Not knowing much about DNA, it seems weird to me that it's assumed the primary purpose of DNA is to encode for proteins. Sure, that's one of its functions, but it would be just as misguided as assuming that bits only exist to encode text, and when they encode anything else, it's seen as some extraordinary exception to the norm.
Butterfly wing patterns emerge from ancient ‘junk’ DNA
41–50 of 78 posts
Re: Butterfly wing patterns emerge from ancient ‘junk’ DNA
#42I feel like at this point I need a browser plugin which changes the phrase "junk DNA" to literally any other phrase One of the worst names I've come across for a concept
Re: Butterfly wing patterns emerge from ancient ‘junk’ DNA
#43Don't we have similar terminology for some of human organs. Appendix or some other organs are assumed useless. Personally I feel it's insane to call DNA or organs useless instead of acknowledging that we don't yet understand there true purpose.
Re: Butterfly wing patterns emerge from ancient ‘junk’ DNA
#44Seems like the whole thing might be easier to understand if we called a gene "butterflyStripeWidth" rathern than "WntA".
It's like we're writing a new core library but only using obfuscated function names.
Re: Butterfly wing patterns emerge from ancient ‘junk’ DNA
#45Why don't we give genes names like functions? Seems like the whole thing might be easier to understand if we called a gene "butterflyStripeWidth" rathern than "WntA". It's like we're writing a new core library but only using obfuscated function names.
Re: Butterfly wing patterns emerge from ancient ‘junk’ DNA
#46Don't we have similar terminology for some of human organs. Appendix or some other organs are assumed useless. Personally I feel it's insane to call DNA or organs useless instead of acknowledging that we don't yet understand there true purpose.
Not everything serves a purpose. Onions have more DNA than humans.
Re: Butterfly wing patterns emerge from ancient ‘junk’ DNA
#47Why don't we give genes names like functions? Seems like the whole thing might be easier to understand if we called a gene "butterflyStripeWidth" rathern than "WntA". It's like we're writing a new core library but only using obfuscated function names.
We can only guess it functions. Give concrete name like that is not very good idea
Re: Butterfly wing patterns emerge from ancient ‘junk’ DNA
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can only guess it functions. Give concrete name like that is not very good idea
But I can't get anything at all from the name now. BRCA1 isn't descriptive at all, but suppressBreastTumor is more helpful even it's not 100% accurate. I'd rather it be our best guess description than some random letters.
As I see, the answer still cryptic name, and lookup table.
Re: Butterfly wing patterns emerge from ancient ‘junk’ DNA
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can only guess it functions. Give concrete name like that is not very good idea
But I can't get anything at all from the name now. BRCA1 isn't descriptive at all, but suppressBreastTumor is more helpful even it's not 100% accurate. I'd rather it be our best guess description than some random letters.
Re: Butterfly wing patterns emerge from ancient ‘junk’ DNA
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
But I can't get anything at all from the name now. BRCA1 isn't descriptive at all, but suppressBreastTumor is more helpful even it's not 100% accurate. I'd rather it be our best guess description than some random letters.
What if we gain more knowledge, and this isn't suppressBreastTumor. What do you do now? As I see, the answer still cryptic name, and lookup table.
I just think we can do better than the first system we came up with, and improving the system would open the whole thing up to more people and possibility.