Junk DNA: Susumu Ohno's original paper

Excerpts from a 1972 letter by Susumu Ohno on "Junk DNA". While it was not technically the first paper to refer to "junk DNA", it was the one that everyone seems to reference. This is a companion video to my other video on "junk DNA"

Dr. Ohno is one of the greats of molecular genetics.

Ohno postulated that gene duplication plays a major role in evolution in his classic book Evolution by Gene Duplication (1970). While subsequent research has overwhelmingly confirmed the key role of gene duplication in molecular evolution, research to evaluate Ohno's model for the preservation of duplicate genes (now termed neofunctionalization) is ongoing and very active. He also discovered in 1956 that the Barr body of mammalian female nuclei was in fact a condensed X chromosome. In Evolution by Gene Duplication, he also suggested that vertebrate genome is the result of one or more entire genome duplications; variations of this idea have come to be known as the 2R hypothesis (also called "Ohno's hypothesis"). He indicated that mammalian X chromosomes are conserved among species; it has been referred to as Ohno's law.

Reference for the original article:
So much "junk" DNA in our genome, In Evolution of Genetic Systems (1972). H. H. Smith. ed. pp. 366-370.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• junk
• DNA
• susumu
• ohno
• intelligent
• design
• creationism
• evolution
• genetics
• molecular
• biology

[GallusSapien]

"pufferfish have so much DNA but so few genes"

Does this relate to the fact that pufferfish also have no junk DNA?

[waterspindle]

wow. nice video. and @benthemiester is a TROLL. no food.

[benthemiester]

@C0nc0rdance"You've not shown me any citations for people actually saying that junk DNA is uninteresting"

The new goal post change is now I have to find someone who said Junk DNA was uninteresting. I think our conversation is over. If you ever choose to become intellectually honest then you can call me back. Don't have time for Bullshit.

[benthemiester]

@C0nc0rdance Don't do the same revisionist job on Millers stament. If your going to quote him, then qoute entire paragraph. After all this was the what your video alluded to which was Junk DNA and the DI. Again I have cited numerous articles which you have pretended don't exist. You claim to be a scientist and scholar but you cant cite any work you have done.

[benthemiester]

@C0nc0rdance You don't seem to get it, many people like Barbara McClintock had suggested their might be function & I have not refuted this. What I have continually said was that the general public has been given this false narrative. Up until a few years ago many in science still perroted this notion. I was able to find 4610 hits IN Pubmed on Junk DNA. You continually change the goal post. You continue to deny something that has been documented and is a part of the historical record.

[C0nc0rdance]

@benthemiester

Found it! It's written in 1994 in Technology Review, which is a popular publication owned by MIT. The full context is illuminating. Perhaps you should read it. He's talking about why intelligent design creationism can't explain pseudogenes but evolution can. This is about the origin of pseudogenes, not their lack of function.

Even in 1994 we knew about positional effect of pseudogenes, and their role in phenotypic diversification.

[C0nc0rdance]

@benthemiester

"Life's Grand Design" is a PBS special. Are you seriously using a verbal quote in a made-for-TV documentary? Okay, examine what he says very carefully. A BLUEPRINT full of JUNK AND SCRIBBLES. A pseudogene is a functional gene that is made nonfunctional by random base insertions (scribbles).

I really thought anyone who has been on the Internet would know that typing two words in the search bar does not look only for occurrences of them together. "Junk DNA" is the explicit.

[benthemiester]

@C0nc0rdance Life’s Grand Design” biologist Ken Miller (1994) states,

“The theory of intelligent design [ID] cannot explain the presence of nonfunctional pseudogenes unless it is willing to allow that the designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles. Evolution,

Your research including PUBMED claim has a lot left to be desired. Since you claim to be a scientist please cite your work. I'm sure you take great pride in it.

[C0nc0rdance]

@benthemiester

Junk DNA without quotes is an AND search for junk and DNA in any paper... you need a strict "Junk DNA" search (add the quotes).

Neither Gregor nor Miller have any papers indexed in Medline that return a hit with "Junk" or "Junk DNA". Perhaps they were writing for a lay audience?

What exactly was it that Miller said? What exactly did Gregory say?

[benthemiester]

@C0nc0rdance I have already mentioned Kenneth Miller but like all else you ignored him. T Ryan Gregory who has written many papers on C Value Enigma that even you cite also referred to it as Junk Dna. In addition I have cited several articles which you also ignored. Im not sure why you think Junk DNA goes back to 1924. We didn't even know what DNA was in 1924. If you go to PubMed and type in JUNK DNA you will get 4610 hits. As I said, I have backed up everything Iv'e said, you have not.