Evidence for Evolution: 2 - "junk DNA"

I explain some evidence for evolution that is often ignored in favour of the obvious ones like the fossil record that have been explained ad nauseam. Hopefully the balance between simplification and in-depth explanation is such that many will find it interesting.

View or download this video at superior quality:
http://www.veoh.com/channels/glassriver


Correction:
C-values correlate with a range of features at the cell and organism levels, including cell size, cell division rate, and, depending on the taxon, body size, metabolic rate, developmental rate, organ complexity, geographical distribution, and/or extinction risk.

References for correction:
--Bennett, M.D. & Leitch, I. J. (2005): "Genome size evolution in plants". in T.R. Gregory. The Evolution of the Genome. San Diego: Elsevier. p.89--162.

--Gregory, T. R. (2005): "Genome size evolution in animals". in T.R. Gregory. The Evolution of the Genome. San Diego: Elsevier. p.3--87.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• evidence
• evolution
• junk
• dna
• glass
• river
• creation
• intelligent
• design
• hovind

[benthemiester]

The point is pseudogenes have been found to have function, so your video is false. You continue to persist that if something has not been figured out yet, then therefore it has no function, even though we're constantly discovering more function everyday.

Pseudogenes have been defined as nonfunctional sequences of genomic DNA originally derived from functional genes, but we now know they have important function. So of course their definition has to reformulated. Thats just circular thinking.

[smaakjeks]

@benthemiester

No, the point is that junk-DNA is vestigial sequences from polyploidy.

[benthemiester]

Are you saying that this so called junk DNA including pseudogenes which are in fact known to perform these important regulatory functions is irrelevant? Or that it does not contradict your video when it clearly does? Why have you ignored the literature?

[smaakjeks]

@benthemiester

Some pseudogenes have been found to have function, and there is a discussion about whether or not these should then be called pseudogenes. The question is: are there gene sequences with no known function? The answer is yes. Though, as I explained last year, the point isn't that these sequences are completely non-functional, but that they are clear evidence of polyploidy. You can compare junk-DNA with vestigial organs. Non-functionality isn't the point.

[benthemiester]

Ill take that as a no and that you have not kept up with the current data.

[smaakjeks]

@benthemiester

You have not expressed anything new since the discussion we had. Bring up a new point and I will address it.

[smaakjeks]

@benthemiester

I've said all I wanted to express in the comments. Go to the "all comments" page and search for your own username to see the discussion.

[benthemiester]

So then I take it you admit this video is false. Or have you not kept up with the current data?

[smaakjeks]

@benthemiester

We had this discussion a year ago. Look in the comments....