tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post5766475715270416827..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: A physicist tries to understand junk DNALarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger217125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6174590163158579702015-03-21T12:24:13.323-04:002015-03-21T12:24:13.323-04:00Peer wrote: “can you provide refernces for your c...Peer wrote: “can you provide refernces for your claims: ‘1. A few organisms nearly lacking junk DNA exist naturally, e.g. many bladderworts (small carnivorous plants such as Utricularia gibba), and they seem to be evolving as well as everything else.’ Maybe they lost it? Did you check for that?”<br /><br />Yes, I can provide reference. See below. <br /><br />And yes, of course bladderworts lost a lot of DNA their ancestors had. That is evidence that the lost DNA was not necessary. It can reasonably be called “junk.” And despite the near lack of junk DNA, bladderworts continue to evolve. More evidence suggesting that such DNA is not needed for evolution.<br /><br />Carretero-Paulet, Lorenzo, Pablo Librado, Tien-Hao Chang, Enrique Ibarra-Laclette, Luis Herrera-Estrella, Julio Rozas, and Victor A. Albert. 2015. High gene family turnover rates and gene space adaptation in the compact genome of the carnivorous plant Utricularia gibba. Molecular Biology and Evolution. <br /><br />Carretero-Paulet, Lorenzo, Tien-Hao Chang, Pablo Librado, Enrique Ibarra-Laclette, Luis Herrera-Estrella, Julio Rozas, and Victor A. Albert. 2015. Genome-Wide Analysis of Adaptive Molecular Evolution in the Carnivorous Plant Utricularia gibba. Genome Biol. Evol. 7(2):444–456. <br /><br />Greilhuber, J., T. Borsch, K. Müller, A. Worberg, S. Porembski, W. Barthlot. 2006. Smallest Angiosperm Genomes Found in Lentibulariaceae, with Chromosomes of Bacterial Size. Plant biol (Stuttg); 8(6): 770-777. <br /><br />Ibarra-Laclette, Enrique, et al., et al. 2012. Architecture and evolution of a minute plant genome. Nature 498, 94–98. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-9369025538495271912015-03-21T12:18:41.761-04:002015-03-21T12:18:41.761-04:00Peer wrote: “I have the advanatge of real knowled...Peer wrote: “I have the advanatge of real knowledge on biology over your parotting the bigmouths. . . . A quick search reveals that the evolution of bladderworts is non-observed, but assumed from DNA sequences. Do some homework yourself, please.”<br /><br />I try hard to “parrot” people who demonstrate “real knowledge on biology”. You should try it. <br /><br />The evolution of bladderworts is non-obserted but inferred from patterns of DNA sequences in light of what is know about chemistry and biology. Your hypothesis of front-loaded DNA is non-observed but inferred from the conflict between observed of DNA variation and your assumption that the world and all living things were created in the past few thousand years, an assumption in coflict with what is known about geology, astronomy, nuclear physics, and biology. <br /><br />Which idea is more likely to be true? Oh, right, you wouldn’t know, without doing a lot more homework yourself. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55360592195693801402015-03-21T11:19:02.253-04:002015-03-21T11:19:02.253-04:00The example above is clearly about “two organisms/...The example above is clearly about “two organisms/lineages”, but if you insist, I guess, it can also apply to “species,” although I’m not sure how you define a “species” (as you know, the definition of “species” has been a highly controversial issue) (BTW, do you have a definition of "biological function" that you think is reasonable and we can use as a reference definition?).<br /><br />Now, about the “selection”, Natural Selection that is, which you insist must be essential for anything that is deemed to be biologically functional.<br /> <br />Weather strong or weak, Natural Selection is a pervasive force in evolution, and indeed Natural Selection is continuously acting on the so called “junk DNA” (jDNA). For example, when jDNA is exapted as a molecular immune protective mechanism against deleterious insertional mutagenesis in organism/lineage/species A, then this functional DNA enters positive selection.<br /> <br />When this exposure ceases, and there is no need for a protective mechanism, then this DNA enters negative or purifying selection; obviously, if this selection is weak, as is the case of species with high C value, such as humans, then it cannot overcame the mutational imbalance favoring the new addition of DNA and, therefore this DNA persist.<br /><br />In light of all these facts, I think it is reasonable to replace the term “junk DNA” with the concept of symbiotic DNA (sDNA).<br /> Claudiu Bandeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00561965985406236525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36847557556697335902015-03-21T09:48:09.773-04:002015-03-21T09:48:09.773-04:00it is clear that this jDNA has a significant biolo...<i>it is clear that this jDNA has a significant biological function that can be critical for evolutionary survival</i><br /><br />No, it isn't clear. It might be, but that all depends on how strong the selection is. And I note that your example seems plausible (to the degree that it's plausible) only if we're talking about separate species. Do you agree that you're talking about species selection?John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-34189717655669541962015-03-20T18:57:04.046-04:002015-03-20T18:57:04.046-04:00John,
Most people with reasonable understanding o...John,<br /><br />Most people with reasonable understanding of biology and common sense, and with no hidden agenda, know what a biological function is, but, apparently, that’s not enough for you.<br /> <br />As you know, there are multiple recent articles trying to define “biological function’ (amusingly, even one by ENCODE). Why don’t you select a definition of ‘biological function’ that you like and post it here, so we all can use it as a reference definition?<br /><br />Regarding your apparent difficulty in understanding what ‘protective mechanism’ means in context of my hypothesis, let’s try to keep it as clear as possible with following example.<br /><br />Two organisms or lineages, A and B, have the same number of genes and regulatory elements. However, organism/lineage A has a large amount of extra genomic DNA, let’s call it jDNA, which has not been selected for, but has accumulated because of an imbalance between the rate of its origin and deletion.<br /><br />These two organisms/lineages are exposed to inserting elements that integrate randomly in the genome, and we observe that there are fewer deleterious insertional mutations in A than in B. I think it is reasonable to regard the molecular immune protection conferred by jDNA against insertional mutagenesis a biological function. Weather, you consider this a case of exaptation or not, it is clear that this jDNA has a significant biological function that can be critical for evolutionary survival.<br />Claudiu Bandeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00561965985406236525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-54440437016066287792015-03-20T18:50:54.641-04:002015-03-20T18:50:54.641-04:00Peer says: "2. Biologists have gone to the la...Peer says: <i>"2. Biologists have gone to the lab and constructed mice that lack many of the DNA sequences thought to be junk. The mice did just fine.<br /><br />No, you mix this up with the observation of conserved junk DNA that could be removed from the mouse genome without any measurable consequences."</i><br /><br />"Removed from the mouse genome without any measurable consequences" is the definition of "did just fine" you flipping IDiot. You IDiots always want to redefine words and play word games.<br /><br /><i>"This is not a problem for ID."</i><br /><br />Of course it crushes ID. <b>IDiots all said that all mutations are catastrophic.</b> I proved that with a list of quotes from IDiots recopied by Rumraket where ID proponents said all mutations are catastrophic, <b>you accused me of being a liar, either because because I know more about ID than you do, or because you KNOW what IDiots teach and you were lying about it</b>. But aw, every human baby has 100-200 more mutations than its parents and twice that number relative to its grandparents, etc. <br /><br />You IDiots said all mutations were <b>catastrophic. CATASTROPHIC.</b> Bye-bye ID!<br /><br /><i>"It poses a huge threat to selectionism, however, and the long ages (how do you prseserve conserved regions without selection...)"</i><br /><br />You don't, DUH! Since ENCODE, there have been several papers on non-conservation between humans and related species and also <b>within the human species</b> and <b>there is too much variation for it all to be functional, if it were all functional the mutations would KILL YOU or the other individuals</b>. Because there is so much variation, the upper limit on functional DNA is repeatedably shown to be 7-8%, maybe 9 if you're an optimist.<br /><br />The non-selected regions have accumulated mutations and the mutational pattern forms a unique nested hiearchy, aka tree of life.<br /><br />If you IDiots were right, bladderworts would have more non-coding DNA than coding DNA. You were proven wrong. End of story. <br /><br />You didn't know shit about bladderworts or any species with big or small genomes. You learned every bit of science you know from creationist websites run by pathological liars. If you were any dumber you'd be Gomer Pyle. Ha ha, we get to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTlqBYuShAU" rel="nofollow">laugh at your ignorance and credulity</a>.<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTlqBYuShAUDiogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91216360403547800652015-03-20T13:46:43.481-04:002015-03-20T13:46:43.481-04:00Peer, you wrote: “You were indeed parotting the wi...Peer, you wrote: “You were indeed parotting the wiki-bigmouths. A quick search reveals that the evolution of bladderworts is non-observed, but assumed from DNA sequences. Do some homework yourself, please.” and “I have the advanatge of real knowledge on biology over your parotting the bigmouths.”<br /><br />I try to “parrot” people who demonstrate evidence of “real knowledge on biology”. You should try it.<br /><br />Evolution of bladderworts is unobserved but inferred from differences in DNA sequences, in accordance with what is known of chemistry, DNA, and evolution. Your “front-loaded DNA” is unobserved but inferred from the incompatibility of “junk DNA” with a recent origin of life on earth. That recent origin is incompatible with what is known of geology, astronomy, chemistry, biology, and nuclear physics. Which is more probable?<br /><br />But of course you don’t know. And it would take doing a lot of homework for you to figure it out.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22298579409387694572015-03-20T13:27:15.644-04:002015-03-20T13:27:15.644-04:00"can you provide refernces for your claims: ..."can you provide refernces for your claims: 1. A few organisms nearly lacking junk DNA exist naturally, e.g. many bladderworts (small carnivorous plants such as Utricularia gibba), and they seem to be evolving as well as everything else."<br /><br />Yes. See below for examples.<br /><br />Maybe they lost it? Did you check for that?<br /><br />Of course. These plants lost lots of DNA. They function fine without it. Therefore, they didn't need that DNA, and it is reasonable to think that what they lost of "junk" DNA. <br /><br />Carretero-Paulet, Lorenzo, Pablo Librado, Tien-Hao Chang, Enrique Ibarra-Laclette, Luis Herrera-Estrella, Julio Rozas, and Victor A. Albert. 2015. High gene family turnover rates and gene space adaptation in the compact genome of the carnivorous plant Utricularia gibba. Molecular Biology and Evolution. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msv020 http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/01/31/molbev.msv020.abstract<br /><br />Carretero-Paulet, Lorenzo, Tien-Hao Chang, Pablo Librado, Enrique Ibarra-Laclette, Luis Herrera-Estrella, Julio Rozas, and Victor A. Albert. 2015. Genome-Wide Analysis of Adaptive Molecular Evolution in the Carnivorous Plant Utricularia gibba. Genome Biol. Evol. 7(2):444–456. doi:10.1093/gbe/evu288<br /><br />Greilhuber, J., T. Borsch, K. Müller, A. Worberg, S. Porembski, W. Barthlot. 2006. Smallest Angiosperm Genomes Found in Lentibulariaceae, with Chromosomes of Bacterial Size. Plant biol (Stuttg); 8(6): 770-777. DOI: 10.1055/s-2006-924101<br /><br />Ibarra-Laclette, Enrique, Eric Lyons, Gustavo Herna´ndez-Guzma´n, Claudia Anahı´ Pe´rez-Torres, Lorenzo Carretero-Paulet, Tien-Hao Chang, Tianying Lan, Andreanna J. Welch, Marı´a Jazmı´n Abraham Jua´rez, June Simpson, Araceli Ferna´ndez-Corte´s, Mario Arteaga-Va´zquez, Elsa Go´ngora-Castillo, Gustavo Acevedo-Herna´ndez, Stephan C. Schuster1, Heinz Himmelbauer, Andre´ E. Minoche4, Sen Xu, Michael Lynch, Araceli Oropeza-Aburto, Sergio Alan Cervantes-Pe´rez, Marı´a de Jesu´s Ortega-Estrada, Jacob Israel Cervantes-Luevano, Todd P. Michael, Todd Mockler, Douglas Bryant, Alfredo Herrera-Estrella, Victor A. Albert4 & Luis Herrera-Estrella. 2012. Architecture and evolution of a minute plant genome. Nature 498, 94–98. doi:10.1038/nature12132<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87248070240037319152015-03-19T23:12:50.789-04:002015-03-19T23:12:50.789-04:00Claudiu: Does the term "exaptation" stri...Claudiu: Does the term "exaptation" strike a familiar note? And you don't seem to have explained a definition of "biological function".<br /><br />And you seem to be using terms that avoid the question of selection. I still don't understand what you mean by "biological function", nor do I know what "protective mechanism" means unless it has something to do with selection.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75579838182526526122015-03-19T21:03:39.408-04:002015-03-19T21:03:39.408-04:00A second, more specific question:
Can jDNA, whic...A second, more specific question:<br /> <br /><b>Can jDNA, which in humans occupy mare than 90% of the genome, provide a protective mechanism against deleterious insertional mutagenesis by endogenous and exogenous insertional elements, or not?</b><br />Claudiu Bandeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00561965985406236525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56540503577648029192015-03-19T20:36:17.653-04:002015-03-19T20:36:17.653-04:00Forget about Larry’s opinions, that was just a sec...Forget about Larry’s opinions, that was just a secondary comment to which I forgot to add a ‘smile’ (still, parenthetically, can you explain us how <i>“An adaptive trait might *arise* through drift” </i>and neutral evolution?)<br /><br />Back to the main subject of our conversation, are you OK with the definition of ‘biological function’ as I explained it above?<br /> <br /><b>Can genomic DNA that exists simply because of a mutational imbalance (if you prefer, you can consider this DNA the result of drift and neutral evolution) have a biological function or not?</b><br />Claudiu Bandeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00561965985406236525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86227929849479458202015-03-19T19:39:37.351-04:002015-03-19T19:39:37.351-04:00Claudiu,
You seem to be conflating two things: th...Claudiu,<br /><br />You seem to be conflating two things: the reason a trait arose and the reason a trait is maintained (if it is). An adaptive trait might arise through drift, but if it's adaptive it's maintained through selection. I don't think you have a good understanding of Larry's opinions.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18917545913021266382015-03-19T19:03:40.344-04:002015-03-19T19:03:40.344-04:00John Harshman says: ”If jDNA provides "a prot...John Harshman says: <i>”If jDNA provides "a protective mechanism against deleterious insertional mutagenesis", and yet organisms with more or less jDNA do not differ in their fitnesses, can that mechanism be considered to be a function? Most of us, including me, would say not. You?”</i><br /><br />If jDNA does not increase the fitness of the organisms carrying it, then obviously it does not have a biological function. Specifically, in the case of my theory, jDNA must provide protection against deleterious insertional mutagenesis in order to be considered functional; and, according to my theory, it does (BTW, you need to read the paper in order to fully understand the model and the supportive evidence and arguments (<a href="http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2013/11/18/000588" rel="nofollow"> http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2013/11/18/000588</a>).<br /><br /><i>“The general consensus has been that if a feature is not under selection we can't call it functional. Do you disagree?”</i><br /><br />So, if a feature is not under selection, then the consensus is that it cannot have a biological function. So, the features that are not under selection, but the result of genetic drift and neutral evolution, are not functional and therefore useless and irrelevant for evolution. Well, I have to think more about this, but in the meantime, I’ll not be surprised if you get banned from Sandwalk .<br />Claudiu Bandeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00561965985406236525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-1411520710110896342015-03-19T17:53:38.090-04:002015-03-19T17:53:38.090-04:00Peer, you did not answer any of Ace's question...Peer, you did not answer any of Ace's questions about ERVs. You wrote some things that appear to be answers to some other questions you're substituting. <br />For example:<br /><br /><i>- Why do they all have genes for ENV which is essential for viruses but not so much for ERVs?<br /><br />They don't have all ENV genes. They are characterized by gag and pol genes and the envelope genes are picked up from the genome. <br /></i><br /><br />YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION. Why do they have Env? You then go on to discuss your shit hypothesis that the info God front-loaded into our genome turned into HIV etc. by just randomly picking up an Env. Extraordinary claim not backed up by extraordinary evidence; and <b>you did not answer the question: why do ERVs have Env?</b><br /><br />Moreover, quite a few of your statements are extraordinary claims not backed up by extraordinary evidence. Example:<br /><br /><i>- Why do the older ERVs that we share with most other primate species have the most mutated LTRs?<br /><br />These might be the originally frontloaded VIGEs and be subject to a non-random mutational mechanism, although it my also be due to an analysis-bias.</i><br /><br />At first glance, it seems like you're conceding that humans share a common ancestor with apes and you're pushing the "front-loading" back tens of millions of years to that common ancestor. But that can't be, because you're a Flintstones! Meet the Flintstones! creationist who thinks the ancestors of all today's land animals stepped off Noah's Ark 4,300 years ago during the Fifth Dynasty of the Old Kingdom of Egypt.<br /><br />No, here you're hypothesizing <i>"subject to a non-random mutational mechanism, although it my also be due to an analysis-bias".</i> <br /><br />I interpret "analysis-bias" to be the usual creationist accusation of a conspiracy of scientific fraud.<br /><br />As for your "non-random mutational mechanism", you're saying that an unknown mechanism supported by no evidence made the SAME mutational mistakes in the exact same places in the ERVs of humans and of chimps, gorillas, etc., arranged in a unique nested hierarchy which just happens to match the tree formed from anatomical considerations.<br /><br />Extraordinary. It's like going in a library, seeing a book labelled "William Shakespeare's Othello", and hypothesizing that it started as "Cather in the Rye" and then a non-random mistake mechanism just happened to make it identical to Othello.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37801039099579936302015-03-18T19:06:58.101-04:002015-03-18T19:06:58.101-04:00The general consensus has been that if a feature i...The general consensus has been that if a feature is not under selection we can't call it functional. Do you disagree? If so, what is your definition of "function"? If jDNA provides "a protective mechanism against deleterious insertional mutagenesis", and yet organisms with more or less jDNA do not differ in their fitnesses, can that mechanism be considered to be a function? Most of us, including me, would say not. You?<br /><br />We can probably agree that if the number of insertions is independent of genome size and if the insertion locations are random, an organism with lots of jDNA will have fewer insertions in functional regions than one with little jDNA. And this would decrease that component of the deleterious mutation rate that depends on insertions. Two notes: 1) If; 2) How is that a function?John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52462557155249814052015-03-18T18:35:41.632-04:002015-03-18T18:35:41.632-04:00As most of you probably know, the term “junk DNA” ...As most of you probably know, the term “junk DNA” (jDNA) was introduced half a century ago as jargon for presumably non-functional genomic DNA sequences in organisms with high C-value, such as humans.<br /> <br />When referring to this part of the genome, particularly in informal settings such as blogging, it is unpractical to constantly refer to it as “the so called junk DNA”; so, I usually call it jDNA. Obviously, it would be nonsensical to consider this genomic DNA as non-functional, just because it was labeled “junk DNA”.<br /><br />In my comments above, I asked the following 3 questions, in an effort to address potential biological functions for the so called “junk DNA”, hoping that some of the people who have blasted the ENCODE leaders for their refusal to address inconvenient questions will be very happy to address them.<br /><br />My first question was in context of the null hypothesis that jDNA has accumulated simply because its rate of deletion has been lower than that of origin (please see the comments above to see exactly the context in which they were asked):<br /> <br /><b>1. Can genomic DNA that exists simply because of a mutational imbalance (that is, no selection) have a biological function or not?</b><br /><br />Then, after I reemphasized again the null hypothesis that jDNA has accumulated because of a mutational imbalance, which has been promoted by many people here at Sandwalk, I asked again:<br /><br /><b>2. Can this jDNA have a biological function or not?</b><br /><br />Finally, after John Harshman brought up my old hypothesis that jDNA provides a protective mechanism against deleterious insertional mutagenesis by endogenous and exogenous insertional elements, I asked the question in the context of this specific biological function:<br /> <br /><b>3. Can this jDNA provide a protective mechanism against deleterious insertional mutagenesis by endogenous and exogenous insertional elements or not?</b><br /><br />I hope that some of the readers will answer these questions, so I’ll continue to ask them.<br />Claudiu Bandeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00561965985406236525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21757090968856689702015-03-17T07:10:56.484-04:002015-03-17T07:10:56.484-04:00ERV insertions are exactly like any other mutation...ERV insertions are exactly like any other mutation - rarely good, often irrelevant, and sometime bad. Exactly like the more run-of-the-mill invasive virus' that insert into your genome (Hepatitis and liver cancer.)<br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24511094<br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18818873<br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25033295The Other Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17570666738076378921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17902898728997237682015-03-17T06:31:02.877-04:002015-03-17T06:31:02.877-04:00Is this a peer-reviewed blog? I did not know.
I s...Is this a peer-reviewed blog? I did not know.<br /><br />I simpyl addressed some easy to answer questions on ERVs.<br /><br />This is common knowledge. At least it should be.<br /><br /> <br /><br />peerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13511262660273927645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55682210650015340682015-03-16T19:43:13.785-04:002015-03-16T19:43:13.785-04:00@Claudiu Bandea
The question you meant to ask is ...@Claudiu Bandea<br /><br />The question you meant to ask is whether a certain fraction of DNA could have a function or not. <br /><br />But you didn't ask that question. Instead, you asked whether junk DNA (jDNA) could have a function. I answered that question.<br /><br />I don't think I'm the one who is guilty of not understanding the question. Apparently you didn't understand your own question. <br /><br />BTW, Ryan Gregory now understands what I was asking him last summer. I asked him whether active transposons count as junk DNA or not. He was wrong when he said that I didn't understand his paper. He didn't understand the question. (He still hasn't answered the question.)Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51507941341188381752015-03-16T18:24:21.534-04:002015-03-16T18:24:21.534-04:00Laurence A. Moran: ”I answered your question and y...Laurence A. Moran: <i>”I answered your question and you “resonded with an insult”. Why?”</i><br /><br />I did not intend to “resonded with an insult.” Based on your answer, I don’t think that you understood the question or the context in which it was asked. This is not the first time it happened, and I’m not the only one stating it: that’s why I quoted your good friend T. Ryan Gregory. <br />Claudiu Bandeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00561965985406236525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26410440807706369462015-03-16T18:02:50.187-04:002015-03-16T18:02:50.187-04:00John : “So, Claudiu, what does "function&quo...John : <i>“So, Claudiu, what does "function" mean?”</i><br /> <br />As I already responded to Cubist (please see above), we all can reply to a question with another one in order to avoid an answer.<br /> <br />However, because you brought up my hypothesis about the putative biological function of the so called ‘junk DNA’ (jDNA) as a protective mechanism against deleterious insertion mutagenesis by endogenous and exogenous insertional elements, let me ask you the question as it applies to this specific biological function in humans, in which jDNA occupies more than 90% of the genome. Let’s assume that this jDNA has accumulated in the human genome because of a mutational imbalance between the rate of its origin and that of its deletion.<br /> <br /><b>Can this jDNA provide a protective mechanism against deleterious insertional mutagenesis by endogenous and exogenous insertional elements or not?</b><br />Claudiu Bandeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00561965985406236525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24897672332815639262015-03-16T16:12:52.287-04:002015-03-16T16:12:52.287-04:00which an intrinsic ability to evolve/adapt
Yes, a...<i>which an intrinsic ability to evolve/adapt</i><br /><br />Yes, all of Creation needs to evolve/adapt, since it began in perfection in the Garden of Eden, and so needed to evolve to something bett...oh, wait....judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45675224650284501512015-03-16T15:19:57.696-04:002015-03-16T15:19:57.696-04:00Peer said:
"Every bit of real observational...Peer said: <br /><br />"Every bit of real observational and experimental bioscience points in the direction of frontloading of several kinds, which an intrinsic ability to evolve/adapt."<br /><br />Peer, how would you explain extirpations and extinctions?The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76854815546501820952015-03-16T15:10:59.182-04:002015-03-16T15:10:59.182-04:00Peer, have you observed your chosen, so-called ...Peer, have you observed your chosen, so-called 'God' doing any front-loading? The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-48350438413869888162015-03-16T15:09:10.949-04:002015-03-16T15:09:10.949-04:00Oh Peer,
You are so modest and coy.
Instead of ...Oh Peer, <br /><br />You are so modest and coy.<br /><br />Instead of providing these tantalizing tidbits copy and pasted into Larry Moran's blog what say you provide links to the (presumably) "Peer" reviewed journals that you have published in.<br /><br />No need to hide your light under a bushel anymore, who knows, perhaps Diogenes will finally find his honest man in you.<br />steve oberskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14067724166134333068noreply@blogger.com