tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post5574518493746833641..comments2024-03-19T00:24:23.577-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Jonathan McLatchie and Junk DNALarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80387114753141258412015-08-23T12:23:06.264-04:002015-08-23T12:23:06.264-04:00McLatchie is better off sticking to talking about ...McLatchie is better off sticking to talking about science. He recently began talking about Islam and has left a trail of blunders:<br /><br />http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Jonathan%20McLatchieYahya Snowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18373097645466995642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66792022064206087992011-12-20T23:46:27.154-05:002011-12-20T23:46:27.154-05:00@ Corneel
Leave it to biology to ignore our human...@ Corneel<br /><br />Leave it to biology to ignore our human logic and social constructs ;-)The Other Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17570666738076378921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91393956344645253892011-12-20T18:04:55.451-05:002011-12-20T18:04:55.451-05:00PZ said:
"I was simplifying for a lay audien...PZ said:<br /><br />"I was simplifying for a lay audience."<br /><br />Oversimplification can be a bad thing, especially if it creates wrong impressions. Of all people you should realize that every word you speak will be scrutinized (and not just by your religious opponents), so you should be very careful with your choice of words, even with a so-called "lay audience".The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6737793988536502182011-12-20T17:55:52.698-05:002011-12-20T17:55:52.698-05:00An irritating thing about McLatchie is that he sta...An irritating thing about McLatchie is that he starts his sermon on UD, where opposing comments are severely restricted, and then links to the rest of his sermon on ENV, where no comments are allowed. <br /><br />He opposes Moran but doesn't have the guts to do it here. In typical IDiot fashion, he just wants to preach, and not engage in open and honest discussion.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14347135219081914882011-12-20T10:09:37.563-05:002011-12-20T10:09:37.563-05:00If Jonathan McLatchie is actually learning somethi...If Jonathan McLatchie is actually learning something about biology, how long will it be before his head explodes, or he stops touting ID?Bayesian Bouffant, FCDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61319980902542596562011-12-20T08:09:35.944-05:002011-12-20T08:09:35.944-05:00The other Jim said:
I would suggest they are not, ...The other Jim said:<br /><i>I would suggest they are not, and are functional DNA - but the "property" of the viral parasite.</i><br /><br />I understand your argument, but I think the issue of "ownership" is a bit tricky. Does a transposon become the property of its host once it is defective? And is it sufficient that the transposase is nonfunctional or should it be completely incapable of transposing?<br /><br />If you don't mind, I will subscribe to the notion that the chromosomal inserts have become -at least temporarily- part of the genome, and are junk. Otherwise you end up with legal discussions in a biology class ;-)Corneelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02884855837357720225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51221874552243310712011-12-20T07:36:02.586-05:002011-12-20T07:36:02.586-05:00Corneel said...
What makes defective transposons j...Corneel said...<br /><i>What makes defective transposons junk and active transposons not?</i><br /><br />Take someone infected by HIV - are the RT'd chromosomal inserts junk or not? I would suggest they are not, and are functional DNA - but the "property" of the viral parasite.<br /><br />Now if a defective copy of the genome somehow got into a germcell and was inherited...The Other Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17570666738076378921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-1123224045081774652011-12-20T04:13:43.668-05:002011-12-20T04:13:43.668-05:00Larry said
I'm thinking of it from the perspec...Larry said<br /><i>I'm thinking of it from the perspective of evolution, not what humans might or might not want to happen in their genome! </i><br /><br />That I do not understand. The entire genome is the product of evolution. The only reason to label some of it "junk" is if it is not functional from the perspective of the organism.<br />What makes defective transposons junk and active transposons not?Corneelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02884855837357720225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37232881939856318922011-12-19T15:45:39.413-05:002011-12-19T15:45:39.413-05:00PZ makes the same point about transposons that I m...PZ makes the same point about transposons that I made the last time you brought this up. I all depends on how you look at it. Are they conserved by selection? Yes, if you consider the individual to be the individual transposon insertion and the population to be the set of insertions in a genome; transposons without inactivating mutations will reproduce, and others won't. No, if you consider the individual to be, well, the individual and the population to be the population of organisms. The sequences of individual transposon insertions, active or inactive, accumulate mutations at the neutral rate. And I call that junk. It seems to me that your answer doesn't work, since both these perspectives are the perspective of evolution.John Harshmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49143293552855416332011-12-19T15:33:46.657-05:002011-12-19T15:33:46.657-05:00PZ says,
Active transposons are functional from t...PZ says,<br /><br /><i>Active transposons are functional from the transposons perspective...but from the human perspective? </i><br /><br />I'm thinking of it from the perspective of evolution, not what humans might or might not want to happen in their genome! Besides, from the human perspective, a few active parasites in your DNA doesn't make much difference.<br /><br />Even worse, if you're a religious person then you have to accept that God wants you to have transposons. He designed your genome with that feature.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55474173181515701132011-12-19T14:52:57.511-05:002011-12-19T14:52:57.511-05:001. I agree. I was simplifying for a lay audience.
...1. I agree. I was simplifying for a lay audience.<br /><br />2. Of course I agree -- I put telomeres into the category of structural elements...they are no more junk than is regulatory DNA.<br /><br />3. Now we get into tricky distinctions. Active transposons are functional from the transposons perspective...but from the human perspective? There are also known instances of the presence of transposons modulating other genes...but again, I didn't want to get into stuff like position effects for this audience.PZ Myershttp://pharyngula.orgnoreply@blogger.com