yes it is. maybe in the case of the onion this is indeed “junk”. which is irrelevant to the junk claim in general. this is why we should take a look at the rule and no at the exceptions.
we are talking about 73 different species here. do you have a better reference which checked for more species and found no such correlation?
the problem with that fig is that it doesnt show the organism complexity (In terms of the number of different cell types). thus its irrelevant to the argument.
As I said, handwaving. There’s multiple species of onion. One species has five times more DNA than another. Which one is the one without junk?
We should look at both, and you’ve done no work to show that any species is an exception. John Mattick’s article is noteworthy for the many species with genomes larger than humans it seems to leave out. Simply the fact that humans are among the top3 species with the largest genomes in his article makes it immediately obvious that it’s trash. By now many dozens of species with much larger genomes are known. You also have to wonder just how rigorously the “numer of distinct cell types” have been established, and what exactly is supposed to count as “distinct”.
Since they’re clearly cherrypicked, and there’s something like ~10 million extant species on Earth, how am I supposed to find that number of any signifiance?
@scd, with this statement and the figure posted by @John_Harshman, you seem to be proposing that protozoans have many more cell types than mammals. That’s an interesting claim - do you have any evidence or citations to support this?
However, from bottom to top it’s more or less arranged in Mattick’s order of organismal complexity. So why does no pattern emerge from the larger genomic sample? You seem to prefer data cherry-picked in order to fit a preconceived notion to the great mass of data actually available. Why?
myabe all of them have junk. hard to tell without aditional data.
why? if we see a correlation below the human genome size, we still have a good correlation between genome size and complexity. if we dont see it above that size, maybe in these cases the majoriyy of the genome is indeed junk in those specific cases. the argument still hold water even in that case.
all we need is a random bunch of species to get a good estimation. and i think that this is what they did. otherwise we should reject any scientific paper(if they indeed pick up specific cases and ignore the rule).
i actually said that we should look at the rule. protozoans case is probably the exception.
see above.
i think its irrelevant without checking the number of cell types.
Special pleading, all. No, the genomes in that study were not chosen at random. They were chosen to fit a hypothesis. (A more charitable interpretation is that Mattick picked from sequenced genomes, which tended at that time to be of two sorts: unusually small ones, like fugu and Arabidopsis, and close relatives of humans. No wonder we’re at the top.) If you look at the size distributions of all genomes, as in the graph I showed you, the pattern disappears. If you consider protists an exception, aren’t there more exceptions than otherwise? Nor did Mattick actually graph cell types. They’re just painted onto the graph with any real correspondence to most of the data points. You see what you want to see and ignore what you don’t.
In any event, you cannot maintain that certain DNA isn’t junk because it has a role in evolution and speciation, and then take that as an argument against evolution and speciation.
By splitting comments into two replies; one to which no one could object, and another that might need to be split out. I’m referring to following comments, not past ones. Writing this now because I can see into the future (or at least the approve queue).