No more "Junk DNA" in Human Genome


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : No more "Junk DNA" in Human Genome

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next
Author Message
OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13614
Credit: 30,353,679
RAC: 21,223
United States
Message 1291260 - Posted: 4 Oct 2012, 16:33:02 UTC - in response to Message 1291209.

I want to either learn new things, or teach what i already know.


How do you expect to learn new things if you never allow someone to challenge what you currently believe (a.k.a. "debate")?

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,804,864
RAC: 2,869
United States
Message 1291278 - Posted: 4 Oct 2012, 17:00:12 UTC - in response to Message 1291209.
Last modified: 4 Oct 2012, 17:39:17 UTC

Bobby, i'm like a teacher. I will help you to learn if you choose to learn. But you have to "choose" to want to learn why this announcement proves we were created and we didn't evolve. I won't argue it with you. If you want to argue, go somewhere else or start a different thread.

Reading between the lines here that seems to me to indicate that, if you don't want to believe what I believe then I'm not interested in talking to you. I hope you didn't mean that.


Chris,
No, it means that i don't want to "debate" the issue. But i am willing to "discuss" the issue, and teach. I'm tired Chris, i'm very tired from the work-load i have taken on.

If a 5 year old child goes to school, the teacher will try to teach the child the A B C's. What would happen if the child rejects learning English, debates the validity of the English language and demands that he be taught Egyptian hieroglyphics instead? --- If i was this child's teacher, i would not get involved in this child's "debate". Instead i would throw the child out of the class and i would teach English to the children who choose to cooperate and learn what is being taught. Bobby wants to "debate", i don't. I want to either learn new things, or teach what i already know.

John.


What happens when the "teacher" rejects the validity of the subject?

You appear to be under the misapprehension that we have agreed that you are qualified to teach, and I should be a dutiful pupil. Until you can do demonstrate you are qualified, why should anybody be willing to have you as a teacher?
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3092
Credit: 2,539,213
RAC: 2,284
Ireland
Message 1291360 - Posted: 4 Oct 2012, 19:58:40 UTC - in response to Message 1291260.

I want to either learn new things, or teach what i already know.


How do you expect to learn new things if you never allow someone to challenge what you currently believe (a.k.a. "debate")?

Ozzfan,
When it comes to SETI science, you, me and all the other people who hang out on these forums a lot are all types of "experts" on SETI. We have all learned how SETI science works, we all know the pro's and con's of SETI science. So we all have an equivalent knowledge. This makes "debates" about SETI science useful, productive and very enjoyable. We all learn from chatting to each other.

Astronomy is a related science to SETI science. And again, we all have good knowledge of astronomy. And it leads to good constructive debates and everyone learns from them.

But genetics is different, not everyone understand it. I have invested a lot of time and energy learning genetics and i haven't met anyone here who seems to have knowledge of the subjects involved in genetics. This makes debates about genetics unproductive. You can't have a debate about any topic with someone that does not understand what your describing.

I learn about genetics by reading. Not by debating it with people on an alien hunting website.

John.


____________

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3092
Credit: 2,539,213
RAC: 2,284
Ireland
Message 1291362 - Posted: 4 Oct 2012, 20:03:14 UTC - in response to Message 1291278.
Last modified: 4 Oct 2012, 20:03:55 UTC


What happens when the "teacher" rejects the validity of the subject?

You appear to be under the misapprehension that we have agreed that you are qualified to teach, and I should be a dutiful pupil. Until you can do demonstrate you are qualified, why should anybody be willing to have you as a teacher?

Bobby,
The topic here is - No more "Junk DNA" in Human Genome.
Say something about the topic, argue, debate and discuss the topic and i will discuss it with you too.

As you say Bobby - Blind me with your knowledge. I'm all ears listening to what you have to say.

John.
____________

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,804,864
RAC: 2,869
United States
Message 1291365 - Posted: 4 Oct 2012, 20:21:54 UTC - in response to Message 1291362.
Last modified: 4 Oct 2012, 20:23:13 UTC


What happens when the "teacher" rejects the validity of the subject?

You appear to be under the misapprehension that we have agreed that you are qualified to teach, and I should be a dutiful pupil. Until you can do demonstrate you are qualified, why should anybody be willing to have you as a teacher?

Bobby,
The topic here is - No more "Junk DNA" in Human Genome.
Say something about the topic, argue, debate and discuss the topic and i will discuss it with you too.

As you say Bobby - Blind me with your knowledge. I'm all ears listening to what you have to say.

John.


Did you miss post 1291199?

ETA: corrected post # and provide link to it.
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3092
Credit: 2,539,213
RAC: 2,284
Ireland
Message 1291372 - Posted: 4 Oct 2012, 20:41:03 UTC - in response to Message 1291365.
Last modified: 4 Oct 2012, 20:42:28 UTC


Did you miss post 1291199?

ETA: corrected post # and provide link to it.

Yes Bobby,
I read the message. I didn't respond because you cut your own throat in the first paragraph.

Bobby said:
We didn't "slowly evolve from monkeys", at least that's not the currently held scientific view (aka the best current approximation). The best current approximation of science is that we share a common ancestor with the great apes, and the most recent divergence leading to extant species was with chimpanzees. The great apes certainly do have a common ancestor with monkeys, all mammals have a common ancestor according to the best current approximation.


I'm aware that you believe the mainstream view. But i disagree with the mainstream view. The mainstream view is wrong, you didn't evolve from any other creature. You were "created" through genetic engineering. The mainstream view will change dramatically in the coming years, and you Bobby, will play follow-the-leader and you will just believe whatever they tell you.

I don't follow any leader, i have no Boss, i don't answer to anyone. I go off and carry out my own research. This means that i can form my own opinion without relying on the opinion of so called experts in the field. I have become my own expert by reading the papers myself. So i no longer rely on experts to interpret the data for me. I can now interpret the data myself.

John.
____________

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,804,864
RAC: 2,869
United States
Message 1291382 - Posted: 4 Oct 2012, 20:53:09 UTC - in response to Message 1291372.
Last modified: 4 Oct 2012, 21:26:00 UTC


Did you miss post 1291199?

ETA: corrected post # and provide link to it.

Yes Bobby,
I read the message. I didn't respond because you cut your own throat in the first paragraph.

Bobby said:
We didn't "slowly evolve from monkeys", at least that's not the currently held scientific view (aka the best current approximation). The best current approximation of science is that we share a common ancestor with the great apes, and the most recent divergence leading to extant species was with chimpanzees. The great apes certainly do have a common ancestor with monkeys, all mammals have a common ancestor according to the best current approximation.


I'm aware that you believe the mainstream view. But i disagree with the mainstream view. The mainstream view is wrong, you didn't evolve from any other creature. You were "created" through genetic engineering. The mainstream view will change dramatically in the coming years, and you Bobby, will play follow-the-leader and you will just believe whatever they tell you.

I don't follow any leader, i have no Boss, i don't answer to anyone. I go off and carry out my own research. This means that i can form my own opinion without relying on the opinion of so called experts in the field. I have become my own expert by reading the papers myself. So i no longer rely on experts to interpret the data for me. I can now interpret the data myself.

John.


Then provide some of this data, that's what scientists do, and that's in part why their accounts are plausible. There is no need to "follow the leader", there is a need to follow the data. We don't have yours so, by your own reasoning, we should not be persuaded by your arguments.

ETA: added a key missing word.
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3092
Credit: 2,539,213
RAC: 2,284
Ireland
Message 1291396 - Posted: 4 Oct 2012, 21:40:51 UTC - in response to Message 1291382.
Last modified: 4 Oct 2012, 21:45:44 UTC

Then provide some of this data, that's what scientists do, and that's in part why their accounts are plausible. There is no need to "follow the leader", there is a need to follow the data. We don't have yours so, by your own reasoning, we should be persuaded by your arguments.

Ok Bobby,
Lets try you and see how you get on.

There are molecules in your body called tRNA's. There are precisely 20 different tRNA's that encode every single living thing in your body. There are tens of thousands of binding sites on the human genome that code for the creation of these 20 tRNA's. This is undisputed science information.

Each tRNA has over 70 nucleotides. If even one of the nucleotides is miss-spelt it won't bind the correct amino acid and the proteins won't be created properly or won't function. Evolution theory should happen through a process called "random mutation" or simply miss-spelling of the code while the DNA is being copied.

Because the ENCODE team have now proven that over 80% of the human genome has a function, then we now know that there are no extra amino acids being produced, or not directly from your DNA code. We also know that none of the tens of thousands of tRNA's are miss-spelt, because they all produce functional tRNA's. Hence this is proof that the human genome is not the result of accidental small changes over a long period of time. It could only happen by someone intentionally designing the human genome and manufacturing it. In effect, its proof that we were "created" by an as-yet unidentified race of people that existed here on Earth thousands of years ago.

Your a child of God Bobby. And God loves you. God wants you to research this topic and learn about what he created. God whats you to learn so you will understand what happened in your past. Your not a monkey Bobby, you never were, and your never going to be a monkey.

John.
____________

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,804,864
RAC: 2,869
United States
Message 1291408 - Posted: 4 Oct 2012, 22:21:25 UTC - in response to Message 1291396.
Last modified: 4 Oct 2012, 22:28:42 UTC

Then provide some of this data, that's what scientists do, and that's in part why their accounts are plausible. There is no need to "follow the leader", there is a need to follow the data. We don't have yours so, by your own reasoning, we should not be persuaded by your arguments.

Ok Bobby,
Lets try you and see how you get on.

There are molecules in your body called tRNA's. There are precisely 20 different tRNA's that encode every single living thing in your body. There are tens of thousands of binding sites on the human genome that code for the creation of these 20 tRNA's. This is undisputed science information.

Each tRNA has over 70 nucleotides. If even one of the nucleotides is miss-spelt it won't bind the correct amino acid and the proteins won't be created properly or won't function. Evolution theory should happen through a process called "random mutation" or simply miss-spelling of the code while the DNA is being copied.

Because the ENCODE team have now proven that over 80% of the human genome has a function, then we now know that there are no extra amino acids being produced, or not directly from your DNA code. We also know that none of the tens of thousands of tRNA's are miss-spelt, because they all produce functional tRNA's. Hence this is proof that the human genome is not the result of accidental small changes over a long period of time. It could only happen by someone intentionally designing the human genome and manufacturing it. In effect, its proof that we were "created" by an as-yet unidentified race of people that existed here on Earth thousands of years ago.

Your a child of God Bobby. And God loves you. God wants you to research this topic and learn about what he created. God whats you to learn so you will understand what happened in your past. Your not a monkey Bobby, you never were, and your never going to be a monkey.

John.


Umm, how many tRNAs are there, 20 or tens of thousands? What is the source for either number?

Why do you believe that a "misspelling" will lead to a protein (or a transfer RNA) that won't function? What's the data to support the belief?

Evidence of tRNA evolution. More evidence.
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3092
Credit: 2,539,213
RAC: 2,284
Ireland
Message 1291414 - Posted: 4 Oct 2012, 22:54:46 UTC - in response to Message 1291408.
Last modified: 4 Oct 2012, 23:02:52 UTC


Umm, how many tRNAs are there, 20 or tens of thousands? What is the source for either number?

Why do you believe that a "misspelling" will lead to a protein (or a transfer RNA) that won't function? What's the data to support the belief?

Evidence of tRNA evolution. More evidence.

There are tens of thousands of tRNAs. But each tRNA "carries" a three letter code, an anticodon. Of the tens of thousands of tRNAs, there are only 20 different types. The 20 types have an anticodon that matches the codon for a particular amino acid. The genetic code that makes a human being is written in these 20 amino acids. The Wikipedia page has good general information to get you started; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_RNA

Everything in your body is made from proteins, or made by proteins, or made by a variety of RNAses. Some proteins are made from short strings of amino acids called peptides. But some proteins are coded in hundreds or even thousands of base pairs, that are transcribed from your DNA and then translated into the functional working protein. Some proteins can take a small spelling mistake, and still function, but its unusual. In the vast majority of cases, one spelling mistake means the protein won't function. This is the cause of much of the human diseases we know. Read this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein

Bobby none of the tRNAs are miss-spelt, and there are no extra amino acids coded for in your DNA. So it could only happen if a scientist engineered the genes of your ancestors. And its the exact same code that is used in every single living creature, and plant on the planet. After billions of years of evolution, this would be 100% impossible. It simply could not happen by accident.

Bobby, this wikipedia page is critical reading;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code
Read some of it today, then go back and read it again, and again, and again. Do this for several weeks in a row, each time reading more and more links off the page. After a few weeks you will have a better handle on this stuff.

If you trust me Bobby, i will teach you this stuff. But only if you choose to learn it.

John.
____________

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11112
Credit: 1,647,558
RAC: 3,118
Israel
Message 1291446 - Posted: 5 Oct 2012, 0:38:28 UTC - in response to Message 1291414.

Those are interesting links John. That was some fantastic research & experimentation from all the scientists concerned to eventually crack the genetic code.

However, from the statements you made in your post, I feel that this is heading towards "a creator"...maybe so, but: -

Using the bible/bible code or whatever term is being currently used to determine this is a pure fallacy, in that the bible is too inconsistent for true research of our ancestry.

So that leaves "Mission to Mars" scenario that the earth was seeded?

If anyone believes that, that it will leave them wide open for exactly the same debates that are currently occuring, so where does one draw the line?
____________

clive G1FYE
Volunteer moderator
Send message
Joined: 4 Nov 04
Posts: 1300
Credit: 23,054,144
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1291460 - Posted: 5 Oct 2012, 1:21:14 UTC

It was Aliens.

As a hovering spacecraft departs an Earth-like world, a humanoid alien drinks a dark bubbling liquid, then starts to disintegrate. The alien's remains cascade into a waterfall. His DNA triggers a biogenetic reaction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_(film)

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3092
Credit: 2,539,213
RAC: 2,284
Ireland
Message 1291502 - Posted: 5 Oct 2012, 4:14:52 UTC - in response to Message 1291446.
Last modified: 5 Oct 2012, 4:19:49 UTC

Those are interesting links John. That was some fantastic research & experimentation from all the scientists concerned to eventually crack the genetic code.

However, from the statements you made in your post, I feel that this is heading towards "a creator"...maybe so, but: -

Using the bible/bible code or whatever term is being currently used to determine this is a pure fallacy, in that the bible is too inconsistent for true research of our ancestry.

So that leaves "Mission to Mars" scenario that the earth was seeded?

If anyone believes that, that it will leave them wide open for exactly the same debates that are currently occurring, so where does one draw the line?

Sirius B,
Its my belief that the bible is written to eventually force you to reject it. Jesus had a disciple called Thomas. Many know him as doubting Thomas because he didn't believe Jesus rose from the dead. Thomas wanted to put his hand in Jesus's side to feel the wound the spear inflicted. Thomas was a scientist, he didn't believe on blind faith.

They knew that once mankind eventually increased our scientific knowledge, they knew we would start to reject the Bible. That is why the Bible is riddled with stuff to make you doubt it. It makes people like me go and check how things work for real. They wanted us to reject it in the end. They wanted us to go find out what they were doing. They wanted us to go looking for the garden of Eden, they even gave us directions! They wanted us to find them.

John.
____________

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3092
Credit: 2,539,213
RAC: 2,284
Ireland
Message 1291506 - Posted: 5 Oct 2012, 4:18:00 UTC - in response to Message 1291460.
Last modified: 5 Oct 2012, 4:18:06 UTC

It was Aliens.

As a hovering spacecraft departs an Earth-like world, a humanoid alien drinks a dark bubbling liquid, then starts to disintegrate. The alien's remains cascade into a waterfall. His DNA triggers a biogenetic reaction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_(film)

Clive,
Yes, it was an interesting film. Imagine if it was real!

John.

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,804,864
RAC: 2,869
United States
Message 1291590 - Posted: 5 Oct 2012, 12:21:12 UTC - in response to Message 1291414.
Last modified: 5 Oct 2012, 12:42:03 UTC

Some proteins can take a small spelling mistake, and still function, but its unusual.


Random mutation?

ETA:
There are tens of thousands of tRNAs. But each tRNA "carries" a three letter code, an anticodon. Of the tens of thousands of tRNAs, there are only 20 different types. The 20 types have an anticodon that matches the codon for a particular amino acid. The genetic code that makes a human being is written in these 20 amino acids. The Wikipedia page has good general information to get you started; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_RNA


wikipedia wrote:
To provide a one-to-one correspondence between tRNA molecules and codons that specify amino acids, 61 types of tRNA molecules would be required per cell. However, many cells contain fewer than 61 types of tRNAs because the wobble base is capable of binding to several, though not necessarily all, of the codons that specify a particular amino acid. A minimum of 31 tRNA are required to translate, unambiguously, all 61 sense codons of the standard genetic code.


"a minimum of 31 tRNA are required", so where does the number 20 come from?

Bobby none of the tRNAs are miss-spelt, and there are no extra amino acids coded for in your DNA. So it could only happen if a scientist engineered the genes of your ancestors. And its the exact same code that is used in every single living creature, and plant on the planet. After billions of years of evolution, this would be 100% impossible. It simply could not happen by accident.


I take it you did not read the "More Evidence" link I provided? The paper is called "Evolution of a Transfer RNA Gene Through a Point Mutation in the Anticodon". Why do you believe that tRNAs are the same for all living creatures?

wikipedia wrote:
Cytoplasmic tRNA genes can be grouped into 49 families according to their anticodon features.


49 families, suggests a conclusion that differs.
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3092
Credit: 2,539,213
RAC: 2,284
Ireland
Message 1291716 - Posted: 5 Oct 2012, 18:44:40 UTC
Last modified: 5 Oct 2012, 18:48:52 UTC

Bobby,
I'm not a scientific publishing house. I don't have a team of 50 genetic engineers and scientists that i can consult with to get all my facts right, to make sure my posts on this forum are correct. I'm also learning genetics, so i'm not an expert. But i have an above average knowledge of the topic.

Bobby if you went to university, your lecturers would tell you very plainly where to go if you started arguing with them. This is higher level education. You need to understand that when someone is teaching you, they are trying their best to help you. And you will inevitably find errors in some of the things they teach you. In university education, in many cases, the teacher can learn many new things from their students.

I was trying to keep things simple for you. The genetic code is written with 20 amino acids; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code
But in reality its considerably more complex than that.

John.
____________

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,804,864
RAC: 2,869
United States
Message 1291738 - Posted: 5 Oct 2012, 19:19:35 UTC - in response to Message 1291716.
Last modified: 5 Oct 2012, 19:33:03 UTC

Bobby,
I'm not a scientific publishing house. I don't have a team of 50 genetic engineers and scientists that i can consult with to get all my facts right, to make sure my posts on this forum are correct.


Does anybody posting here have a research team available to them? You claim mastery of the subject, thus it's incumbent upon you to get your facts straight. When errors are demonstrated, admit them and move on.

I'm also learning genetics, so i'm not an expert. But i have an above average knowledge of the topic.


Though not above average enough to distinguish between amino acids and tRNA? BTW, there are more than 20 different types of amino acid found in extant living creatures, not all extant living creatures need them all. Perhaps the 20 you are referring to are the:

wikipedia wrote:
20 of the 22 proteinogenic amino acids are known as "standard" amino acids-those found in human beings and other eukaryotes, and which are encoded directly within the universal genetic code. The 2 exceptions are the "non-standard" or "non-canonical" pyrrolysine — found only in some methanogenic organisms but not humans — and selenocysteine; both of these are encoded via variant codons signaled by mRNA instead.


Bobby if you went to university, your lecturers would tell you very plainly where to go if you started arguing with them.


There is no "if" about whether I went to university, and there's no if about what happens when a student engages a tutor in deep discussion of complex subject matter. I am not aware that it ever results in the student being told plainly where to go.

This is higher level education.


You do a disservice to higher education.

You need to understand that when someone is teaching you, they are trying their best to help you. And you will inevitably find errors in some of the things they teach you. In university education, in many cases, the teacher can learn many new things from their students.


We are two people discussing the underlying science of the ENCODE project's discovery. You have said nothing that leads me to believe that you have a sufficient mastery of the subject such that I should accept you as anything other than an equal.

I was trying to keep things simple for you. The genetic code is written with 20 amino acids; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code
But in reality its considerably more complex than that.

John.


As has been mentioned before there's no need to keep things simple.

You made the statement:

Johnney Guinness wrote:
Bobby none of the tRNAs are miss-spelt, and there are no extra amino acids coded for in your DNA. So it could only happen if a scientist engineered the genes of your ancestors. And its the exact same code that is used in every single living creature, and plant on the planet.


Why do you believe that the fact of all extant living creatures sharing the same "genetic code" is indicative of anything other than them sharing a single common ancestor? Why do you believe that none of the tRNAs ever evolve via random mutation?
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9253
Credit: 1,450,136
RAC: 1,938
United States
Message 1291849 - Posted: 6 Oct 2012, 1:12:08 UTC - in response to Message 1291396.

Your a child of God Bobby. And God loves you. God wants you to research this topic and learn about what he created. God whats you to learn so you will understand what happened in your past. Your not a monkey Bobby, you never were, and your never going to be a monkey.

John.


Until, after his death, when Judgement Day arrives, and he is cloned/resurrected into a monkey body with a human mind, unable to speak with his fellow evolutionists' in monkey bodies, because monkeys can't speak? This for his sin believing in evolution?

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8418
Credit: 4,134,158
RAC: 1,469
United Kingdom
Message 1291851 - Posted: 6 Oct 2012, 1:13:47 UTC - in response to Message 1291738.
Last modified: 6 Oct 2012, 1:14:12 UTC

... Why do you believe that the fact of all extant living creatures sharing the same "genetic code" is indicative of anything other than them sharing a single common ancestor? ...

Indeed, it only needed one to get us all going!

All the more interesting would be if there was more than one...


Keep searchin',
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile SciManStevProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jun 99
Posts: 4861
Credit: 81,753,795
RAC: 40,287
United States
Message 1291868 - Posted: 6 Oct 2012, 1:43:32 UTC

I did see a TV show recently that said one of the results they got from crashing that impactor into an asteroid a while ago, indicated that the asteroid contaied if not an amino acid, but either the full organic molecule, or at least what it took to form one. I can't remeber the details, but the implication was that the stuff needed to start DNA, were possible contained on asteroids through out the universe. That would mean that new worlds that survived in one way or another, may be bombarded with the materials that can generate life. Of course, a stable planet, with water, and the right materials is still no guarentee the exact conditions would be present resulting in someting alive.

Steve
____________
Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : No more "Junk DNA" in Human Genome

Copyright © 2014 University of California