Junk DNA, High R, Pinnipeds, and the Multiverse

[Nesslig20]

@Rumraket

@Giltil

My claim is that complex ontogeny requires high R, not that high R necessarily indicates complex ontogeny.
Don’t forget that
If « A then B » is true, it doesn’t follow that if « B then A » is true.

But that’s exactly the problem. Since the pufferfish appears able to make do with so little non-coding DNA compared to many other species that have way more genome but aren’t more complex, it would then follow that most species have way more DNA than is strictly required to specify their physiology. So the pufferfish would be closer to the amount of genome that is required.

Indeed. @Giltil would benefit from taking the time to comprehend the following graph and bear this in mind before he wants to make such claims

I also find it amusing how @Giltil dismisses examples of simple organisms possessing extremely large genomes as a problem. This is similar to how someone (I think Ewan Birney) dismisses such examples, and T. Ryan Gregory easily pointed out the absurdity of this thinking in one of his posts on Genomicron (I don’t remember which. Can’t find it. Perhaps it’s no longer available) with the following image:

Ah yes, if we ignore a significant number of organisms, like the lung fish, we do see that complexity requires large genomes… except don’t mention complex organisms with very small genomes, like the puffer fish… oh darn… too late for that.