From: derek gatherer (dgatherer2002@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Mon 04 Aug 2003 - 16:11:32 GMT
--- Scott Chase <ecphoric@hotmail.com> wrote: >
> What proportion of a genome (eg- the human genome)
> actually codes for
> anything versus the proportion which is non-genic?
About 3%
>A
> so-called "evolutionary
> gene" would include portions of the genome that code
> for nothing of cellular
> significance.
They could be non-protein-coding and even
non-transcribed, but in order for natural selection to
act on them, they would have to have some cellular
significance presumably, if only in the use of
cellular resources to facilitate their own
replication.
> I suppose the distinction between evolutionary and
> molecular genes has
> little bearing on these regions acting as
> replicators,
'Replicator' and 'evolutionary gene' are essentially
synonymous, in the intellectual lineage leading from
Williams to Dawkins. The real issue subsequently has
not been whether we have a decent definition of
replicator (because we do) but in the
replicator/'interactor' controversy.
________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon 04 Aug 2003 - 16:16:07 GMT