Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!princeton!phoenix!pucc!6065833
From: 6065833@pucc.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: question
Message-ID: <2112@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU>
Date: Mon, 30-Mar-87 17:26:19 EST
Article-I.D.: PUCC.2112
Posted: Mon Mar 30 17:26:19 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 1-Apr-87 01:51:16 EST
References: <2840@ecsvax.UUCP> <11189@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA> <978@aecom.UUCP> <3310@udenva.UUCP>
Reply-To: 6065833@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU
Organization: Princeton University - Computing and Information Technology
Lines: 13
Disclaimer: Author bears full responsibility for contents of this article

In article <2840@ecsvax.UUCP>, emigh@ecsvax.UUCP (Ted Emigh) writes, with
regard to the information stored in genes:
 
>If we wish to use "byte" as the
>smallest unit of meaningful information, then the nucleotide is the byte.
 
If you wish to regard the RNA's as the media for genetic storage, instead of
DNA, fine.  This is an alternative theory ('DNA is just RNA's backup').  But co
nsider that even if you discount duplicate pieces of RNA, there is the problem
of huge pieces of RNA junk stuck on the ends which are cut off as the RNA
strings leave the nucleus.  Not to mention that nonsense sequences in DNA
are transcribed into RNA, and only later cut out.  How do you tell which
nucleotides are meaningful?