Life goes on without 'vital' DNA

New Scientist ^ | 6/4/04 | Sylvia Pagán Westphal

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Limited conservation throughout the mammalian lineage? Nope - the exact opposite. This has implications for the theory of common descent and evolution in general.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Ping

[cvq3842]

Very interesting, even it a bit over my head. I'll bookmark for later. Thanks.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

More interesting research:

Junk DNA yields new kind of gene

"Every time we thought we understood everything going on here, we have been wrong. There are additional layers of complexity."

I wonder when the term "Junk" will be removed from all scientific literature? If scientists would have approached the research from an ID perspective in the first place, they probably would never have coined such a term.

[Paradox]

Very interesting, perhaps that DNA encodes some other kind of data. Anyone ever read "Blood Music" by Greg Bear? His "Darwin's Radio" and "Darwin's Children" move along similar lines.

[Question_Assumptions]

I think they still need to see whether mutations show up over many generations of mice. I don't think that every bit of DNA has to serve a purpose but they could also help avoid mistakes during meiosis, for example.

[RobRoy]

The more we know, the more we know we don't know.

[AndrewC]

This has implications for the theory of common descent and evolution in general.

This cuts both ways. Unless some other portion of the genome "takes over" for the deleted portions, the usefulness of the deleted areas are questionable. On the other hand, the fact that they are ultra-conserved and seem to convey no survival advantage is a severe blow to RMNS. In that case, even if another portion of the genome "took over", there would be no reason for the deleted region to be ultra-conserved under the RMNS paradigm.

[anobjectivist]

Maybe the DNA is able to self-replicate in a recursive process.

Kind of like how a group of programmers made a complete 3d first person shooter game with bleeding edge graphics and levels, but it all packs down to an extremely small file size. Every time you run the game it goes through an algorithm where it actually generates all of the graphics using some kind of recursion.

If you think about it, that would appear so. The vast majority of the world seems to have some kind of fractal pattern in it (just look at tree branches/leaves, alveoli branches in the lungs, fjords cut out of cliffs, etc).

[LiteKeeper]

YEC INTREP

[balrog666]

This has implications for the theory of common descent and evolution in general.

Such as?

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

See post #8. Time and further research will tell.

[PatrickHenry]

PING. [This list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and some other science topics like cosmology. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.
Long-time list members get all pings, but can request "evo-only." New additions usually get evo-pings only, but can specify "all pings."]

[r9etb]

I think what's really happening here is that information is encoded in the DNA in a much different (and far more robust) fashion than has been assumed.

It wouldn't surprise me to find similarities with how the brain stores information.....

Now, if somebody can figure out how to store all of that "life info" on a bit of DNA, think how it will revolutionize data storage/data handling in the computer world.

[AntiGuv]

The implication is that the junk DNA is indeed junk DNA. Quite astounding, isn't it?

[js1138]

This cuts both ways.

It certainly does. It demonstrates that circular reasoning allows false assumptions to creep in.

This discovery was no doubt made by a creation scientist, since no mainstream scientist would risk his reputation and grant money by rocking the boat.

[adam_az]

pingity ping

[VadeRetro]

He thinks it is pretty clear that these sequences have no major role in growth and development. "There has been a circular argument that if it's conserved it has activity."

I thought it was creationists who didn't like the term "Junk DNA." This study vividly demonstrates that there's every bit as much slop and junk in the genome as we ever suspected.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Howdy! Thanks for your input.

Did you mean to reply to #4?

[VadeRetro]

I wonder when the term "Junk" will be removed from all scientific literature?

Evidence that you don't read the article you post.