Re: Paper: Adaptive Evolution of Conserved Noncoding Elements in Mammals

"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fc2dp7$2m4u$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Entertained by my own EIMC" <write_to_eimc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:fbunm6$14lg$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
One more nail in the puffed-up (or overinflated), needlessly uninspiring
(and to me 'tyresome' :>) attitude of scientists who have (at least in
the
past) asserted themselves by rolling the jargon that calls CNCs
"junk-DNA"
off their tongues all too often;

Er..., Peter? Who do you have in mind as a scientist who has called
a CNC "junk-DNA". Larry Moran is the guy posting here who I would
most associate with the "Most non-coding DNA really is junk" ideology.
But he would certainly be of the opinion that most CNCs have a function.
That first 'C' in CNC stands for conserved. I don't think anyone
believes that CNCs are mutation cold-spots. That hypothesis has always
been included just to cover all the possibilities. It is something of
a straw man.

Yes, Jim, I did model (back in my mind) my lament on Moran.

I can only hope you are right about the rest of your points.

I'm willing to cut every strawman, including any of my own making, into
chaff [that would of course later to be turned into mulch that may be used
for growing more tall-stemmed grain crops to be trashed and bundled into
human like shapes, and so on]. ;-)

P


.

Relevant Pages