9 comments

[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 38.6 ms ] thread
(comment deleted)
(comment deleted)
(comment deleted)
Your fingerprint does.

It's not "you" unless you are highly deterministic and bear in mind identical twin fresian calves have different black and white patches because of how their gene expression is affected by gravity, alignment and temperature in the womb.

They will not have recorded large chunks of unknown, or the much misnamed "junk" DNA regions, the bits they don't understand.

But that aside, Don't commit any crimes, and watch out for people emulating PKD who hypothesised a machine to drop your DNA at a crime scene and implicate you as it commits murder.

At least in science nobody says "junk" DNA anymore, it's "non-coding" dna for the last 20 years or so.
The only molecular biologist I know is happy to use the term "junk DNA," at least when talking to us non-practitioners. I can't imagine the term is a source of friction.
I wouldn't say friction, it's more like a little guide to figure out when you graduated :)
I was taught “junk” around 10 years ago. Shit, that makes me feel old.
This is not genome, just a list of selected SNPs. Full genome is about gigabyte gzipped. And if you actually wanted to get your own genome raw data will be at least 30x that, because currently used sequencing methods read only short strands of DNA so you need to have much more data to try matching it against the reference genome.