Rubbish !?! DNA

I

Itseemstome

Registered Senior Member
Anyone got any thoughts on the supposed fact that, so called, rubbish DNA seems to conform to Zopf's Law.

i,e. It has all the characteristics of a language!!!!!!, computer or otherwise.
 
Anyways, its Zipf's Law.

the frequency of any introns is roughly inversely proportional to its rank in the frequency table of introns and exons. So, the most frequent intron will occur approximately twice as often as the second most frequent intron, which occurs twice as often as the fourth most frequent intron, etc.
 
Thank you for the correction.

It doesn't, fortunately, alter the implication and, hence, the question. I, personally, find it mind-boggling; I wondered what others felt.
 
Itseemstome said:
Anyone got any thoughts on the supposed fact that, so called, rubbish DNA seems to conform to Zopf's Law.

i,e. It has all the characteristics of a language!!!!!!, computer or otherwise.
Click to expand...


Itseemstome,

Scientists rarely use the terms “junk DNA” or “rubbish DNA”. It’s really only the media and people on science forums who use those terms. Thus, the media and people on science forums perpetuate this myth that scientists regard large tracts of genomic DNA as “junk”. We don’t. :bugeye:

Scientists refer to such DNA as “non-coding DNA” or “microsatellite DNA”, or “highly-repetitive DNA” or any one of a number of other specific terms (depending on what is being specifically referred to). You will notice that none of those terms necessarily convey the idea that such DNA has no purpose. Indeed, we know for a fact that non-coding DNA can serve a functional purpose.

As to this idea that DNA has the characteristics of a language, then you are not the first person to point this out, not by a long shot. And if you think that non-coding DNA resembles a language, then coding DNA (ie. genes) certainly does to a considerably larger extent.
 
draqon said:
introns are not rubbish...they decrease probability of DNA damage.
Click to expand...

What? :confused:

No they don’t.


draqon said:
the frequency of any introns is roughly inversely proportional to its rank in the frequency table of introns and exons. So, the most frequent intron will occur approximately twice as often as the second most frequent intron, which occurs twice as often as the fourth most frequent intron, etc.
Click to expand...

What?:confused:

That statement makes absolutely no sense.
 
OK So each human being, at a very conservative estimate, contains 20 trillion kilometres of pentary ( or penary?? or whatever the five equivalent of binary is ) computer language, each digit being at one atom intervals. ( 2x10 to the thirteenth metres) Thats an awful lot of information, even allowing for a vast amount of duplication.

Maybe this post should be in Religion!!
 
Itseemstome said:
Thats an awful lot of information, even allowing for a vast amount of duplication.
Click to expand...


Yes, there is certainly no argument there. In fact, the potential for DNA to encode information has led a number of people to hypothesize that DNA computers will be the way of the future. ie. machines that utilize a combination of electronics and organic matter to store information and do its computing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top