Then how do you explain this one mouse I saw on the news one time
that was genetically engineered with human DNA? It was doing very
well at that time. Although it looked like any other mouse,
technically, it was 1% human.
-Brandon Payne
--- In SkunkworksAMA_at_yahoogroups.com, "furskunk" <mistwing_at_e...>
wrote:
> Back in August, there was a lot of talk here about genetics and
> furries. I don't know if this lastest news from Scientific
American
> was reported here (I hope not). But I thought that some of you at
> least, might be interested.
>
> About 98% of human DNA is 'so-called' junk DNS since it doesn't
> produce any proteins. Well, it now turns out that the 'junk'
isn't
> so junky after all. Some, possibly most, of it actually does
stuff.
> Genetisists became suspicious when a lot of the 'junk' was
identical
> across species lines. They became convinced when a certain strain
of
> mice died when a random gene splice cut across a 'junk' portion.
It
> turns out that there is a lot of other (non-gene-producing) stuff
> going on there.
>
> And not just in the DNA itself. Next month's issue will talk
about
> how the DNA neighborhood itself can influence things.
>
> All in all, it looks like it's going to be a bit tougher to make
> furries using genetics than we thought it would be.
>
> MistWing SilverTail
Received on Tue Nov 04 2003 - 07:19:28 CST