If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Human genes: 20,000. Mustard genes: 27,000   (cnn.com) divider line 78
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

8458 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Oct 2004 at 5:12 PM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



78 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-10-20 04:22:14 PM
I would like those extra 7,000 genes that would make me spicy.
 
2004-10-20 05:13:03 PM
It must be Bush's fault.
 
2004-10-20 05:13:15 PM
I, for one, welcome our new Mustard overlords.

/obligatory
 
2004-10-20 05:13:44 PM
Meh, so what?
 
2004-10-20 05:14:05 PM
[img=Mustard Guy Cameo in Gattaca.jpg]
 
2004-10-20 05:14:11 PM
Mustard tastes better.
 
2004-10-20 05:14:35 PM
That's nice to know.
 
2004-10-20 05:16:44 PM
that explains alot
 
2004-10-20 05:17:08 PM
This article brought to you by:



/super-obvious
 
2004-10-20 05:17:12 PM
Don't worry Kerry has plan to bring the poor, disenfranchised mustard genes up to equality with the other genes...............and it won't add much to your taxes.....he promises.
 
2004-10-20 05:17:39 PM
It's not how many genes, it's what you do with them.

/cliche
 
2004-10-20 05:18:28 PM
So would the mustand guy have the average of the two? 23,500 genes
 
2004-10-20 05:19:37 PM
I only have 2 pairs of jeans.

/sigh
 
2004-10-20 05:20:02 PM
mahakala

Mustard tastes better


The secret is to drink pineapple juice.
 
2004-10-20 05:20:05 PM
when life sends you lemons, whip our your gene splicer and make a mutant super lemon.
 
2004-10-20 05:21:19 PM
But Grey Poupon still has more, right?

Right?
 
2004-10-20 05:22:01 PM
I'm up on 98.7% of all the FARK cliche references... but I somehow missed the original appearance of Mustard Man and have never seen it explained anywhere since.

I would write it off as one of those oddball pictures if someone didn't post an non-mustard image of the dude in a thread from time to time. There HAS to be a story...

If anyone would care to enlighten me- I'm all ears.

/hates mustard
 
2004-10-20 05:22:53 PM
It's too complex for a CNN.com article, but this whole human genome/gene counting thing has stirred up this debate on what we should call a gene. For example, genes make proteins and if one unit of DNA can produce two proteins, as is commonly the case, does that count as two genes or just one? If we define genes based on the products the number gets a lot higher than if you define based on discrete functional units of DNA. The subtext of the article seems to say they decided to count units of DNA rather than products. Sounds like philosophy as much as science. But really, what does it matter since we're all just bits of that same old primordial muck that learned to get up and walk.

/geek.
 
2004-10-20 05:23:01 PM
I had an uncle Gene.
 
2004-10-20 05:24:13 PM
This is obviously the result of the Left Wing Conspiracy to flush the U.S. down the farking toilet.
 
2004-10-20 05:25:06 PM
The Master Cylinder: I'm up on 98.7% of all the FARK cliche references... but I somehow missed the original appearance of Mustard Man and have never seen it explained anywhere since.

Account Created: 2004-08-11 18:22:52

Mustard Man is well before your time. He also isn't used very often.

 
2004-10-20 05:25:31 PM


I have Mean Genes BROTHER!
 
2004-10-20 05:26:11 PM
DAMN YOU, Earth138ad!!!

That was EXACTLY what was going through my head when I read the article.......

/Kudos!
 
2004-10-20 05:26:14 PM
Go mammalian post-translational modification !!!!
 
2004-10-20 05:29:13 PM
DanB

Oh! Hey thanx, I'll try that next time.
A-1 just doesn't really bring out the flavor right.
 
2004-10-20 05:29:37 PM
It's not news, it's _________.

 
2004-10-20 05:29:53 PM
lordargent-

I lurked for at least two years before creating my account. I'm pretty sure I was around when it started... I'm just not sure HOW it started.
 
2004-10-20 05:30:28 PM
In the October issue of Scientific American, this topic is discussed. From what I remember (my copy isn't handy), no statistical correlation can be found between the number of genes and "complexity", rather a correlation is found between introns and "complexity". Introns being the genetic material that does not produce proteins, generally regarded as "junk" DNA. The new theory being introns perform a regulatory functions in cells. Interesting reading...

Also... I spotted the Mustard Man in a Visa commercial the other night.
 
2004-10-20 05:32:39 PM
"The finished version reveals that many DNA sequences originally counted as genes were actually non-functioning copies of real genes and that sometimes parts of the same gene were counted as two genes, Lander said."

Did I read this correctly. We have extra genes which don't appear to have a function.
Why would we have extra genes?

/sorry. If it doesn't have 10/100 autosense switch, and isn't conected to fidi I'm lost.
 
2004-10-20 05:34:20 PM
click

click there for the Mustard Man story.
 
2004-10-20 05:40:40 PM
And here we thought WE were clothes horses.
 
2004-10-20 05:40:45 PM
James_Maybrick - The answer is probably similar to the answer to the question: "Why do you have a pinky toe?"
 
2004-10-20 05:40:58 PM
Which is the more superior species Mustard or Man?

Pros:
Mustard: tasty, Man: opposible thumbs

Cons-Mustard:occasional heartburn, Man: thermonuclear annihilation

I declare Mustard to be the Winner (with the exception of Mean Mr. Mustard who is just a bad, bad man)
 
2004-10-20 05:41:24 PM
Thanks, Xieflow
 
2004-10-20 05:41:46 PM
Nice to see that the Mustard Man is keeping himself out of trouble, as usual.
 
2004-10-20 05:43:08 PM
no problem
 
2004-10-20 05:43:18 PM
rocinante721: Farkin' A.

James_Maybrick: This was a big fear for some leading into the genome project. There are some sequences in our DNA that look a lot like viral DNA that, theoretically, came from one of our ancestors who survived a virus that killed most of everybody else and the vistigial but nonfunctional viral DNA is still lurking in there. The fear was that by chopping up the genome and playing with it, some old terrible virus could be revived. These are the stories molecular biologists tell around the campfire--I'm not sure how scientifically sound they are. Also, there can be stuff in there that our distant ancestors needed when they were fish but we don't need anymore and it's nonfunctional but isn't doing any harm so it stays around by chance.

/bored geek.
 
2004-10-20 05:44:30 PM
Hahaha, Farkshower.
Not 30 seconds ago I read your post in the Grand Canyon thread.
Apparently, you copy/paste/fill-in-the-blank for each thread? Nice work! :)

/gets to work making his own template
 
2004-10-20 05:45:49 PM
"It's not just the number of genes that matters," said another co-author, Eric Lander of the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "It really is how nature uses these genes."


Your girlfriend tell you that?
 
2004-10-20 05:46:21 PM
That's because mustard has five components:::

Adenine (A)
Thymine (T)
Guanine (G)
Cytosine (C)
Pouponine (P)

/it was funnier before I typed it....
 
2004-10-20 05:48:47 PM
We just wear our Jeans more efficiently.
 
2004-10-20 05:49:31 PM
An excerpt from my high school bio class...

Teacher: So how many genes are in the human body?
Student: Um... 7.
Teacher: No, you are way off.
Student: Way off like 10 or way off like 20?
Teacher: Way off like 30,000.
Student: Oh wow, I was way off.


Okay, maybe it was a lot funnier at the time, and knowing the people involved. But trust me, it was hilarious.
 
2004-10-20 05:51:06 PM
Thank you, Blackwell....lol

Somebody in the Henry Earl thread said it was the first time a Fark cliche was born, used up, then burnt out, all in one thread....I decided I better use it up in the other threads, too....

/ bored at work with 15 minutes left to go....
 
2004-10-20 05:51:58 PM
So will I be able to de-evolve into some sort of prehistoric monster just like in that episdoe of Star Trek??
 
Kiz
2004-10-20 05:52:20 PM
James_Maybrick

"The finished version reveals that many DNA sequences originally counted as genes were actually non-functioning copies of real genes and that sometimes parts of the same gene were counted as two genes, Lander said."

Did I read this correctly. We have extra genes which don't appear to have a function.
Why would we have extra genes?

/sorry. If it doesn't have 10/100 autosense switch, and isn't conected to fidi I'm lost.


Think of it as including a checksum and other error-detection/tolerance code. There's probably also some old, unused cruft and backups to be used if the original gets corrupted/mutated.
 
2004-10-20 05:52:28 PM
if we are to be pwned genetically, at least we are pwned by one of the better condiments. I'd hate to be pwned by fat-free mayonaise or pickle relish.
 
2004-10-20 05:54:18 PM
It's not the size of your genes, but how you use them. That actually is one of the points of the article. I have average genes.
 
2004-10-20 05:57:08 PM
I once saw a show on mapping the Human Genome and they said that genetically we're only about 2% different than a banana, which just goes to show you how important that 2% really is.
 
2004-10-20 05:58:44 PM
 
2004-10-20 06:01:47 PM
Did I read this correctly. We have extra genes which don't appear to have a function.
Why would we have extra genes?


The miracle of evolution. The most common way that new genes arise is from duplication of existing genes. Once you have two copies of a gene, there is very little natural selection keeping those copies "good" -- because you can lose one copy and not be at all harmed, as it's completely redundant. So often, one of these two copies becomes damaged and unused, called a pseudogene. Sometimes a duplicate copy of a gene can still work but be silenced (not actually made into a protein, but if it made a protein, the protein would work). And even in a few cases there are cases where one copy of a gene is used in embryos and another in adults (hemoglobin is one case, the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor is another).

The vast majority of the DNA in your body do not code for anything. Pseudogenes outnumber real genes by a HUGE margin. E.g. you have about 200 genes controlling olfaction (sense of smell), but you have 800 pseudogenes in that family.

Evolution needs mutation to happen, and it needs raw material to work from. If you start out mutating your only copy of a gene, you have no room for error -- if that new gene doesn't work, your organism is almost certain to die. If you have multiple copies, you can accumulate mutations like crazy, so long as one copy is preserved. And it greatly increases your chances of making something useful.
 
Displayed 50 of 78 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report