Big problem there. The complete genome data is highly biased toward small genomes, for what should be obvious reasons. Better they should directly use genome size data. If they did, the picture would be quite different.
The problem isn’t with using either “noncoding” or “junk”. The problem is with you supposing they’re synonymous.
they clearly say that they checked all of them:
“To ensure that the genomic composition analysis was robust, we restricted the analysis to well-annotated and assembled genomes. In total we interrogated 111 archaea, 1,516 bacterial, 60 fungi, 23 protists, 20 viridiplantae (i.e., green plants) and 50 metazoa genomes (for a complete catalog please see [ Table S1 ]”
even if they used only a small number of species by random it should be sufficient.
I am referring to the correlations using cell type numbers as a measure of complexity. You need to look at the last sheet of Supplemental Table 1 to get these values. This sheet clearly does not have 1700+ entries.
The other issue is that gene length is not the only issue contributing to complexity. Gene expression and alternative splicing are other contributors.
You aren’t addressing my point. Are you evading it deliberately?
Many scientists use those terms, including me. Scientists who know what they are doing to not equivocate between them. Do you understand?
Do you understand why neither of those links refutes the point I have made?
“All of them”? Not even close. There are over 350,000 known species of beetles alone. 50 metazoans might as well be zero metazoans.
That is the only question left in play here. @scd is wrong. The DI is wrong. That is beyond doubt. Why won’t they admit this? Deliberate dishonesty? Or honest ignorance?
There is quite a bit of honest ignorance. Let that be the default assumption till demonstrated otherwise.
So @scd can answer the questions if the ignorance is honest.
The problems start when honest ignorance becomes refusal to admit ignorance, followed by evasion and misrepresentation to preserve that ignorance
Indeed. And once someone has been presented with the relevant information, ignorance is no longer an explanation. At the point the options become a) the individual is too stupid to understand the information he has been given b) the individual is too dishonest to openly acknowledge the conclusions to which this information must lead, or c) the people attempting to inform and educate the individual are insufficiently skilled as teachers and communicators to explain the information clearly.
I will add that many of the people who have been attempting to inform @scd are very experienced and successful researchers, educators and writers. Just saying.
You are forgetting cognitive dissonance as an explanation.
As an aside, @scd, I am curious about how you found this paper. It is tucked away in a journal that doesn’t seem to publish much along these lines, and I for one would never have dreamt of looking there for anything related to genomes and evolution.
Just wondering. Thanks.
My guess? PubMed search on “Mattick, J.”
There are many more than 153 eukaryotic species.
What percentage of the human genome is involved in sequence specific gene expression and alternate splicing?
More importantly, the complete genomes are not a representative sample of eukaryotes, being highly biased toward small, easily sequenced genomes. Nobody sequences lungfish, salamander, or fern genomes. The genomic data have nothing to say about the c-value paradox, which Mattick just ignores.
Cognitive dissonance is a state or what one experiences, it’s not an explanation. Perhaps “willing suspension of disbelief” is more apt?
CD does not excuse, nor does it even explain, the dishonesty involved in explicitly claiming that the evidence supports one’s position when in reality, one has never looked at any of the relevant evidence.
so are they basically lying or they just pick a random group out of all these species?
it was from a creationist source that i read a long time ago.
of course that if we find a non coding region that do something we cant call it “junk” anymore.
i refer to all of these species they suppose to check.
so? they can pick up a group by random. the result should represent the rule if it was randomly.
they actually mention the lungfish in their article:
“our analysis is focused on haploid genome composition, thus removing the confounding factor of ploidy or the contaminating DNA of prey, which are likely to be the primary cause of the large genome sizes attributed to lungfish and amoeba, respectively”