tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post7506620598496865628..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: More Expert Opinion on Junk DNA from ScientistsLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56425975431642627422012-09-12T16:47:05.476-04:002012-09-12T16:47:05.476-04:00Don't feed the trolls.Don't feed the trolls.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49884333594657001322012-09-10T19:38:16.540-04:002012-09-10T19:38:16.540-04:00Anonymous, there are 5-6 positive arguments that m...Anonymous, there are 5-6 positive arguments that most of the genome must be non-functional. <br /><br />Address those positive arguments. Merely asserting that "atheists believe it" does not refute arguments from genetic load, C-value paradox, megabase deletion mouse, etc. Atheists also believe the Earth is round. Will you say it's flat just to tick them off?Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42321904287513059182012-09-10T19:19:07.939-04:002012-09-10T19:19:07.939-04:00Anonymous, unfair. I am as critical of Larry as an...Anonymous, unfair. I am as critical of Larry as anyone here, but he hasn't at any point since the ENCODE article came out separated the issue from his scientific grounds for challenging it. He has repeatedly made the point that he sees this as a matter of science and not an ideological talking point.andyboergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159573123843322700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67424495297527273532012-09-10T18:07:58.720-04:002012-09-10T18:07:58.720-04:00Larry, science evolves. Atheists are losing their ...Larry, science evolves. Atheists are losing their talking point about junk DNA. Get over it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64967652498941997812012-09-08T11:47:20.852-04:002012-09-08T11:47:20.852-04:00I think we actually have a pretty good understandi...<i>I think we actually have a pretty good understanding of gene regulation in eukaryotes. It's a model that seems to work well for most genes.</i><br /><br />You and the authors are talking about two different things. You're saying we have a good idea how eukaryotic genes are regulated (enhancers, long-range interactions, etc) from extensive studies of a few genes (e.g. the hemoglobin cluster). This is true. The authors are saying, if you take a random gene in the human genome, you have no idea where the enhancers are, and it's tough to figure it out without time-consuming studies. This is also true; ENCODE was designed to address the latter--they want to create a reference genome annotated with the "best guesses" of where enhancers (etc.) are for *every* gene. Joe Pickrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03756271491303196763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21626478837629171872012-09-07T18:27:43.946-04:002012-09-07T18:27:43.946-04:00@Atheistoclast,
'Du-uh, of course multicellul...@Atheistoclast,<br /><br />'Du-uh, of course multicellular, eukaryotic regulation is going to be fundamentally different from prokaryotic regulation'<br /><br />why 'of course'?Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11802047233485045814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83717376390981541422012-09-07T18:25:01.707-04:002012-09-07T18:25:01.707-04:00The 'junk' doesn't cost much if anythi...<i>The 'junk' doesn't cost much if anything from the survival/reproduction standpoint; so one expects a certain accumulation. </i><br /><br />On its own, that's not a good argument - why are bacteria devoid of junk if it was just about that?<br /><br /><i>Second, different organisms that are phenotypically similar, e.g. two species of frog, may have vastly different amounts of 'junk' DNA; presumably due to different evolutionary exposures to viruses</i><br /><br />For very closely related species, it is very often polyploidy that's responsible, i.e think of Xenopus laevis vs tropicalis. It has to be an extremely dramatic post-divergence selfish element proliferation for large differences in genome size to accumulate between closely related genes, that follows directly from the definition of "closely related". And that's not seen that oftenGeorgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43989331374968697582012-09-07T16:49:54.324-04:002012-09-07T16:49:54.324-04:00Infused with ignoranceInfused with ignoranceMikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40940999004646930002012-09-07T16:35:08.633-04:002012-09-07T16:35:08.633-04:00@Brent Meeker
Two more points: Genetic Load and l...@Brent Meeker<br /><br />Two more points: Genetic Load and lack of conservation.<br /><br />I'm taking it from this comment:<br />http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2012/09/encode-leader-says-that-80-of-our.html?showComment=1346945434744#c8273351160324491076<br /><br />See this article:<br />http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/11/genetic-load-neutral-theory-and-junk.htmlArek Wittbrodthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10111672656316139254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31031238928679399092012-09-07T16:17:43.922-04:002012-09-07T16:17:43.922-04:00Blinded by arroganceBlinded by arroganceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58416084924972472422012-09-07T14:51:42.875-04:002012-09-07T14:51:42.875-04:00It's my understanding that the theory that muc...It's my understanding that the theory that much of DNA was 'junk' was supported by two points. First, that is what would be expected from an evolutionary viewpoint. The 'junk' doesn't cost much if anything from the survival/reproduction standpoint; so one expects a certain accumulation. Second, different organisms that are phenotypically similar, e.g. two species of frog, may have vastly different amounts of 'junk' DNA; presumably due to different evolutionary exposures to viruses. But being a physicist I just have picked up these ideas from the popular literature and am in no position to actually evaluate them.Brent Meekerhttp://brentmeeker.orgnoreply@blogger.com