Susan Koziel wrote:
I perfer not to ever use the term junk DNA - since I think that's probably incorrect. Many of this "junk" is useful, we just don't know how it works... and it's likely it plays a role in some diseases that are genetic in natue but we haven't tracked down the genes to.
I've never liked the term, because it's always seemed likely to me that timing and switching functions (for example) need not be managed through the direct coding of proteins, so there would be sections of DNA that control the functions of genes without necessarily being genes themselves.
-- Rupert Boleyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
