http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050321/ ... 321-8.html
Pretty amazing, seeing how it goes against some fundamental notions we've taken for granted for the last century+.
Plant corrects its own mutated DNA
That Nature has a pretty stringent peer-review process? I thought that was fact.S@M wrote:Stick with your first sentence, the second is fraught with dangerous assumptions....tnf wrote:We'll see how it all plays out. But Nature is one of the big journals, with a pretty stringent peer-review process...so there has to be something to it.
no, I meant that its a good idea to read with a critical attitude as per his opening sentence, because peer review is not as effective as its assumed to be - regardless of the journal. Still it IS an interesting finding, although from reading, its rather early days. No faulting tnf's logic, really, so wtf did I post for???
"Liberty, what crimes are committed in your name."
That's pretty interesting, but I'm not really surprised. Genomes have numerous ways of proofreading themselves to eradicate mutations. Also, like they said, there is a lot of DNA that seems unused in the genome, so I'd expect it's there for some reason. It's an interesting find, but I'm willing to bet the cause won't be as weird as the researchers think it is.