DNA has a limited number of genes. Considering the enormous amount of functions they need to encode, the number of genes for each function becomes relatively small. 8 billion people and thousands of generations, we’re bound to have duplicates.

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 1 points 49 minutes ago

Yes, but the article says that certain combinations occur more often that if it was random. People with similar faces tend to have similar genes that are nor related to facial features.

[–] Brocon@lemmy.world 19 points 8 hours ago

I would say it's even smaller in number. Because some combinations would not work and might kill you.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip -1 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

That's not exactly true. A lot of DNA is redundant, and a lot of DNA is dead code that doesn't do anything.

[–] jaycifer@lemmy.world 8 points 4 hours ago

Since you’ve only been told that you’re wrong, and I was also under the impression that there was a lot of junk DNA in our genome, I did a little digging and found this article that explains the progression of our understanding pretty well: https://www.sciencenewstoday.org/human-dna-98-of-your-genetic-code-is-junk-or-is-it

The TLDR is that the original junk DNA hypothesis is based on the fact that only ~2% of DNA is actually used in mapping out protein-construction. That was generally supported by the science from the 70’s to the early 2000’s. What scientists have found in the decades since then is that a lot of what DNA does involves regulating activity in the cell and responding to changing circumstances.

[–] Staff@piefed.world 14 points 6 hours ago

Is it really dead code, or we haven't found out what it does?

[–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 hours ago

That's a very outdated idea.