Hi all

I’m pushing the discussion to the next level, perhaps not a good thing, we can stop it here on this topic, It is all mine making. The next phase of discussion, Vijay you wanted more here it is.

Bala, you are right in saying that “We do not know a lot about the functions of so many” therefore…that brings us to an interesting point, this is a slippery slope because there are two sides to this argument, Bala, I know that you didn’t mean it and I know this is not your intention. Let me say the other side of the argument for the sake of others, the bigger question.

Nagini corrected my write up and he is right, “Genes are passed on are those that serve the interest of genes and not necessarily of the organism”.

1^st reference: Selfish DNA flouts rules of inheritance

Gregor Mendel said that a gene is supposed to have a fifty-fifty chance of being passed on to the next generation. Any gene that reaches above 50% is a cheater and is selfish. R2d2 is a “selfish element,” that contains the gene Cwc22 on mouse chromosome 2.  R2d2 inheritance shoots from being 50 percent to 85 percent in 10 generations. The reason is that female mice that carry one copy of the selfish element R2d2 have small litter sizes. R2d2 gets selfish. So what it does is, it makes seven or more copies of that gene on the chromosome, elbows aside the chromosome that doesn’t contain the selfish version of the gene and is preferentially incorporated into eggs. So you end up with all litters having the same size. So what looks like survival of the fittest may actually be a cheater prospering. This is what Nagini was saying if I am correct.

2^nd reference: How the junk DNA hypothesis has changed since 1980.

This is the argument of the author, it goes like this: Some of these newly recognized RNAs come from regions of the genome that had heretofore been deemed "junk DNA," yet no one could answer the obvious question: if "junk," then why still around? It must have a purpose, therefore…this is the slippery slope, the "apparent design" in nature that we see is the product of an intelligent design and simply can’t the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations? This is the other side of the argument.

Bala, you didn’t go that far, but I am doing the distance. If it is

Richard Dawkin’s questions are:

Who is the designer?

Will F=ma (Newton’s 2^nd law) will be the same in another universe?  Because biology follows physical laws, here in our earth.

Will evolution follow the same path in another universe?

I’m incompetent to answer those, so I read Bhaja Govindam to keep my sanity.

Chandru Jr

Biochem 71-74