Quake3World

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+.

That is a interesting read

that is rather fucking interesting.

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.

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.

Stick with your first sentence, the second is fraught with dangerous assumptions....

S@M wrote:

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.

Stick with your first sentence, the second is fraught with dangerous assumptions....

That Nature has a pretty stringent peer-review process? I thought that was fact.

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???

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.