It is interesting that so much data can not only be stored in such a small space but also that it is written from an alphabet of only four base pairs. How they sequence and then how those sequences work with other sequences is amazing. Then add how certain sections of the DNA can be "zipped open" to copy only those part to make a given protein and how such a massive dataline can be copied usually without error (because the process does have a sort of spell checker) and it boggle the mind.

A lot of the DNA might not actually be junk. There was a theory not long ago that at least some of that "wasted" DNA was actually the instruction manual for assembling all the proteins the active DNA produces. In other words, scientists used to think we only used 10% of our brain, which proved to be false. Since the brain used 20% or the body's energy, nature would not allow that much waste of energy, given how it prunes so much else. So all that DNA probably serves a purpose.

That said, some bits of DNA are mistakes or even alien DNA code. Some viral codes have been found in the DNA of some populations, though how that virus got its code to breed true in a bloodline is not yet understood.

Also, the older a species, typically the larger its genome. Some plants have over 100 chromosomes and chickens have 80 some. Even within a given species, the older a given line, the more variation there is in the genetic code. It came out during the OJ Simpson murder trial that Africans had a larger genetic diversity than Caucasians, though that fact didn't help that particular case, though it probably should have, but DNA was new then.

I have forgotten much of the technical minutia, especially because much of that knowledge comes from a science fair project that was more from the computer science end of processing genetic information. I do however find it fascinating that the information is encoded in a smaller space than computer technologies have accomplished. As a computer geek it's kinda neat, although the software engineer part of me wonders why some much is rubbish code that does not encode for anything when other polymorphic systems could have been used.Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now.

[Guest guest]

Also, the older a species, typically the larger its genome. Some plants have over 100 chromosomes and chickens have 80 some. Even within a given species, the older a given line, the more variation there is in the genetic code. It came out during the OJ Simpson murder trial that Africans had a larger genetic diversity than Caucasians, though that fact didn't help that particular case, though it probably should have, but DNA was new then.

.

The five DNA markers used by the FBI statistically will be identical to twelve people in a population of sixty million, so in the US running a simple DNA identity test will likely return approximately 60 people.

Another interesting thing: Humans share at least 50% of DNA with a banana. It is joked among some programmers that God or Nature was the original proponent of code reuse/object oriented design.

[Guest guest]

That's where it gets tricky, depending on who you are talking to.

If all life sprang from a common ancestor, then you would expect similarities. Now, I don't mean that all life descends from a single microbe a few billion years ago. Rather what I mean is that all life developed from the same process that began when chemical elements began bonding together in the early stages of what we call DNA. So far as we know, all life on earth is based on DNA and the same 4 base pairs. This is what I mean by common ancestors.

I don't know about plants and people, or even other mammals given that some have more or less chromosomes than we do, which would throw off the percentages quite a bit. Perhaps what they mean is that the number and kinds of proteins is a close match? There are hundreds of different kinds of proteins, and most species don't have them all. In fact, some are very specialized, like the proteins in deep sea fish that are resistant to the pressures down there, or those that allow some bacteria to survive in boiling water.

The five DNA markers used by the FBI statistically will be identical to twelve people in a population of sixty million, so in the US running a simple DNA identity test will likely return approximately 60 people.Another interesting thing: Humans share at least 50% of DNA with a banana. It is joked among some programmers that God or Nature was the original proponent of code reuse/object oriented design. :PMake your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now.