tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post3648904148814375814..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: The Junk DNA Controversy: John Mattick Defends DesignLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30628127591796749332013-08-09T12:50:57.003-04:002013-08-09T12:50:57.003-04:00My comment on Mattick and Dinger at HUGO didn'...My comment on Mattick and Dinger at HUGO didn't show up in a week.SPARChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09563722742249547887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40912369803052824452013-08-07T00:18:04.480-04:002013-08-07T00:18:04.480-04:00I am wondering if Mattick's cell type counts a...I am wondering if Mattick's cell type counts are correct. I am not aware that Hominidae differ in chroosome numbers from other mammals but I may be wrong. SPARChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09563722742249547887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23771123823177394772013-08-06T17:03:43.652-04:002013-08-06T17:03:43.652-04:00Done and done.Done and done.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60193366577033877762013-08-06T16:09:37.590-04:002013-08-06T16:09:37.590-04:00just send your e-mail address to mhfgbf@googlemail...just send your e-mail address to mhfgbf@googlemail.comSPARChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09563722742249547887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46277589205910838382013-08-06T15:50:30.015-04:002013-08-06T15:50:30.015-04:00SPARC, you're the hero of the day. Thank you v...SPARC, you're the hero of the day. Thank you very much for stepping up to the plate when Noncodarnia (who I think might be a student of Mattick's) ran off.<br /><br />The cell type counts are great, but might I trouble you to copy the coding nucleotide counts and genome sizes for the 73 species that Mattick analyzes? Not all of them, just the 73 for which he computed the correlation.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53967180906319062162013-08-06T13:25:04.727-04:002013-08-06T13:25:04.727-04:00Mattick cites G. Wray who want to solve the c-valu...Mattick cites G. Wray who want to solve the c-value paradoc by explaining the g-value paradox by the i-value.<br />see:<br />http://people.duke.edu/~mwh3/Gvalue.pdfSPARChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09563722742249547887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56823877701029423442013-08-06T13:09:41.147-04:002013-08-06T13:09:41.147-04:00More interstingly, Mattick defines biological comp...More interstingly, Mattick defines biological complexity on the basis of cell numbers:<br /><br />Species Phylogenetic Group complexity (mean number of different cell types)<br />Mycoplasma genitalium G37 bacteria 1<br />Mycoplasma pneumoniae M129 bacteria 1<br />Bartonella bacilliformis KC583 bacteria 1<br />Helicobacter pylori bacteria 1<br />Streptococcus pyogenes M2, MGAS10270 bacteria 1<br />Neisseria meningitidis FAM18 bacteria 1<br />Actinobacillus succinogenes 130Z bacteria 1<br />Clostridium tetani Massachusetts E88 bacteria 1<br />Staphylococcus epidermidis ATCC 12228 bacteria 1<br />Lactobacillus plantarum JDM1 bacteria 1<br />Brucella abortus S19 bacteria 1<br />Clostridium botulinum type A - Hall bacteria 1<br />Mycobacterium tuberculosis H37Rv (lab strain) bacteria 1<br />Yersinia enterocolitica enterocolitica 8081 bacteria 1<br />Escherichia coli DH10B bacteria 1<br />Salmonella enterica enterica sv Typhimurium LT2 LT2 bacteria 1<br />Paracoccus denitrificans PD1222 bacteria 1<br />Bacillus anthracis CDC 684 bacteria 1<br />Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 bacteria 1<br />Ensifer medicae WSM419 bacteria 1<br />Cupriavidus necator JMP134 bacteria 1<br />Myxococcus xanthus DK 1622 bacteria 1<br />Streptomyces coelicolor A3(2) bacteria 1<br />Dictyostelium discoideum protozoa 4,65<br />Trypanosoma brucei protozoa 7,85<br />Leishmania major protozoa 7,85<br />Phytophthora ramorum protozoa 7,85<br />Entamoeba histolytica protozoa 4,65<br />Theileria annulata protozoa 7,85<br />Plasmodium falciparum protozoa 7,85<br />Neurospora crassa fungi 5,55<br />Aspergillus nidulans fungi 5,55<br />Schizosaccharomyces pombe fungi 4,35<br />Saccharomyces cerevisiae fungi 3,05<br />Kluyveromyces lactis fungi 3,05<br />Yarrowia lipolytica fungi 3,05<br />Encephalitozoon cuniculi fungi 3,35<br />Phanerochaete chrysosporium fungi 4,35<br />Ustilago maydis fungi 4,35<br />Chlamydomonas reinhardtii plant 12,5<br />Micromonas pusilla CCMP1545 plant 12,5<br />Ostreococcus lucimarinus plant 12,5<br />Ostreococcus tauri plant 12,5<br />Volvox carteri f. nagariensis plant 14,5<br />Physcomitrella patens subsp patens plant 22<br />Selaginella moellendorffii plant 25<br />Brachypodium distachyon plant 27,25<br />Oryza sativa plant 27,25<br />Sorghum bicolor plant 27,25<br />Arabidopsis thaliana plant 27,25<br />Vitis vinifera plant 27,25<br />Populus trichocarpa plant 28,5<br />Amphimedon queenslandica protostomia 16<br />Nematostella vectensis protostomia 22<br />Caenorhabditis elegans protostomia 28,5<br />Daphnia pulex protostomia 50<br />Anopheles gambiae protostomia 64<br />Drosophila melanogaster protostomia 64<br />Ciona intestinalis deuterostomia 74<br />Branchiostoma floridae deuterostomia 100<br />Danio rerio deuterostomia 119,5<br />Tetraodon nigroviridis deuterostomia 119,5<br />Takifugu rubripes deuterostomia 119,5<br />Xenopus tropicalis deuterostomia 129,5<br />Anolis carolinensis deuterostomia 140<br />Gallus gallus deuterostomia 154<br />Felis catus deuterostomia 159<br />Canis familiaris deuterostomia 159<br />Bos taurus deuterostomia 159<br />Rattus norvegicus deuterostomia 159<br />Mus musculus deuterostomia 159<br />Pan troglodytes deuterostomia 169<br />Homo sapiens deuterostomia 169<br />SPARChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09563722742249547887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-12692307325288545372013-08-06T13:07:17.285-04:002013-08-06T13:07:17.285-04:00Protists
Paramecium tetraurelia Alveolata
Theileri...<b>Protists</b><br />Paramecium tetraurelia Alveolata<br />Theileria annulata Alveolata<br />Cryptosporidium parvum Iowa type II Alveolata<br />Dictyostelium discoideum Stramenopiles<br />Plasmodium yoelii Alveolata<br />Naegleria gruberi Heterolobosea<br />Plasmodium chabaudi Alveolata<br />Plasmodium berghei Alveolata<br />Entamoeba histolytica Amoebozoa<br />Dictyostelium purpureum QSDP1 Amoebozoa<br />Thalassiosira pseudonana Stramenopiles<br />Plasmodium falciparum Alveolata<br />Phaeodactylum tricornutum Alveolata<br />Trypanosoma brucei Euglenozoa<br />Plasmodium vivax Alveolata<br />Leishmania major Euglenozoa<br />Tetrahymena thermophila Amoebozoa<br />Plasmodium knowlesi Alveolata<br />Monosiga brevicollis Choanofiagellida<br />Phytophthora ramorum Heterokontophyta<br />Phytophthora capsici LT1534 Stramenopiles<br />Trypanosoma cruzi Euglenozoa<br />Emiliania huxleyi CCMP1516 Haptophyceae<br /><br /><b>Plants</b><br />Ostreococcus tauri Chlorophyta<br />Ostreococcus lucimarinus Chlorophyta<br />Ostreococcus sp. RCC809 Chlorophyta<br />Micromonas pusilla CCMP1545 Chlorophyta<br />Chlorella sp. NC64A Chlorophyta<br />Coccomyxa sp. C-169 Chlorophyta<br />Arabidopsis thaliana Streptophyta<br />Chlamydomonas reinhardtii Chlorophyta<br />Cucumis sativus Streptophyta<br />Selaginella moellendorffii Streptophyta<br />Volvox carteri f. nagariensis Chlorophyta<br />Arabidopsis lyrata Streptophyta<br />Oryza sativa Streptophyta<br />Brachypodium distachyon Streptophyta<br />Populus trichocarpa Streptophyta<br />Mimulus guttatus v1.0 Streptophyta<br />Physcomitrella patens subsp patens Streptophyta<br />Vitis vinifera Streptophyta<br />Sorghum bicolor Streptophyta<br />Zea mays Streptophyta<br /><br /><b>Metzoa</b><br />Caenorhabditis remanei Nematoda<br />Caenorhabditis elegans Nematoda<br />Caenorhabditis briggsae Nematoda<br />Tetranychus urticae Arthropoda<br />Amphimedon queenslandica Porifera<br />Caenorhabditis brenneri Nematoda<br />Caenorhabditis japonica Nematoda<br />Daphnia pulex Arthropoda<br />Pristionchus pacificus Nematoda<br />Trichoplax adhaerens Grell-BS-1999 Placozoa<br />Drosophila erecta Arthropoda<br />Drosophila melanogaster Arthropoda<br />Helobdella robusta Annelida<br />Drosophila grimshawi Arthropoda<br />Capitella teleta Annelida<br />Tetraodon nigroviridis Vertebrata<br />Ciona intestinalis Chordata<br />Drosophila ananassae Arthropoda<br />Takifugu rubripes Vertebrata<br />Branchiostoma floridae Chordata<br />Ciona savignyi Chordata<br />Anopheles gambiae Arthropoda<br />Nematostella vectensis Cnidaria<br />Lottia gigantea Mollusca<br />Acyrthosiphon pisum Arthropoda<br />Gasterosteus aculeatus Vertebrata<br />Aedes aegypti Arthropoda<br />Oryzias latipes Vertebrata<br />Culex quinquefasciatus Arthropoda<br />Bombyx mori Arthropoda<br />Danio rerio Vertebrata<br />Gallus gallus Vertebrata<br />Xenopus tropicalis Vertebrata<br />Taeniopygia guttata Vertebrata<br />Anolis carolinensis Vertebrata<br />Felis catus Mammalia<br />Ailuropoda melanoleuca Mammalia<br />Mus musculus Mammalia<br />Rattus norvegicus Mammalia<br />Canis familiaris Mammalia<br />Homo sapiens Mammalia<br />Ornithorhynchus anatinus Mammalia<br />Bos taurus Mammalia<br />Cavia porcellus Mammalia<br />Gorilla gorilla Mammalia<br />Pan troglodytes Mammalia<br />Sus scrofa Mammalia<br />Pongo abelii Mammalia<br />Monodelphis domestica Mammalia<br />Oryctolagus cuniculus Mammalia<br /><br />SPARChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09563722742249547887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45893733771665140312013-08-06T13:06:42.584-04:002013-08-06T13:06:42.584-04:00Here's the species list from the supplements (...Here's the species list from the supplements (I have to split it due to maximum comment length issues):<br /><br /><br /><br />I omit 111 Archaea and 1516 Bacteria species.<br /><br /><b>Fungiy</b><br />Hansenula polymorpha NCYC 495 leu1.1 Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Encephalitozoon cuniculi Microsporidia<br />Saccharomyces cerevisiae Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Debaryomyces hansenii Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Kluyveromyces lactis Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Wallemia sebi Dikarya:Basidiomycota<br />Candida glabrata Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Ustilago maydis Dikarya:Basidiomycota<br />Schizosaccharomyces pombe Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Cryptococcus neoformans Dikarya:Basidiomycota<br />Pichia stipitis Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Aspergillus niger Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Aspergillus terreus Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Rhodotorula graminis strain WP1 Dikarya:Basidiomycota<br />Stagonospora nodorum Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Dothistroma septosporum NZE10 Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Aspergillus nidulans Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Aspergillus fumigatus A1163 Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Coprinopsis cinerea Dikarya:Basidiomycota<br />Aspergillus fumigatus Af293 Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis JAM81 Chytridiomycota<br />Aspergillus clavatus Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Fusarium graminearum Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Chaetomium globosum Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Septoria musiva SO2202 Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Yarrowia lipolytica Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Neosartorya fischeri Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Agaricus bisporus var. burnettii JB137-S8 Dikarya:Basidiomycota<br />Heterobasidion annosum Dikarya:Basidiomycota<br />Schizophyllum commune Dikarya:Basidiomycota<br />Trichoderma virens Gv29-8 Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Pleurotus ostreatus PC15 Dikarya:Basidiomycota<br />Trichoderma atroviride Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Sporobolomyces roseus Dikarya:Basidiomycota<br />Aspergillus carbonarius ITEM 5010 Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Agaricus bisporus var bisporus (H97) Dikarya:Basidiomycota<br />Aspergillus oryzae Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Aspergillus flavus Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Tremella mesenterica Fries Dikarya:Basidiomycota<br />Gloeophyllum trabeum Dikarya:Basidiomycota<br />Ceriporiopsis subvermispora B Dikarya:Basidiomycota<br />Trichoderma reesei Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Cochliobolus heterostrophus C5 Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Phanerochaete chrysosporium Dikarya:Basidiomycota<br />Magnaporthe grisea Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Neurospora discreta FGSC 8579 mat A Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Neurospora tetrasperma FGSC 2508 mat A Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Thielavia terrestris Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Neurospora crassa Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Mucor circinelloides CBS277.49 Fungi incertae sedis<br />Mycosphaerella graminicola Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Laccaria bicolor Dikarya:Basidiomycota<br />Cryphonectria parasitica EP155 Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Sporotrichum thermophile Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Phycomyces blakesleeanus NRRL1555 Fungi incertae sedis<br />Serpula lacrymans S7.3 Dikarya:Basidiomycota<br />Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici Dikarya:Basidiomycota<br />Postia placenta MAD-698 Dikarya:Basidiomycota<br />Mycosphaerella fijiensis Dikarya:Ascomycota<br />Melampsora laricis-populina Dikarya:BasidiomycotaSPARChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09563722742249547887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79368291438137211762013-08-05T11:47:53.499-04:002013-08-05T11:47:53.499-04:00And on the topic of crickets (since crickets are a...And on the topic of crickets (since crickets are all we hear when we ask the creationists or Mattick and coworkers to explain the C value paradox), the families Gryllacrididae and Gryllidae have genome sizes varying by 6-fold among them. The camel cricket has 2.7 times more DNA than human. The difference between the largest and the smallest is more than twice the size of the whole human genome.<br /><br />But you saw that coming.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86773477819425957852013-08-05T10:28:52.061-04:002013-08-05T10:28:52.061-04:00Shadi, you are right about his large number of pro...Shadi, you are right about his large number of prokaryotes, but I would like to know the 73 species used by Mattick to compute the correlation with cell type counts-- perhaps the subset of 73 is less dominated by prokaryotes.<br /><br />I asked Nocodarnia to paste Mattick's data and I'm still waiting.<br /><br />But if there's a bias toward prokaryotes, it's part of a larger problem of bias: Mattick limits himself to sequenced genomes, and so that database is highly biased against large genomes, because they're expensive to sequence. <br /><br />So with this standard, he's generally examining the near smallest genomes in each group, humans excepted. This bias might be why humans stand out-- an artifact of our human interest in sequencing our own bloated genome, but not the Neuse River waterdog's.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45581932379110483722013-08-05T10:15:18.849-04:002013-08-05T10:15:18.849-04:00Interesting. Above I asked whether Mattick had che...Interesting. Above I asked whether Mattick had cherry picked his data by not picking cherries. For the record, the common cherry Prunus avium has 1/10th the DNA of a human, but within the genus Prunus there is a 13-fold variation.<br /><br />The largest species is bigger than the human genome, and the difference between largest and smallest is 3.37 pg, almost as big as the whole human genome.<br /><br />Response from panfuctionists: crickets.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58199380840770540992013-08-05T04:56:45.372-04:002013-08-05T04:56:45.372-04:00You guys and gals may find it interesting that the...You guys and gals may find it interesting that the Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) has a genome size of 0.29pg (picograms) while the Least-Marked Euchlaena Moth (Euchlaena irraria) has a genome size of 1.94pg. <br /><br />From this page:<br /><br />http://www.genomesize.com/statistics.php?stats=insects<br /><br />Of course 'complexity' can be argued endlessly and a Monarch butterfly isn't exactly the same critter as a Euchlaena Moth. They each have their own attributes. The Monarch stands out with its migration and wintering behavior, while the moth may be able to hear the sonar signals of bats and avoid being eaten. I say "may" because I'm not familiar with that particular moth. Still, I'm a bit surprised that the Monarch genome is smaller than that of a Euchlaena Moth and all the other assayed leps (59 total), according to that page. <br /><br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11945608360077883462013-08-05T03:24:01.492-04:002013-08-05T03:24:01.492-04:00Adding to what Diogenes has just said, the followi...Adding to what Diogenes has just said, the following is quoted from Graur's <a href="http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/02/20/gbe.evt028.full.pdf+html" rel="nofollow">critique of the ENCODE</a> media hype:<br /><br />"<i>Actually, evolution can only produce a genome devoid of “junk” if and only if the effective population size is huge and the deleterious effects of increasing genome size are considerable (Lynch 2007). In the vast majority of known bacterial species, these two conditions are met; selection against excess genome is extremely efficient due to enormous effective population sizes, and the fact that replication time and, hence, generation time are correlated with genome size. In humans, there seems to be no selection against excess genomic baggage. Our effective population size is pitiful and DNA replication does not correlate with genome size.</i>"<br /><br />I'm afraid that the inclusion of prokaryotic genomes in the first analysis that you quoted might have skewed the results.unhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02527051725365759129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-48778077443735779882013-08-05T01:26:25.929-04:002013-08-05T01:26:25.929-04:00Noncodarnia says there are always exceptions in bi...Noncodarnia says there are always exceptions in biology. Mattick just said there are none. Noncodarnia should therefore regard Mattick as incompetent. I doubt such blatant contradictions will trouble him.<br /><br />And another question: why in this paper did Mattick only analyze ANIMALS? No plants, no fungi allowed. They've been EXPELLED.<br /><br />Inconvenient facts: angiosperm genomes vary by 2000-fold.<br /><br />I have two questions for you:<br /><br />Is Paris japonica a downward exception?<br /><br />Is Utricularia gibba?<br /><br />I think you'll change the subject rather than answer. Mattick is cherry picking his data, <b>therefore he did not pick cherries</b>; they would be a most unsuitable data point.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42126611209923760782013-08-05T00:55:05.772-04:002013-08-05T00:55:05.772-04:00If that's what Mattick meant by "downward...If that's what Mattick meant by "downward exceptions" then his claims have been falsified.<br /><br />This article is behind a pay wall. Noncodarnia, please copy and paste the values of nc and tg and celltype counts for the 73 species named. It might be in the Supplemental materials. Let's make our own plot and see if it matches the dog's ass plot.<br /><br />We should also note that correlation does not prove causation. More complex organisms have smaller population sizes, hence more slightly deleterious mutations, hence more non-coding DNA. So this correlation does not get close to proving all ncDNA adds to biological complexity.<br /><br /> But we know the rules: all salamanders, newts, caecilians, axolotls etc. have much more ncDNA than humans. All lungfish have more ncDNA than humans. Marsupials on average have more DNA than placentals incl. humans. Sharks have more ncDNA than bony fish. So let's make our own plot and see if we can discern the real rules.<br /><br />Thanks in advance for your assistance. You copy and paste nc, tg values and celltype counts, I'll handle statistical analysis. Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86392415564047383292013-08-05T00:26:42.522-04:002013-08-05T00:26:42.522-04:00There are always exceptions in biology; so its the...There are always exceptions in biology; so its the way of nature. In a much more refined and detailed approach than the approximations of this thread, the authors also reports: <i> we extended our prior work to the 1,627 prokaryotic and 153 eukaryotic genomes described above and found a clear correlation between the nc/tg ratio and increasing complex taxonomic groups (p < 2.2e-1.6, Kruskal-Wallis test, Fig. 2A). The range of nc/tg values is considerable, with the averages for archaea and bacteria being nearly identical (two-tailed p = 0.359, Mann-Whitney U test) at 0.130 and 0.136, respectively, and extending to ~0.98 in the Metazoa. The average value for each taxa is minimally influenced by data points outside the first or third quartiles. For example, [...] </i><br />And further states: <i> To further refine the association of nc/tg ratio values and organismal complexity, we investigated the 73 species with a previously defined number of cell types.35 Examining these species revealed a positive correlation between the nc/tg ratio and organismal complexity (Fig. 2B, Spearman correlation coefficient r = 0.952, p value < 0.0001). We found that the distribution of values was well described by a modified Hill’s equation56 (which is itself a modified logistic function, see “Discussion”), in the form y = Kxn/(1+Kxn) where K = 0.15219 ± 0.02272 with a p value < 0.0001 and n = 0.99888 ± 0.06943 with a p value < 0.0001 (Fig. 2B). This distribution is consistent with patterns observed in complex information systems theory, in which the amount of encoded information approaches an asymptote defined by the maximum allowable entropy (see “Discussion”).</i><br /><br />I suspect that by "downward exceptions", what is implied is a downward trend in the nc/tg ratios during evolution. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37252569595253762602013-08-04T22:49:26.992-04:002013-08-04T22:49:26.992-04:00The following quote is taken from the abstract of ...The following quote is taken from the abstract of the paper that you cited: <br /><br />"<i>We have previously argued that the proportion of an animal genome that is non-protein-coding DNA (ncDNA) correlates well with its apparent biological complexity.</i>"<br /><br />This claim has been shown to be factually incorrect, in this thread and in many others. And the graph that you're trying to distance Mattick from is actually an accurate reflection of the meaning of the statement quoted above. <br /><br />In any case, you haven't addressed any of the arguments that Larry and others have raised against Mattick's central claims. In fact, if Mattick is an honest scientist, and I believe he is, he should admit that the many "downward exceptions" that have been provided in this thread do actually falsify his claims. unhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02527051725365759129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34347038120197050022013-08-04T21:35:45.100-04:002013-08-04T21:35:45.100-04:00It's funny how this blog repeatedly references...It's funny how this blog repeatedly references a 10 year old figure rendered by the illustrators of Scientific American for the greater public audience. How about reading an entire peer-reviewed scientific journal publication, like this one by Liu, Mattick and Taft that provides substantial evidence that <a href="http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/cc/article/25134/" rel="nofollow"> ncDNA, and the ncRNAs encoded within it, may be intimately involved in the evolution, maintenance and development of complex life </a>. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19535682654278144132013-08-03T16:50:29.782-04:002013-08-03T16:50:29.782-04:00That doesn't seem to be responding the the que...That doesn't seem to be responding the the question. But never mind, it was rhetorical.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-65781166705287359502013-08-03T11:58:01.918-04:002013-08-03T11:58:01.918-04:00Misc says: "Do some current peer review work ...Misc says: <i>"Do some current peer review work to back your assertions"</i><br /><br />The Mattick article contains no original research. That which is asserted without doing original research can be refuted without doing original research.<br /><br />Mattick's article is the equivalent of a letter to the editor-- it's his opinion, no new research there-- but we know his logic is self-contradictory, when it isn't circular, and we know he's factually wrong. <br /><br />When he says there are "no downward exceptions", that's factually wrong. It's not backed up his orginal research, and we don't need to do original research to refute it. Just read or download T. Ryan Gregory's database of animal genome sizes.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14728312972495975122013-08-03T11:55:05.401-04:002013-08-03T11:55:05.401-04:00Harshman asks: "Whether there are downward ex...Harshman asks: "<i>Whether there are downward exceptions depends entirely on what you use for your standard. Has Mattick established a standard?</i>"<br /><br />In the Dog's Ass Plot, the y axis is percent of non-coding DNA. But within single genera, there are huge variations in genome sizes, so considering that different species within the same genus must have comparable numbers of genes, and identical "complexity", there must be huge variations in percentages of non-coding DNA, which do not track with "developmental complexity."<br /><br />Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59058707148625540552013-08-03T08:33:43.673-04:002013-08-03T08:33:43.673-04:00And who are "the rest of us"?And who are "the rest of us"?The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8043629870398112502013-08-03T08:30:45.106-04:002013-08-03T08:30:45.106-04:00Misc, do you have a preferred ideology? If so, wha...Misc, do you have a preferred ideology? If so, what is it?The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90885818474912255162013-08-03T08:14:51.631-04:002013-08-03T08:14:51.631-04:00Y'all's fits validate what the Peer review...Y'all's fits validate what the Peer reviewed work by these researchers assertions are, in that you really could care less about scientific research and more about protecting a preferred ideology. Do some current peer review work to back your assertions, and maybe the rest of us will take you seriously...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com