Junk, or Not Junk, that is the Question

It’s always worth mentioning this Asimov quote:

2 Likes

Now you’re going metaphysical on me… :grin:
I’m happy to include in ‘Junk’ the stuff that can be readily deleted, or which has no sequence-specific or binding-specific roles. Without selective constraints is another criterion. And whatever that comprises, there’s a lot of it in our genomes and typically much less in, say bacterial ones.

1 Like

There’s this, so that even if it is not all transcribed, it has function:

Göran Arnqvist et al., “Genome Size Correlates with Reproductive Fitness in Seed Beetles,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B 282 (September 2015), doi: 10.1098/rspb.2015.1421.

Umm… You do know that some functions have been known for non-transcribed DNA for at least 50 years? Dan Graur has a rant and a very useful diagram here.

1 Like

There is a loose correlation between a 4-5% difference in genome size and fitness in some beetles. I don’t see how that impacts the conclusion that 90% of the human genome is junk DNA (or whatever synonym you prefer).

1 Like

Sorry, I didn’t word that carefully. I meant it does not encode for proteins.

The point is, and that is indicative of, that there may be and likely are other functions it performs that we do not know about yet.

I don’t see how that helps the point you’re trying to make.

How did you determine that we biologists have no way to test for functionality in general? Did you even look?

That would be very incomplete, given that the ENCODE people have backed way off from their interpretation. That’s obviously not noted in the deceptive press releases from the DI.

1 Like

How do you test for functionality that you don’t know about? In the example given, it was a surprise to learn that the size of the genome had some effect on, some function with respect to, fecundity.

Do we know all about how body plans develop and various morphologies differentiate? I expect we have more surprises coming.

By deleting the sequences:

Dale, you do realize that we predict that small parts of what currently is classified as “junk” will turn out to be functional, and that neither ID nor creationist scientists are lifting a finger to participate, don’t you?

Yes, I can see that.

1 Like

But if they had allowed for design (remembering that I do not endorse design theory, but believe design is present but cannot be proven scientifically), they wouldn’t have called it junk to begin with and initially ignored it.

I’m not following you.

What percentage are you talking about… about 10% functional and the rest being junk?
isn’t 10% the value predicted based on what has been conserved.

Which part? :slightly_smiling_face:

If design had been allowed for, then what was initially disregarded as junk, but then found later not to be by some unconventional biologists, if I understand correctly, we would have been further along.

“For decades…”

What is junk DNA, and what is it worth? - Scientific American

“Thankfully, though, there are some clochards who, at the risk of being ridiculed, explore unpopular territories. And it is because of them…”

Another piece if wisdom-

. Risking the personification of biological processes, we can say that evolution is too wise to waste this valuable information.

All hail the wisdom of evolution… the creator.

1 Like

Nope. There’s nothing unconventional about them. That’s a creationist myth.

That’s baloney.

Everyone knows that some junk will turn out to be functional, because the classification is a negative. No one ridiculed anyone who did that. Again, there are no ID or creationist scientists contributing, and only a tiny proportion of junk has been shown to be functional.

You should ask SA for a retraction and write Makalowski and tell him how wrong he is.

What do you think he meant by “some clochards who, at the risk of being ridiculed”?

(It may not be a scholarly journal, but SA is not a creationist magazine, and Penn State is a good school.)

And be cognizant of, or at least don’t forget, what era we’re talking about.

You are avoiding the main point. What percentage of the human genome does evolutionary theory predict will be junk?