What is Junk DNA?

[ericajjful]

very interesting video thanks

[jayejayeee]

interesting video and very informative

[shellybirdy]

you have some great stuff here

[Inventor672]

This has nothing to do with this, but I would see why this dude would get confused with C0nc0rdance. LOLS He has almost the same pitch voice. Still I would say its ignorant for someone to say you are C0nc0rdance, just because of your voice.

[mixalaki90]

This junk is Tb of information writen by the creator.

[daogdaog]

"Far more non coding DNA that has no recognizable purpose" simply means biologists dont know much, regarless of how bad argument is that, about so many segments in the DNA they considered useless rocks. How far more? Human genes account only for 1.5 percent of the human genome. The phrase "have finished mapping the human genome" that ordinary people heard often is misleading.

[markaurelius61]

Moore calls pseudogenes junk-DNA, but an article in the 11/Mar/2011 edition of the journal RNA says "Pseudogenes have long been labeled as “junk” DNA, failed copies of genes that arise during the evolution of genomes. However, recent results are challenging this moniker". Calling non-coding DNA junk by default seems to miss a trend toward functionality as molecular biology advances. Genes are largely the same between worms and men. It is largely the "junk" that makes the difference.

[MarkMuses]

My ancestors had a tail right? And the code is likely still there to do it right?

Is that junk DNA today? Is that what junk DNA is - legacy DNA? What do you make of such a question? ie. does it illuminate the subject at all?

[falseahram]

@agentorange20 hi Zachary ! when you say that exons are translated to proteins, you are just talking about the code that describe the design of the (building blocks/legos) called proteins NOT the design of the (the building it self) called body! (1) with the same types, %, and quantities of the (building blocks) >>> (2) you can have trillions of diff buildings with entirely diff designs! this is a logical fact: you can not know (2) just by knowing (1) !

[falseahram]

@agentorange20

you said that exons is translated to proteins and the introns do nothing! so how can you build a skyscraper if you only have the code of the (building materials)? knowing that with the same types and same quantities of different building materials, you have endless possibilities and you can build different deigns! so where you store or/and get the deigns of a specific skyscraper? thank!

[agentorange20]

@falseahram the skyscraper example you give isn't quite analogous. the sequences determine not only which genes are used but also which are switched on or not (regulatory), so it's not really adequate to compare to just having raw materials. the design is stored in the genes themselves.

[JSprayaEntertainment]

1. It Never was Junk ( just un-used , or unknown function dna )

2. DNA's main funtion was wildly believed to be protein synthesis ( it is not )

as Stated in the " Kymatica " documentary (52 minutes in)

so you can say 3% of dna makes protein and the rest we don't understand and call trash ...

or that 97 % works in Electromagnetic energy Reception and transmission and 3 % protein synthesis ..

[filmfelineadmin]

Ever seen Steven Spielberg's tv miniseries Taken? There is a little metal tool the aliens leave behind that collects information and changes as the lives untwine. Consider uncoded DNA as 'free will' of sorts. Information you pick up as you go on, not information you're born with; perhaps your uncoded dna will become coded dna leaving an imprint on your child's double helix....

[mejc2]

Now that project modENCODE has produced results that show there is lillte or no "junk DNA", confirming the creationists predictions.( I guess they found poeple who want to wear limestone neclaces. ) That pretty much makes this whole video wrong.

[1simonmatthews]

It seems as though junk, or non-coding, DNA makes evolution possible, as though it were preprogrammed to allow for change. Anyone think this sounds like a design?

[smoothpeople33]

I watched this and don't feel like it explained anything. I feel like I have more questions then before I watched the video. Thanks anyway

[RealityGameWorld]

JUNK DNA IS OUR FUTURE EVOLUTION, THE SWINE FLU SHOT WILL DAMAGE THE DNA

[CASJ25]

@RealityGameWorld how can the swine flu shot damage the dna??

[weiner108]

the mutant strain

[elijahbalong]

very informative! this is the way knowledge can be absorbed fully.

[dacritterlover]

Is that whats his bob lazar again?

[benthemiester]

The Encode project has turned this whole evolutionist are smart, Intelligent designers are dumb argument around 180 degrees. The narrator makes sure to give credit to evolution for the efficiency of DNA and at the same time take credit away from an intelligent designer because he still believes its still mostly junk. A lot has changed in the last 5 years. Looks like the video has become obsolete in light of recent data. I'm glad I have a subscription to Nature and Heredity journals.

[puncheex]

@benthemiester: How is it, exactly, that finding functionality within a little of the junk is promoting a designer? I would think your celebration is premature at best; the designer argument should take place when it is shown, or at least hinted, that all that junk really does have a function besides acting as good marker material for anthropologists. Until then, your 180 degrees is a hollow boast.

[benthemiester]

@puncheex I give up, HOW? Is this a trick question, or are you just being silly. I spoke of Junk DNA as being a failed prediction of evolutionary biologist concerning the modern synthesis. Your a grown up, and your entitled to your own beliefs in the validity of the modern synthesis. I can point out many more failed predictions of the theory if you like. Theories are quantified by the powers of predictability in causation and outcome, this is the great weakness of the theory.

[puncheex]

@benthemiester: OK, I'll lay it out in small sentences. You said "The Encode project has turned this whole evolutionist are smart, Intelligent designers are dumb argument around 180 degrees." The Encode project is designed to locate parts of the genome that are actually functional. It is doing its thing. You say the results are turning around the opinion that there is 95 % junk DNA. You state that one should be crediting a designer for this higher ratio of useful to unuseful DNA. ...

[puncheex]

... My question is, Why should that be? That's from your first post.

From the second, what prediction of evolution theory are you talking about here? Who predicted it should be one way or another, and where? And as long as you are in a charitable frame of mind, what are these other predictions you mention?

[benthemiester]

@puncheexFrom the second, what prediction of evolution theory are you talking about here? Who predicted it should be one way or another, and where? And as long as you are in a charitable frame of mind, what are these other predictions you mention? 1 hour ago

I try to answer your other questions shortly, kind of busy now.

[benthemiester]

@puncheex The point I'm trying to make is that first of all, no one single thing can prove or disprove any theory or even a hypothesis for that matter. It requires a preponderance of accumulative and consistent evidence & data to form conclusions and opinions. The second point was, that your entitled to your opinion and to your own world view, and at last, I was pointing to the argument of bad design, which I am not the originator of, and that others frequently use. I hope I made myself clear.

[benthemiester]

@puncheex The narrator makes sure to give credit to evolution for the efficiency of DNA and at the same time take credit away from an intelligent designer because he still believes its still mostly junk.

I believe this was my actual statement concerning design, please quote me accurately.

[benthemiester]

@puncheex GRADUALISM AND FOSSIL GAPS STILL NOT RESOLVED. ERRORS IN PREVIOUS MISUNDERSTANDING OF NON VESTIGIAL VS VESTIGIAL ORGANS.

C VALUE ENIGMAS AND INABILITY TO QUANTIFY COMPLEXITY AMONG LIVING CREATURES.

HUMAN CHIMP COMPARISON /RECENT DATA

PANGENESIS.

NATURAL SELECTION BEING DOMINANT MECHANISM OF PHENOTYPE EXPRESSION.

JUNK DNA.

[puncheex]

@benthemiester: OK, I thank you, though you needn't have shouted them. I've made note and I'll consider them for future meeting.

Back to junk DNA. Referring back to my question 3 above, why would you say that finding use for more of the DNA that was formerly junk DNA makes a Designer (as I imagine we're talking ID here) more probable? Take your time, if you need to. I understand this is low priority, and I'm interested in dialog more then confrontation.

[puncheex]

BTW, do you have any new stats on ratio of useful vs non-useful DNA from Encode? References would be useful. I have not been able to find much more than warm fuzzy feelings.

[benthemiester]

@puncheex  The Nation Human Genome research institute. Type in junk DNA and you will find many papers and studies, its all free. If your smart enough and have access to a cray super computer, you can even help them figure out this stuff. There looking for a global academic effort that will require decades of independent research and billions in funding.

[benthemiester]

@benthemiester Its called the new Extended Synthesis, its here, and it is the future of evolutionary biology. Massimo Pigliucci,Stuart Newman and others are calling for a relaxation of Darwinian natural selection dogma, and proposing an epigenetic model in it's place, or as a graft on to the modern synthesis, which is lacking in explanatory powers in light of new and current data. The only problem is, we have been telling everyone for years that modern synthesis was sufficient.

[benthemiester]

@puncheex I posted a video of evo devo Stuart Newman's interview concerning the extended synthesis. He was one of the co organizers of Altenberg. Its well worth watching. At the end of video, he says that people are not being told the truth about the theory, and are asked to believe things that are false. He criticizes his own fellow evolutionist for much of this misunderstandings and hand waving of the facts. The video is entitled, Will the real theory of evolution please stand up.

[benthemiester]

@puncheex I was typing without looking at the screen and was to lazy to change when I realized it was in caps. Don't be so sensitive. Uncle Benny doesn't bite that hard. If you would like to discuss any of these few of many examples, please pick one at a time. Safari has a quick change cap feature, but I was on Firefox.

[benthemiester]

@puncheex You keep speaking of a designer because that is the only other alternative to naturalism. This is what were left with. Some believe Et's seeded life, but these are personnel views that lay out side of testable science at this time. I have to deal with the modern synthesis as it stands today. This is what I and millions of others are critical of. Is the evidence strong enough to support the current theory? I say no, and so do top evolutionary biologist present at Altenberg 16 summit.

[puncheex]

@benthemiester: OK, I understand you are looking into an updated theory that might include not just genes to encode for protein, but genes to switch other genes and the epigenetic control of genes (histone winding and methylation). OK, I think then we're on the same page but you're ahead of me in keeping up with the edge. Why, then, were you so mysterious about it in your top posting? You were, after all, the first to mention a designer and the dichotomy between designer and evolution.

[benthemiester]

@puncheex I thought you were more interested in the scientific aspect of the theory. Your problem seems to be with ID, and u don't have to worry about ID if the modern synthesis is sound. I'm not speaking of an updated theory, I'm speaking of an extended synthesis based on a whole different model, incorporating gene plasticity and self organization/epigenetics. This a different animal. Please replay video, u will hear narrator comment on bad design argument which I was originally referring too.

[benthemiester]

@puncheex To little is known to try an answer your question or statement of how histones truly function or how they interwind themselves. Were still trying to figure this stuff out. These are proposed constructs so far. Time will tell. The big problem is that, if were willing to graph or extend on to a theory that we told everyone was sound, with an extended synthesis, that's based on a newer and a less understood paradigm, then I think that's a good indicator to a troubled theory.

[sub221111]

Those goddam marketing people...they're always finding new places to advertise their sh*te...now they're doing it in my dna!!! bas***ds!!

[zliminator]

AgentOrange, this is SO interesting. I wish I could go back in time and change my major when I was in college. I'll study this some more before I interject anymore of my 'creationist vs. evolution' opions.

[zliminator]

The illustration at around 6:50 reminds me that I need to take my mind out of the gutter.

[zliminator]

A cordless screwdriver with interchangeable bits! WOW, what a concept! Leave it to evolution to come up with something so novel!

[trickyflicky1]

"It's not all junk, but it's not all gold either"

Same with ford or chevy cars, designed by intelligent designers. Not all gold, the cars are badly designed in some areas, and also designed well in other areas. So what? Would life be interesting if all living things were perfect? no.

[agentorange20]

'Same with ford or chevy cars, designed by intelligent designers.'

But this comparison is not logical and a fallacy as you're comparing living things which use DNA to inherit changes to non living things (car) which cannot inherit changes.

'Would life be interesting if all living things were perfect? '

but it does beg the question why you define your designer as perfect while the creations he's credited with aren't perfect. fancy that logic.

[trickyflicky1]

"but it does beg the question why you define your designer as perfect while the creations he's credited with aren't perfect. fancy that logic."

Wrong. I am not a personal God believer. You make false assumptions and conclusions that this is a Creationist speaking. In fact I'm an agnostic who does not have a personal God.

[trickyflicky1]

"But this comparison is not logical and a fallacy as you're comparing living things which use DNA to inherit changes to non living things (car) which cannot inherit changes."

The video uses the analogy of Magazines, which are created by intelligent designers who put advertisements purposely in the magazine. Attacking the fact that cars are not living things is the same as me attacking your video saying that Magazines are not DNA. No kidding. Really? You fail to argue without being a hypocrite.

[agentorange20]

'uses the analogy of Magazines,'

only to convey how they use non-related data in the same region as inter-related data, not to convey that DNA is the result of ID, but rather to compare how the fuctions of segments of DNA differ desptire their locations.

[trickyflicky1]

"only to convey how they use non-related data in the same region as inter-related data, not to convey that DNA is the result of ID, but rather to compare how the fuctions of segments of DNA differ desptire their locations."

So the video is allowed to cherry pick certain things from magazines that are similar to DNA, but I am not allowed to cherry pick certain things from Mercedes cars that are similar to animals?

[agentorange20]

'cherry pick certain things from magazines that are similar to DNA'

it's only symbolically similar, not in process. obviously the magizines can't fuction as DNA or organisms, nor can cars. which is different than what you're advocating w/ cars being equal in overall processes w/ organisms & thus why you think organisms are the result of ID. no one uses a magizine comparison to arrive at organisms being the result of ID while how you're using cars you do, that IS the difference.

[trickyflicky1]

"which is different than what you're advocating w/ cars being equal in overall processes w/ organisms"

Huh? WTF are you on about? no one said cars are the same as organisms. It's obvious they aren't. Now do you see your hypocrisy? nope, you continue to miss it. Cars are not equal to organisms. Organisms however are common to machines. They have similarities. They are not equal. No one said so.

[trickyflicky1]

"you're advocating w/ cars being equal in overall processes w/ organisms & thus why you think organisms are the result of ID"

No. They are not equal. They are similar. The video is advocating that because magazines have advertisements in them, it's similar to how DNA has junk in it. Nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is that you do not allow any discussion whatsoever of cars.. and you circularly only allow discussion of organisms, therefore painting yourself into an uncritical corner.

[agentorange20]

no on said cars are the as organisms'

you did (implied that) earlier, here I'll remind you - "Same with ford or chevy cars, designed

by intelligent designers"

your analogy being both are complex, we know 1 is designed (cars) thus you conclude the other (life) was as well. while both are complex, they do not equally undergo the same processes, (natural selection, mutations, attrition, self replication, etc.) so they're not comparable where it matters in terms of biology.

[trickyflicky1]

"non living things (car) which cannot inherit changes."

Incorrect. Factories produce cars with upgrades that are inherited from previous years. Consider the wood dash that was used in the Mercedes which continued to be used for many many years. If the factory was onboard the car, and the car drove around picking up the right materials (food) to create another mercedes, it could in fact create another mercedes onboard the car and plop it out the back. Might sound far fetched but so is DNA.

[agentorange20]

'Factories produce cars with upgrades that are inherited from previous years.'

ah, but are either cars or factories sefl-replicating like how live organisms reproduce? do either undergo per generational mutations, compete over scarce resources & thus natural selection?

uh, no. you'r comparing apples & oranges sir, so your analogy of a non-living thing, reglardless of however complex it might be, utterly fails when compared to the living which undergoes different processes.

[trickyflicky1]

"ah, but are either cars or factories sefl-replicating like how live organisms reproduce? do either undergo per generational mutations, compete over scarce resources & thus natural selection?

uh, no. you'r comparing apples & oranges"

Wow. Glad you figured it out! Now take that line above and apply it to magazines. The video is comparing magazines with advertisements in them, to DNA. What have magazines with ads in them got to do with DNA? nothing. Also, the car has a factory on it. Read.

[agentorange20]

'Glad you figured it out! Now take that line above and apply it to magazines'

no, you're not the 1st to use the car analogy, so I'm the one's who's glad.

magizines too do not replicate. ergo they do not work as a fully universal analogy, but indeed as a partial one. however, that is not how they were, nor were they intended to be used. they were to convey visually how DNA as a whole is cobbled together w/ non related parts, not to explain how DNA builds proteins.

[trickyflicky1]

"so your analogy of a non-Iiving thing,

re,Iardless of however complex it might beí

utterly fails when compared to the living which

undergoes different processes."

The video's analogy of a non living magazine,

regardless of however slightly minutely similar

magazine ads of cigarettes are to DNA, utterly

fails when compared to a living cells code which undergoes nothing like Advertising or income producing pages. Advertisements serve an obvious purpose to produce income for magazines.

[agentorange20]

'the car has a factory on it'

& does this factory which aids (not automaticallty produces mind you, they still depend on workers) self replicate like organisms? No, so the comparison is, where it matters most, again false.

' Advertisements serve an obvious purpose to produce income for magazines'

indeeed, & if we assume such non related sequences of DNA were the result of ID, of what purpose there? Certainly not advertising.

[agentorange20]

'magazine ads of cigarettes are to DNA, utterly fails when compared to a living cells code which undergoes nothing like Advertising or income producing pages'

you know damn well i wasn't comparing the ads & text w/ how DNA fuctions, or any processes it undergoes. I used it as an analogy only to depict how there is, like in magizines, setions of unrelated code strung througout in between otherwise meaningful related texts.

[trickyflicky1]

"you know damn well i wasn't comparing the ads & text w/ how DNA fuctions, or any processes it undergoes. I used it as an analogy only to depict how there is, like in magizines"

You know damn well I wasn't comparing the mercedes reproductive system (penis and vagina) to how mercedes factories produce cars. If a factory was installed on the mercedes benz car, and it had oxygen sensors on the exhaust system, it could figure out the default fuel mixture based on averages and improve the old one.

[agentorange20]

i think we mutually agree cars are not equal to organisms, at least when dicerning if they were the result of ID or not. you;ll have to forgive me as IDiots often trot out non living things & use the same inference you did w/ regards to complexity.

Both complex? Sure. but using this as the only criteria to judge if something is designed or not is fallacious,. if we ignore all the *other* processes unique to organisms, then it's comparable.

[puncheex]

@trickyflicky1: You must be incredibly dense. The magazine analogy was only to explain how genes can be broken up and spread around a chromosome, not anything about how a magazine functions. I imagine that you probably have given up on love because Shakespeare compared it to a red, red rose, and you're worried about the roots ticking.

[agentorange20]

'I don't join groups.'

say what you will but by declaring your agnostic stance you can't but help be lumped w/ others who, like me, think that it will be forever an unasnwerable, unproveable equation.

[puncheex]

@trickyflicky1: Evolution isn't about "interesting", it's about function. It cares about aesthetics only to the extent that they will function better in the environment, finding a good mate, avoiding a sharp-eyed or poisonous predator, locate dinner on time. It also doesn't seek perfection, but rather "good enough". Perfection often involves loss of flexibility, and that, in the long run, is usually failure.

[trickyflicky1]

"This let's you use the same basic function for different applications"

In the video you claim an intelligent designer wouldn't create a multi purpose drill, he would create a separate drill tool. Really? How intelligent is that designer?

[Naiant]

Before watching this, I watched a Creationist video that argued that "junk DNA" was strong evidence for Creationism. This one blows that one out of the water (not that I was convinced by the Creationist video; even as a non-scientist I could pick out errors). Most revealing was that the other video didn't allow either rating or commenting. This is common among Creationist video, and shows just how unscientific they are. Science doesn't hide from controversy, but Creationism does.

[rahungry]

I think the name should be changed from junk to treasure DNA : )

[greytale]

Modular DNA...

...sounds more like what it should have been called. Scientists have been either ignoring or misunderstanding "junk DNA" for years... but it's ridiculous that more efforts haven't been put into motion.

After all... do we all REALLY think that >= 95% of our DNA... is simply just "crap"?!?! WTF.

I might as well eat a single bite of food each day & call the remaining 95% of my meals "junk" or "worthless extra". I already ate a little... why would I need more? FAIL! lol

[rahungry]

I saw some videos about Dr. Horowits and his views on the "junk " dna.

Very interesting maybe you should check it out. Have a great day greytale. :)

[greytale]

Thanks! I will check those out... much oblige!

[jgizzy]

Agreed... 'JUNK DNA' just might turn out to the be the most helpful and enlightening of all, just as soon as we figure out what it's really there for.

[trickyflicky1]

"After all... do we all REALLY think that >= 95% of our DNA... is simply just "crap"?!?! WTF."

Yes, Atheists openly welcome junk DNA because it proves "Stupid design" over "intelligence".

[agentorange20]

'WTF.'

crap, no, but it begs the question to your or others assumption that some omnipotent all knowing entity poofed it all into being whilst making the majority redundant, while some parts serving little to no known purpose.

' I am not a personal God believer'

WTF else kinds of gods are there which aren't personal? Deism then? if you're a deist, then this 'DNA was intellgently built' is moot as deism doesn't hinge on the god being involved in human affiairs at all.

[trickyflicky1]

"WTF else kinds of gods are there which aren't personal? Deism then? "

You really like to categorize people, just like people liek to categorize music into "rock" and "pop" and "classical".

Intelligent people don't join cults or groups that take a specific position. I am agnostic, and everyone, even Dawkins is and has admitted it. I don't believe in a God, but I don't also just believe everything all atheists say either, without looking into it extremely critically. I don't join groups.

[agentorange20]

'You really like to categorize people'

well, despite all your gushing over things being intelligently designed you said you weren't a believer in a personal god, while also being agnostic, that would defacto put you in the 'deism' category.

'I don't believe in a God'

that is the defintion of an atheist. to profess that knowing is impossible (agnostism) isn't the same as saying you reject the proposition (atheism), so one can be effectively both.

[puncheex]

@trickyflicky1: Why shouldn't it be? You think that evolution should need to be neat and concise? It's what works, not what some designer thinks would be nice. "Working well enough" is the only criteria that evolution has, and when it ceases to be "well enough" because something else has become better, then that species becomes non-transitional to the next, having gone extinct.

[puncheex]

@greytale: Sure, 95% of it could be crap. There is no requirement that the genome be neat or tidy. Your analogy doesn't hold up: you use energy to gather your food (or at least your ancestors did), and gathering for no reason is a good way to have become extinct. Extraneous DNA is not a burden; if it were, then a function that trims it back would be valuable, if it could discriminate functional from nonfunctional. Since no such happens, no mechanism is needed, and likely isn't even possible.

[greytale]

@puncheex ... I disagree, and also believe that when it comes to the human body... MUCH is possible.

Just because we do not have or do not understand the answers/truth at present--doesn't mean that they do not exist. Although I am noticing that you seem to "have" all the answers, per your posts @ trickyflicky... rahungry... bentmiester, etc.

[puncheex]

@greytale: Sure much is possible. Why does that say that "junk" DNA cannot happen? If you have a reason, spit it out. Mysticism ("We don't know everythiing!!") won't do.

I'm all for finding meaning in the genome as much of it as possible, but I don't see it getting anywhere near, say, 50%, nor any reason why it should.

Don't like my commenting about people that don't have a clue about biology? Sorry again. Come up with a sound argument or just lie there and take it.

[greytale]

@puncheex ... I never said that junk DNA "can't" happen, I just don't accept your bogus reasoning that it "must" be so.

Also--YOU used the word "mysticism"... which is completely inaccurate. You are coming from the perspective of "knowing everything". Sorry--you do not.

I really don't make it a point to get in stupid pissing matches with youtube posters either, so... I wouldn't sweat it too much--you may be quite a bit in your head on this one.

[puncheex]

@rahungry: Agree to an extent. New genes can sometimes mutate from the junk, but this only happens when the change doesn't harm the species (in which case the mutation wasn't in the junk anyway). They're also great for providing markers for the trackers among us to follow, since they can accumulate mutations without hurting the carrier.

[Lo6]

well done man, good explanation

[pauljs75]

Neat explanation. I wonder if any of this "junk" may be something that has actual use, but is time limited to certain stages of development. So what might be useful for a larva or fetus wouldn't be all that important or even counterproductive to have expressed in an adult. (and vice versa.) So the stuff gets turned on or off after a certain point in development. I wonder if there's a way to see if introns and exons cylcle their "road markers" at various periods in an organism's life cycle.

[greytale]

You may be more right than you know! :)

impactlab com

/2009/05/22/junk-dna-2/

I hope the link shows up!

[RyuDarragh]

How about gene duplication that is neutral for fitness for survival? And the chart was innaccurate.. there are single cell organisms that are more than 99% "junk" and have more base pairs then humans do!

[agentorange20]

"How about gene duplication that is neutral for fitness for survival?"

If you mean transposons, sure, they account for much of the 'junk DNA' in organisms.

[RyuDarragh]

I refer to the ones that have balooned a simple single cell organism into a monster of unused DNA. Like one Amoeba and a lily, which, of all things, have hundreds of times the number of base pairs that humans have, and yet, they are simpler organisms. Curious that most of their DNA is a repeat of the same sets of repeats, over and over. Sure, they cost in terms of chemical energy, but they thrive anyway. Neutral for fitness. QED.

[ndjarnag]

great stuff.

subscribed :)

[Kurtlane]

How about old inactive genes that are retained form old ancestor and reactivated in some descendant.

For example, I heard that some insects gained and lost wings 6 times through their evolution, because complex sequences for wing genes were retained and just enabled or disabled fairly easily as needed. How would you classify these?

[DanC9189]

Sounds like an intron section of a hox gene that after mutation becomes and exon.

[pgm98387]

I concur that this could be the most reasonable explanation of the junk DNA. It could also be remnents from micro fauna of the digestive tract in earlier hominids. Look up vestigual organs same idea also.

It would not suprise me if that encoding matched up with an amphibian or a tree shrew?

[dragoonthief]

I never understood the arguement that evolution is the mechanizm god chose. Because evolution as it works its kinda slow and messes up alot. IT kinda just works to a point to allow an organism to live and reproduces then it just fucks off.

[agentorange20]

but nevertheless life is still around right? after nearly 4 billion years, countless mass extinctions, life still soldiers on. that at least has to count for something, no?

[dragoonthief]

Like I said It allows things to live. But yes organisms are still kicking it. But isnt it like 99.9% of the total species and bacteria are now extinct, If that is sign of a creator a very slopy one.

[1simonmatthews]

@dragoonthief I don't think it sounds sloppy. The creator may have designed a system that evolves, and anything that doesn't work is eliminated from the system. With a system like this, perfection is slowly achieved automatically. If there is a creator, I wouldn't think of it like a guy that just magics perfect things into existence, but rather a computer programmer who designs a self-programming system. Sounds more scientific and possible this way doesn't it?

[sojoyful]

That was awesome!

[adnandulles]

Now that's better. I grew up during the Karen Silkwood event. So i'm very apprehensive. Imagine finding out your the parent of Superstars and Athletes. And they don't even know you exist, or they've been told you don't exist.

[adnandulles]

I'm the missing link. That allows the different type of sexes to combine their Dna two males two females multiple.females and males. Now let's not play games with the truth. I'm still alive. You have'nt recieved any fluid in almost three years right. that's how long it's been since well... you already know that don't you. They're killing off these offsprings extremely fast. This not a fictionalized account. read the paper. It's very real.

[CO2Junkie]

Great vid. Thanks :)

Where did you get the video for the final 2 1/2 minutes? I'm talking about the RNA leaving the nucleus & getting translated into protein.

[agentorange20]

just do a search on YT for 'dna transcription' I think.

[DrDarwinian]

I dont know if its my comp or the video but i cant hear it

[amithbn]

it's your comp!