When looking at one type of science it is possible to apply analogous process. In vacuum tubes , a "getter" is located to remove junk atoms from a vacuum. It is my opinion that introns act as getters to save the DNA from being shredded and inactivated by a retro virus. I would assume that this originated long ago and that it also has the advantage of allowing recombining elements to create new complexity. It seems to me that in the scheme of things, if retrovirus response had not happened, complex life would not have evolved. To some extent, it is my opinion that this continuous assault on the code of life is what makes it jump from one attractor to another and causes many lethal mutants also.
The ultimate possibilities are limited by the path through the attractors, but also though the stable possibilities are limited, the complexity process can extend forever. It seems to me that this self deception that people are descended of gods and are perfect in form makes people think about immortality of individuals. I suppose this disability, ( a delusion that shreds perception of reality ) could be starting point to create the getter that changes it to something that is more consistent with reality and thus more survivable and repeatable.
The image is done with InkScape and represents the process of DNA ⇒ mRNA when introns are present. The getter acts as a target to attract a retrovirus and in this way disables its ability to integrate in a gene and thus replicate and extend its being. The funny thing is that I spoke to a retro virus the other day at the coffee shop and it claimed to be God and the chosen one in all the universe. I said that rtetroV was an idiot and it just ignored me, as I am merely some stupid bag of protein and water, and it knew it was God because it was pure and thus holy RNA.
There are many attractors in the possibility space and some seem they would be vastly more effective than a human.
CORRECTION: I have to link to this and my statement, as I was unaware of this study. and my comments here. I could be wrong, but I stand by my opinion. I will explain it this way, the first organism to have an intron would likely not have the mechanism to handle it, in that same way, variations apply as flaws first and if they are not fatal will be integrated in the process. If the action is composite in the fact that it delays replication and differentiation and serves as timing, removing 3M of 100M is 3% and would not necessarily serve as a disproof of the utility of the DNA for some other purpose. That research was 2004 and so I am the one behind on this one. I would just say I am wrong, but I am not convinced with a 3% change and I really like to see data and not conclusions. My opinion was that it produced subtle changes that affected the selection of a chaotic attractor and it is still my opinion that 3% would not necessarily be enough to cross a boundary and if mice are at 100M and human 3B, that seems to imply that perhaps it is a different situation if the amount of "junk" is 30x, in which case 3% would be only .1% change in human genome. IDK, I will research it some more.( Wikipedia claims it was 1% of mouse genome) and I think Wiki is wrong this time as the research link states 3% clearly. Other research shows that junk DNA can be lethal in other eukaryotic organisms and the mechanism of its lethality is unknown. If the DNA is non-coding in life, then what exactly is that DNA doing that can kill the organism?
I feel the test is inconclusive unless all non-coding DNA is removed. The immune system of the mouse could have changed as that is one thing that could not have been effectively measured without more knowledge of its actual operation. I will research it some more.
Another aspect of junk DNA is the fact that it can be getters which respond to specific random rotors in the viral populations. Viruses are notorious for recursing their structures and will mutate in cyclic patterns to increase their infectiousness. It would be difficult to pair up a sequence simply designed to protect against a strain which was not currently active and cycled in periods of millions of years. The junk DNA question remains unresolved for me. More research at Nature indicates that some non-coding regions are literally conserved.
0 comments:
Post a Comment