Gee, you don't even read well. I gave you the answers, do I need to provide the questions too?
Let's see, it says:
Recent evidence suggests that "junk DNA" may in fact be employed by proteins created from coding DNA.
Your translation:
Translation: Previous beliefs about the insignificance of "junk DNA" that led to the labeling of such areas as "non-coding' were obviously in error as those areas are absolutely essential for the accurate 'coding' of the structural proteins.
Pardon me, but that's not even close. I can see the part that tells us the proteins are created "from" coding DNA. And I see the part that tells us the junk DNA is "employed" by the proteins. I just don't see the part that says the junk DNA is involved in coding.
You really just make it up as you go along don't you. And, of course that shouldn't surprise anyone. Afterall, the thread started with this proclamation:
Posted by: frogdreaming
In reply to: johnnyfiber who wrote msg# 66844 Date:7/19/2007 9:17:38 PM
Post #of 67011
LMAO. You can't be serious!
Telling me to get real in the same breath that you shout out the most absurd statement in the history of the board.
You are completely ignorant of the science or else trying to pull the most extravagant bluff in recorded history.
IT IS THE NON-CODING POLYMORPHISMS THAT ALSO CONTRIBUTE SIGNIFICANTLY TO DISEASE SUCEPTIBILITY.
Abject drivel.
I defy you to provide a single reference that backs up this nonsense. Even DNAG is not stupid enough to make such a claim. You have completely misinterpreted something or you are one of the most ambitious liars on the planet.
There may well be 'indicators' in the non-coding regions that provide some clues in terms of probabilities, but there is nothing in the non-coding regions that has any effect whatsoever on disease susceptibility or any other physiological characteristic.
(hint: It's called 'non-coding' for a very good reason.)
As I see it you have two options. Either find some stupid reference to blame your misinterpretation on or apologize for making such an egregious error. Those seem to be the only way to salvage any credibility in this instance.
Good luck,
frog
Still waiting for that humble apology...ROTFLMAO!
Later,
W2P
